Automated calculation of ‘early warning scores’
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Smith and Oakley [1] have described important problems with the use of a patient ‘track and trigger’ system, and the consequent errors that arise because of current methods of recording and charting raw data, and of deriving an early warning score (EWS). They describe considerable variability in the recording of patient vital signs, with only 65% of observations sets containing a full set of data (systolic blood pressure, respiratory rate, temperature and heart rate), echoing the findings of the recent cluster-randomised controlled trial of Medical Emergency Teams [2]. Smith and Oakley also observed the ‘rounding up or down’ of physiological values, the recording of EWS without documentation of associated raw data, and the incorrect calculation of the EWS, some of which was thought to be due to the design of the EWS weighting system. We believe that many of these problems can be minimised or solved by using computer systems to capture patients' raw physiology at the bedside and to calculate EWS automatically. It is known that the use of an EWS can drive improvements in the collection of data [3]. A system that routinely prompts staff to collect all routinely measured variables at the same visit would enhance this further. We are currently implementing a personal digital assistant (PDA) based system that collects all commonly recorded vital signs data and automatically calculates EWS [4]. This removes the need for healthcare staff to know the weightings for individual physiological parameters, thereby reducing the possibility of the ‘data manipulation’ alluded to by Smith and Oakley. All data is automatically stored electronically on the main server of the hospital using a wireless local area network (W-LAN), with raw physiology data, EWS, vital signs charts and oxygen therapy records being instantaneously available to any member of the hospital health care team via W-LAN or the hospital intranet. All vital signs charts are legible, accurate, up-to-date, timed and dated, with auditable tracking of data to the level of patient location and the person in-putting the data using electronic signatures. During the development of this system, we have demonstrated improved accuracy of EWS calculation (as errors can only be due only to the input of raw physiology), and a reduction in the time required by nurses to chart and calculate an EWS, compared with the traditional pen and paper method [5]. At the same time, we found further data (unpublished) that complement Smith and Oakley's assertion that EWS accuracy decreased with increasing patient illness. Our study [5] used five patient scenarios that were always given in the same order. Scenarios 1 and 2 were of equal patient severity of illness (to attempt to accommodate any learning effect) and were the least severe; scenarios 3, 4 and 5 were of progressively increasing patient severity of illness. We found that the time taken to complete the scenarios increased significantly with severity of illness (the complexity of the scenario) when the scenarios were completed using pen and paper. There was no such increase when the PDA was used to complete the scenarios. In this latter case, the participants were simply entering physiological data values in the PDA as opposed to having to derive the EWS score from the raw data when using pen and paper. Our findings, and those of Smith and Oakley, demonstrate the importance of accuracy in collecting and charting of vital signs, and of calculating EWS using ‘track and trigger’ systems. Inaccurate scoring can have important clinical consequences and implications for the validation of early warning scoring systems. We believe that the use of appropriate, clinically relevant information technology can improve these processes considerably. The PDA system referred to, VitalPACTM, is a collaborative development of The Learning Clinic Ltd and Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».