Assessing Risk of Early ICU Admission or Death at Emergency Department Triage: Clinical Judgment Versus Early Warning Scores.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Nicola Bonadia, Piergiacomo Maria Cacciamani Fanelli, Davide Antonio Della Polla, Valeria Maccauro, Giuseppe De Matteis, Andrea Piccioni, Antonio Gasbarrini, Claudio Sandroni, Francesco Franceschi, Marcello Covino
{"title":"Assessing Risk of Early ICU Admission or Death at Emergency Department Triage: Clinical Judgment Versus Early Warning Scores.","authors":"Nicola Bonadia, Piergiacomo Maria Cacciamani Fanelli, Davide Antonio Della Polla, Valeria Maccauro, Giuseppe De Matteis, Andrea Piccioni, Antonio Gasbarrini, Claudio Sandroni, Francesco Franceschi, Marcello Covino","doi":"10.1111/acem.70377","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Early Warning Scores (EWS) are widely used to standardize the identification of clinical deterioration, yet their comparative performance against clinical judgment in Emergency Department (ED) triage remains uncertain. We aimed to evaluate whether commonly used EWS match or outperform clinical judgment in predicting early adverse outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective observational study including 361,927 adult ED presentations at a tertiary-care academic center from 2015 to 2024. Clinical judgment was operationalized as the triage category assigned at the initial evaluation. Five EWS (NEWS, NEWS2, MEWS, REMS, and ViEWS) were computed using vital signs recorded at ED presentation. The primary outcome was a composite of 24-h mortality or intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Discrimination, calibration, decision curve analysis, and reclassification metrics were used to compare models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The primary outcome occurred in 1.17% of patients. Discriminatory performance was highest for ViEWS (AUC 0.875) and clinical judgment (AUC 0.872), with no significant difference between them. Other EWS demonstrated significantly lower AUCs. In precision-recall and threshold-based analyses, clinical judgment maintained higher specificity at higher-risk thresholds while preserving adequate sensitivity. Decision curve analysis showed comparable or greater net benefit for clinical judgment than for all tested EWS across clinically relevant thresholds. Reclassification metrics showed no improvement with EWS over clinical judgment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Commonly used EWS did not clearly outperform triage clinical judgment in predicting early ICU admission or death. These findings support further investigation of how structured scores and clinical judgment may provide complementary information, particularly in identifying patients whose risk may be modified by timely escalation of care.</p>","PeriodicalId":7105,"journal":{"name":"Academic Emergency Medicine","volume":"33 7","pages":"e70377"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13374591/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.70377","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Early Warning Scores (EWS) are widely used to standardize the identification of clinical deterioration, yet their comparative performance against clinical judgment in Emergency Department (ED) triage remains uncertain. We aimed to evaluate whether commonly used EWS match or outperform clinical judgment in predicting early adverse outcomes.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study including 361,927 adult ED presentations at a tertiary-care academic center from 2015 to 2024. Clinical judgment was operationalized as the triage category assigned at the initial evaluation. Five EWS (NEWS, NEWS2, MEWS, REMS, and ViEWS) were computed using vital signs recorded at ED presentation. The primary outcome was a composite of 24-h mortality or intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Discrimination, calibration, decision curve analysis, and reclassification metrics were used to compare models.

Results: The primary outcome occurred in 1.17% of patients. Discriminatory performance was highest for ViEWS (AUC 0.875) and clinical judgment (AUC 0.872), with no significant difference between them. Other EWS demonstrated significantly lower AUCs. In precision-recall and threshold-based analyses, clinical judgment maintained higher specificity at higher-risk thresholds while preserving adequate sensitivity. Decision curve analysis showed comparable or greater net benefit for clinical judgment than for all tested EWS across clinically relevant thresholds. Reclassification metrics showed no improvement with EWS over clinical judgment.

Conclusion: Commonly used EWS did not clearly outperform triage clinical judgment in predicting early ICU admission or death. These findings support further investigation of how structured scores and clinical judgment may provide complementary information, particularly in identifying patients whose risk may be modified by timely escalation of care.

评估急诊分诊时早期ICU住院或死亡的风险:临床判断与早期预警评分。
背景:早期预警评分(EWS)被广泛用于规范临床恶化的识别,但其在急诊科(ED)分诊中与临床判断的比较性能仍不确定。我们的目的是评估常用的EWS在预测早期不良后果方面是否符合或优于临床判断。方法:我们进行了一项回顾性观察研究,包括2015年至2024年在一家三级医疗学术中心进行的361,927例成人ED报告。临床判断被操作为初始评估时分配的分诊分类。五个EWS (NEWS, NEWS2, MEWS, REMS和ViEWS)使用ED演示时记录的生命体征计算。主要转归是24小时死亡率或重症监护病房(ICU)入住的综合转归。采用判别、校准、决策曲线分析和重分类指标对模型进行比较。结果:1.17%的患者出现主要结局。歧视表现在观点(AUC 0.875)和临床判断(AUC 0.872)方面最高,两者之间无显著差异。其他EWS的auc明显较低。在精确召回率和阈值分析中,临床判断在较高的风险阈值下保持较高的特异性,同时保持足够的敏感性。决策曲线分析显示,在临床相关阈值上,与所有测试的EWS相比,临床判断的净收益相当或更高。重分类指标显示EWS在临床判断上没有改善。结论:常用EWS在预测ICU早期入院或死亡方面并没有明显优于分诊临床判断。这些发现支持对结构化评分和临床判断如何提供补充信息的进一步研究,特别是在识别可能通过及时升级护理来改变风险的患者方面。
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
Academic Emergency Medicine
Academic Emergency Medicine 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
6.80%
发文量
207
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) is the official monthly publication of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) and publishes information relevant to the practice, educational advancements, and investigation of emergency medicine. It is the second-largest peer-reviewed scientific journal in the specialty of emergency medicine. The goal of AEM is to advance the science, education, and clinical practice of emergency medicine, to serve as a voice for the academic emergency medicine community, and to promote SAEM''s goals and objectives. Members and non-members worldwide depend on this journal for translational medicine relevant to emergency medicine, as well as for clinical news, case studies and more. Each issue contains information relevant to the research, educational advancements, and practice in emergency medicine. Subject matter is diverse, including preclinical studies, clinical topics, health policy, and educational methods. The research of SAEM members contributes significantly to the scientific content and development of the journal.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书