Prognostic Accuracy of Screening Tools for Clinical Deterioration in Adults With Suspected Sepsis in Northeastern Thailand: A Cohort Validation Study.

Background: We sought to assess the performance of commonly used clinical scoring systems to predict imminent clinical deterioration in patients hospitalized with suspected infection in rural Thailand. Methods: Patients with suspected infection were prospectively enrolled within 24 hours of admission to a referral hospital in northeastern Thailand between 2013 and 2017. In patients not requiring intensive medical interventions, multiple enrollment scores were calculated including the National Early Warning Score (NEWS), the Modified Early Warning Score, Between the Flags, and the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. Scores were tested for predictive accuracy of clinical deterioration, defined as a new requirement of mechanical ventilation, vasoactive medications, intensive care unit admission, and/or death approximately 1 day after enrollment. The association of each score with clinical deterioration was evaluated by means of logistic regression, and discrimination was assessed by generating area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Results: Of 4989 enrolled patients, 2680 met criteria for secondary analysis, and 100 of 2680 (4%) experienced clinical deterioration within 1 day after enrollment. NEWS had the highest discrimination for predicting clinical deterioration (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.78 [95% confidence interval, .74-.83]) compared with the Modified Early Warning Score (0.67 [.63-.73]; P < .001), quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (0.65 [.60-.70]; P < .001), and Between the Flags (0.69 [.64-.75]; P < .001). NEWS ≥5 yielded optimal sensitivity and specificity for clinical deterioration prediction. Conclusions: In patients hospitalized with suspected infection in a resource-limited setting in Southeast Asia, NEWS can identify patients at risk of imminent clinical deterioration with greater accuracy than other clinical scoring systems.

A 57-Year-Old Man With COVID-19 Pneumonia Who Required Venovenous Extracorporeal Life Support With a Rapidly Escalating WBC Count.

CASE PRESENTATION: A 57-year-old man who had been intubated and placed on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia was transferred to our facility. He underwent anticoagulation with IV heparin titrated to an anti-Factor Xa goal of 0.1 to 0.3 international unit/mL. Over extracorporeal membrane oxygenation days 13 to 17, his WBC count rose from 17,500 to 47,000 cells/µL. He simultaneously experienced the development of fluid-refractory shock that required multiple vasopressors and received stress-dose hydrocortisone when his WBC was 30,000 cells/µL. He remained afebrile and was started on broad-spectrum antimicrobials that included antifungal and anthelminthic therapy.

Serious Illness Conversations With Outpatient Oncology Clinicians: Understanding the Patient Experience.

PURPOSE: Guidelines recommend earlier advance care planning discussions focused on goals and values (serious illness communication) among oncology patients. We conducted a prospective, cross-sectional quality improvement evaluation of patients who had a serious illness conversation (SIC) with an oncology clinician using the Serious Illness Conversation Guide to understand patient perceptions of conversations using a structured guide. METHODS: We contacted 66 oncology patients with an SIC documented in the electronic health record. Thirty-two patients (48%) responded to survey and/or structured interview questions by telephone. We used summary statistics and thematic analysis to analyze results. RESULTS: Twenty-eight respondents (90%) reported that the SIC was worthwhile. Seventeen respondents (55%) reported that the conversation increased their understanding of their future health, and 18 (58%) reported that the conversation increased their sense of closeness with their clinician. Although the majority of respondents (28 [90%]) reported that the conversation increased (13 [42%]) or had no effect (15 [48%]) on their hopefulness, a small minority (3 [10%]) reported a decrease in hopefulness. Qualitative analysis revealed 6 themes: clinician-patient relationship, impact on well-being, memorable characteristics of the conversation, improved prognostic understanding, practical planning, and family communication. CONCLUSION: SICs are generally acceptable to oncology patients (nonharmful to the vast majority, positive for many). Our qualitative analysis suggests a positive impact on prognostic understanding and end-of-life planning, but opportunities for improvement in the delivery of prognosis and preparing patients for SICs. Our data also identify a small cohort who responded negatively, highlighting an important area for future study.