Validation of the REDS score in hospitalised patients who deteriorated and were admitted to the intensive care unit-a retrospective cohort study.

IF 1.3 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Narani Sivayoham, Harriet O'Mara, Natasha Trenchard Turner, Katie Sysum, Georgina Wicks, Oliver Mason
{"title":"Validation of the REDS score in hospitalised patients who deteriorated and were admitted to the intensive care unit-a retrospective cohort study.","authors":"Narani Sivayoham, Harriet O'Mara, Natasha Trenchard Turner, Katie Sysum, Georgina Wicks, Oliver Mason","doi":"10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hospitalised patients are at risk of deterioration and death. Delayed identification and transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU) are known to be associated with increased mortality rates. The Risk-stratification of Emergency Department suspected Sepsis (REDS) score was derived and validated in emergency department patients with suspected sepsis. It is unknown if the REDS score would risk-stratify undifferentiated hospitalised patients who deteriorate.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To validate the REDS score in hospitalised patients who deteriorate.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort single-centre study involved hospitalised adult patients who deteriorated and were transferred to the ICU between 1 April 2022 and 31 March 2023. The first admission to the ICU was studied. The National Early Warning Score2 (NEWS2), REDS, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and change-in-SOFA (ΔSOFA) scores were calculated at the time of referral to the Critical Care Outreach Team (CCOT). The primary outcome measure was in-hospital all-cause mortality. The area under the receiver operator characteristic (AUROC) curves for the scores were compared. Test characteristics at the cut-off points individually and in combination were noted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 289 patients studied, 91 died. The REDS score had the largest AUROC curve at 0.70 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.75), greater than the NEWS2 score at 0.62 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.68), p=0.03, and similar to the SOFA score 0.67 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.72), p=0.3. The cut-off points for the NEWS2, REDS, SOFA and ΔSOFA scores were >9, >3, >6 and >4, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for a ΔSOFA≥2 was 91.2% (95% CI 83.4 to 96.1) and 15.7% (95% CI 10.9 to 21.5), respectively. REDS≥4 or NEWS2≥7 had a sensitivity of 87.9% (95% CI 79.4 to 93.8) and specificity of 29.3% (95% CI 23.1 to 36.2).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The prognostic performance of the REDS score was similar to the SOFA score, but greater than the NEWS2 score. The REDS score could be used in addition to the established NEWS2 score to risk-stratify hospitalised patients for mortality.</p>","PeriodicalId":9052,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Quality","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11784166/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Quality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003054","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Hospitalised patients are at risk of deterioration and death. Delayed identification and transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU) are known to be associated with increased mortality rates. The Risk-stratification of Emergency Department suspected Sepsis (REDS) score was derived and validated in emergency department patients with suspected sepsis. It is unknown if the REDS score would risk-stratify undifferentiated hospitalised patients who deteriorate.

Objectives: To validate the REDS score in hospitalised patients who deteriorate.

Methods: This retrospective cohort single-centre study involved hospitalised adult patients who deteriorated and were transferred to the ICU between 1 April 2022 and 31 March 2023. The first admission to the ICU was studied. The National Early Warning Score2 (NEWS2), REDS, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and change-in-SOFA (ΔSOFA) scores were calculated at the time of referral to the Critical Care Outreach Team (CCOT). The primary outcome measure was in-hospital all-cause mortality. The area under the receiver operator characteristic (AUROC) curves for the scores were compared. Test characteristics at the cut-off points individually and in combination were noted.

Results: Of the 289 patients studied, 91 died. The REDS score had the largest AUROC curve at 0.70 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.75), greater than the NEWS2 score at 0.62 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.68), p=0.03, and similar to the SOFA score 0.67 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.72), p=0.3. The cut-off points for the NEWS2, REDS, SOFA and ΔSOFA scores were >9, >3, >6 and >4, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for a ΔSOFA≥2 was 91.2% (95% CI 83.4 to 96.1) and 15.7% (95% CI 10.9 to 21.5), respectively. REDS≥4 or NEWS2≥7 had a sensitivity of 87.9% (95% CI 79.4 to 93.8) and specificity of 29.3% (95% CI 23.1 to 36.2).

Conclusion: The prognostic performance of the REDS score was similar to the SOFA score, but greater than the NEWS2 score. The REDS score could be used in addition to the established NEWS2 score to risk-stratify hospitalised patients for mortality.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Open Quality
BMJ Open Quality Nursing-Leadership and Management
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
226
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
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