Nurses and physicians in a medical admission unit can accurately predict mortality of acutely admitted patients: a prospective cohort study

Mikkel Brabrand, Jesper Hallas, Torben Knudsen, Mikkel Brabrand, Jesper Hallas, Torben Knudsen

Abstract

Background: There exist several risk stratification systems for predicting mortality of emergency patients. However, some are complex in clinical use and others have been developed using suboptimal methodology. The objective was to evaluate the capability of the staff at a medical admission unit (MAU) to use clinical intuition to predict in-hospital mortality of acutely admitted patients.

Methods: This is an observational prospective cohort study of adult patients (15 years or older) admitted to a MAU at a regional teaching hospital. The nursing staff and physicians predicted in-hospital mortality upon the patients' arrival. We calculated discriminatory power as the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUROC) and accuracy of prediction (calibration) by Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test.

Results: We had a total of 2,848 admissions (2,463 patients). 89 (3.1%) died while admitted. The nursing staff assessed 2,404 admissions and predicted mortality in 1,820 (63.9%). AUROC was 0.823 (95% CI: 0.762-0.884) and calibration poor. Physicians assessed 738 admissions and predicted mortality in 734 (25.8% of all admissions). AUROC was 0.761 (95% CI: 0.657-0.864) and calibration poor. AUROC and calibration increased with experience. When nursing staff and physicians were in agreement (±5%), discriminatory power was very high, 0.898 (95% CI: 0.773-1.000), and calibration almost perfect. Combining an objective risk prediction score with staff predictions added very little.

Conclusions: Using only clinical intuition, staff in a medical admission unit has a good ability to identify patients at increased risk of dying while admitted. When nursing staff and physicians agreed on their prediction, discriminatory power and calibration were excellent.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1. ROC curves of overall predictions.
Figure 1. ROC curves of overall predictions.
WPS = Worthing physiological scoring system.
Figure 2. Predicted vs. observed in-hospital mortality.
Figure 2. Predicted vs. observed in-hospital mortality.
Figure 3. Calibration plot for nursing staff…
Figure 3. Calibration plot for nursing staff and physicians.

References

    1. Kellett J (2008) Prognostication–the lost skill of medicine. Eur J Intern Med 19: 155–164.
    1. Brabrand M, Folkestad L, Clausen NG, Knudsen T, Hallas J (2010) Risk scoring systems for adults admitted to the emergency department: a systematic review. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 18: 8.
    1. Buurman BM, van Munster BC, Korevaar JC, Abu-Hanna A, Levi M, et al. (2008) Prognostication in acutely admitted older patients by nurses and physicians. J Gen Intern Med 23: 1883–1889.
    1. Fullerton JN, Price CL, Silvey NE, Brace SJ, Perkins GD (2012) Is the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) superior to clinician judgement in detecting critical illness in the pre-hospital environment? Resuscitation 83: 557–562.
    1. Charlson ME, Sax FL, MacKenzie CR, Fields SD, Braham RL, et al. (1986) Assessing illness severity: does clinical judgment work? J Chronic Dis 39: 439–452.
    1. Sinuff T, Adhikari NK, Cook DJ, Schunemann HJ, Griffith LE, et al. (2006) Mortality predictions in the intensive care unit: comparing physicians with scoring systems. Crit Care Med 34: 878–885.
    1. Duckitt RW, Buxton-Thomas R, Walker J, Cheek E, Bewick V, et al. (2007) Worthing physiological scoring system: derivation and validation of a physiological early-warning system for medical admissions. An observational, population-based single-centre study. Br J Anaesth 98: 769–774.
    1. Prytherch DR, Smith GB, Schmidt PE, Featherstone PI (2010) ViEWS–Towards a national early warning score for detecting adult inpatient deterioration. Resuscitation 81: 932–937.
    1. Pedersen CB (2011) The Danish Civil Registration System. Scand J Public Health 39: 22–25.
    1. Lynge E, Sandegaard JL, Rebolj M (2011) The Danish National Patient Register. Scand J Public Health 39: 30–33.
    1. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2000) Applied logistic regression. New York, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
    1. Seymour CW, Kahn JM, Cooke CR, Watkins TR, Heckbert SR, et al. (2010) Prediction of critical illness during out-of-hospital emergency care. JAMA 304: 747–754.
    1. Prytherch DR, Sirl JS, Schmidt P, Featherstone PI, Weaver PC, et al. (2005) The use of routine laboratory data to predict in-hospital death in medical admissions. Resuscitation 66: 203–207.
    1. Pencina MJ, D'Agostino RB Sr, D'Agostino RB Jr, Vasan RS (2008) Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat Med 27: 157–172 discussion 207–112.
    1. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Mulrow CD, et al. (2007) Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Epidemiology 18: 805–835.
    1. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1983) A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 148: 839–843.
    1. Knaus WA, Harrell FE Jr, Lynn J, Goldman L, Phillips RS, et al. (1995) The SUPPORT prognostic model. Objective estimates of survival for seriously ill hospitalized adults. Study to understand prognoses and preferences for outcomes and risks of treatments. Ann Intern Med 122: 191–203.
    1. Levine SD, Colwell CB, Pons PT, Gravitz C, Haukoos JS, et al. (2006) How well do paramedics predict admission to the hospital? A prospective study. J Emerg Med 31: 1–5.
    1. Twomey F, O'Leary N, O'Brien T (2008) Prediction of patient survival by healthcare professionals in a specialist palliative care inpatient unit: a prospective study. Am J Hosp Palliat Care 25: 139–145.
    1. Consensus statement of the Society of Critical Care Medicine's Ethics Committee regarding futile and other possibly inadvisable treatments. Crit Care Med 25: 887–891.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться