Development of a national maternity early warning score: centile based score development and Delphi informed escalation pathways

Stephen Gerry, Jonathan P. Bedford, O. Redfern, Hannah Rutter, Mae Chester-Jones, Marian Knight, Tony Kelly, Peter J Watkinson
{"title":"Development of a national maternity early warning score: centile based score development and Delphi informed escalation pathways","authors":"Stephen Gerry, Jonathan P. Bedford, O. Redfern, Hannah Rutter, Mae Chester-Jones, Marian Knight, Tony Kelly, Peter J Watkinson","doi":"10.1136/bmjmed-2023-000748","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective To derive a new maternity early warning score (MEWS) from prospectively collected data on maternity vital signs and to design clinical response pathways with a Delphi consensus exercise. Design Centile based score development and Delphi informed escalation pathways. Setting Pregnancy Physiology Pattern Prediction (4P) prospective UK cohort study, 1 August 2012 to 28 December 2016. Participants Pregnant people from the 4P study, recruited before 20 weeks' gestation at three UK maternity centres (Oxford, Newcastle, and London). 841, 998, and 889 women provided data in the early antenatal, antenatal, and postnatal periods. Main outcome measures Development of a new national MEWS, assigning numerical weights to measurements in the lower and upper extremes of distributions of individual vital signs from the 4P prospective cohort study. Comparison of escalation rates of the new national MEWS with the Scottish and Irish MEWS systems from 18 to 40 weeks' gestation. Delphi consensus exercise to agree clinical responses to raised scores. Results A new national MEWS was developed by assigning numerical weights to measurements in the lower and upper extremes (5%, 1%) of distributions of vital signs, except for oxygen saturation where lower centiles (10%, 2%) were used. For the new national MEWS, in a healthy population, 56% of observation sets resulted in a total score of 0 points, 26% a score of 1 point, 12% a score of 2 points, and 18% a score of ≥2 points (escalation of care is triggered at a total score of ≥2 points). Corresponding values for the Irish MEWS were 37%, 25%, 22%, and 38%, respectively; and for the Scottish MEWS, 50%, 18%, 21%, and 32%, respectively. All three MEWS were similar at the beginning of pregnancy, averaging 0.7-0.9 points. The new national MEWS had a lower mean score for the rest of pregnancy, with the mean score broadly constant (0.6-0.8 points). The new national MEWS had an even distribution of healthy population alerts across the antenatal period. In the postnatal period, heart rate threshold values were adjusted to align with postnatal changes. The centile based score derivation approach meant that each vital sign component in the new national MEWS had a similar alert rate. Suggested clinical responses to different MEWS values were agreed by consensus of an independent expert panel. Conclusions The centile based MEWS alerted escalation of care evenly across the antenatal period in a healthy population, while reducing alerts in healthy women compared with other MEWS systems. How well the tool predicted adverse outcomes, however, was not assessed and therefore external validation studies in large datasets are needed. Unlike other MEWS systems, the new national MEWS was developed with prospectively collected data on vital signs and used a systematic, expert informed process to design an associated escalation protocol.","PeriodicalId":72433,"journal":{"name":"BMJ medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjmed-2023-000748","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective To derive a new maternity early warning score (MEWS) from prospectively collected data on maternity vital signs and to design clinical response pathways with a Delphi consensus exercise. Design Centile based score development and Delphi informed escalation pathways. Setting Pregnancy Physiology Pattern Prediction (4P) prospective UK cohort study, 1 August 2012 to 28 December 2016. Participants Pregnant people from the 4P study, recruited before 20 weeks' gestation at three UK maternity centres (Oxford, Newcastle, and London). 841, 998, and 889 women provided data in the early antenatal, antenatal, and postnatal periods. Main outcome measures Development of a new national MEWS, assigning numerical weights to measurements in the lower and upper extremes of distributions of individual vital signs from the 4P prospective cohort study. Comparison of escalation rates of the new national MEWS with the Scottish and Irish MEWS systems from 18 to 40 weeks' gestation. Delphi consensus exercise to agree clinical responses to raised scores. Results A new national MEWS was developed by assigning numerical weights to measurements in the lower and upper extremes (5%, 1%) of distributions of vital signs, except for oxygen saturation where lower centiles (10%, 2%) were used. For the new national MEWS, in a healthy population, 56% of observation sets resulted in a total score of 0 points, 26% a score of 1 point, 12% a score of 2 points, and 18% a score of ≥2 points (escalation of care is triggered at a total score of ≥2 points). Corresponding values for the Irish MEWS were 37%, 25%, 22%, and 38%, respectively; and for the Scottish MEWS, 50%, 18%, 21%, and 32%, respectively. All three MEWS were similar at the beginning of pregnancy, averaging 0.7-0.9 points. The new national MEWS had a lower mean score for the rest of pregnancy, with the mean score broadly constant (0.6-0.8 points). The new national MEWS had an even distribution of healthy population alerts across the antenatal period. In the postnatal period, heart rate threshold values were adjusted to align with postnatal changes. The centile based score derivation approach meant that each vital sign component in the new national MEWS had a similar alert rate. Suggested clinical responses to different MEWS values were agreed by consensus of an independent expert panel. Conclusions The centile based MEWS alerted escalation of care evenly across the antenatal period in a healthy population, while reducing alerts in healthy women compared with other MEWS systems. How well the tool predicted adverse outcomes, however, was not assessed and therefore external validation studies in large datasets are needed. Unlike other MEWS systems, the new national MEWS was developed with prospectively collected data on vital signs and used a systematic, expert informed process to design an associated escalation protocol.
全国孕产妇预警评分的制定:基于百分位数的评分制定和德尔菲信息升级路径
目标 从前瞻性收集的孕产妇生命体征数据中得出新的孕产妇预警评分(MEWS),并通过德尔菲共识活动设计临床响应路径。设计 基于百分位数的评分和德尔菲法的升级路径。背景 英国妊娠生理模式预测(4P)前瞻性队列研究,2012 年 8 月 1 日至 2016 年 12 月 28 日。参与者 英国三家产科中心(牛津、纽卡斯尔和伦敦)在妊娠 20 周前招募的 4P 研究孕妇。分别有 841 名、998 名和 889 名妇女提供了产前早期、产前和产后的数据。主要结果测量指标 制定新的全国性 MEWS,为 4P 前瞻性队列研究中各生命体征分布的下极值和上极值的测量值分配数字权重。比较新的国家 MEWS 与苏格兰和爱尔兰 MEWS 系统在妊娠 18 至 40 周期间的升级率。开展德尔菲共识活动,就提高评分的临床对策达成一致。结果 除血氧饱和度采用较低的百分位数(10%、2%)外,新的国家 MEWS 是通过为生命体征分布的下极值和上极值(5%、1%)的测量值分配数字权重而制定的。对于新的国家 MEWS,在健康人群中,56% 的观察组的总分为 0 分,26% 为 1 分,12% 为 2 分,18% 为≥2 分(总分≥2 分时触发护理升级)。爱尔兰 MEWS 的相应数值分别为 37%、25%、22% 和 38%;苏格兰 MEWS 的相应数值分别为 50%、18%、21% 和 32%。这三个 MEWS 在怀孕初期都很相似,平均为 0.7-0.9 个点。新的全国性 MEWS 在怀孕的其余时间平均得分较低,平均得分基本保持不变(0.6-0.8 分)。新的国家 MEWS 在整个产前阶段的健康人群警报分布均匀。在产后,心率阈值根据产后变化进行了调整。基于百分位数的评分推导方法意味着,新的国家监测和预警系统中的每个生命体征组成部分都具有相似的预警率。针对不同 MEWS 值提出的临床应对建议已获得独立专家小组的一致同意。结论 与其他 MEWS 系统相比,基于百分位数的 MEWS 系统可在健康人群的整个产前阶段均匀地发出护理升级警报,同时降低健康产妇的警报率。但是,该工具对不良后果的预测效果如何还未进行评估,因此需要在大型数据集中进行外部验证研究。与其他 MEWS 系统不同的是,新的国家 MEWS 是利用前瞻性收集的生命体征数据开发的,并采用了系统化的专家知情流程来设计相关的升级协议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信