A bacteraemia risk prediction model: development and validation in an emergency medicine population.

OBJECTIVE: Design a risk model to predict bacteraemia in patients attended in emergency departments (ED) for an episode of infection. METHODS: This was a national, prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study of blood cultures (BC) collected from adult patients (≥ 18 years) attended in 71 Spanish EDs from October 1 2019 to March 31, 2020. Variables with a p value < 0.05 were introduced in the univariate analysis together with those of clinical significance. The final selection of variables for the scoring scale was made by logistic regression with selection by introduction. The results obtained were internally validated by dividing the sample in a derivation and a validation cohort. RESULTS: A total of 4,439 infectious episodes were included. Of these, 899 (20.25%) were considered as true bacteraemia. A predictive model for bacteraemia was defined with seven variables according to the Bacteraemia Prediction Model of the INFURG-SEMES group (MPB-INFURG-SEMES). The model achieved an area under the curve-receiver operating curve of 0.924 (CI 95%:0.914-0.934) in the derivation cohort, and 0.926 (CI 95%: 0.910-0.942) in the validation cohort. Patients were then split into ten risk categories, and had the following rates of risk: 0.2%(0 points), 0.4%(1 point), 0.9%(2 points), 1.8%(3 points), 4.7%(4 points), 19.1% (5 points), 39.1% (6 points), 56.8% (7 points), 71.1% (8 points), 82.7% (9 points) and 90.1% (10 points). Findings were similar in the validation cohort. The cut-off point of five points provided the best precision with a sensitivity of 95.94%, specificity of 76.28%, positive predictive value of 53.63% and negative predictive value of 98.50%. CONCLUSION: The MPB-INFURG-SEMES model may be useful for the stratification of risk of bacteraemia in adult patients with infection in EDs, together with clinical judgement and other variables independent of the process and the patient.

Validation of a predictive model for bacteraemia (MPB5-Toledo) in the patients seen in emergency departments due to infections. / Validación del modelo predictivo de bacteriemia (5MPB-Toledo) en los pacientes atendidos en el servicio de urgencias por infección.

OBJECTIVE: To validate a simple risk score to predict bacteremia (MPB5-Toledo) in patients seen in the emergency departments (ED) due to infections. METHODS: Prospective and multicenter observational cohort study of the blood cultures (BC) ordered in 74 Spanish ED for adults (aged 18 or older) seen from from October 1, 2019, to February 29, 2020. The predictive ability of the model was analyzed with the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUC-ROC). The prognostic performance for true bacteremia was calculated with the cut-off values chosen for getting the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value. RESULTS: A total of 3.843 blood samples wered cultured. True cases of bacteremia were confirmed in 839 (21.83%). The remaining 3.004 cultures (78.17%) were negative. Among the negative, 172 (4.47%) were judged to be contaminated. Low risk for bacteremia was indicated by a score of 0 to 2 points, intermediate risk by 3 to 5 points, and high risk by 6 to 8 points. Bacteremia in these 3 risk groups was predicted for 1.5%, 16.8%, and 81.6%, respectively. The model's area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.930 (95% CI, 0.916-0.948). The prognostic performance with a model's cut-off value of ≥ 5 points achieved 94.76% (95% CI: 92.97-96.12) sensitivity, 81.56% (95% CI: 80.11-82.92) specificity, and negative predictive value of 98.24% (95% CI: 97.62-98.70). CONCLUSION: The 5MPB-Toledo score is useful for predicting bacteremia in patients attended in hospital emergency departments for infection.

Poder pronóstico de mortalidad a corto plazo de los biomarcadores en los ancianos atendidos en Urgencias por infección / Prognostic power of biomarkers for short-term mortality in the elderly patients seen in Emergency Departments due to infections

Objetivos: Analizar y comparar el poder predictivo de mortalidad a 30 días de varios biomarcadores (proteína C reactiva, procalcitonina, lactato, suPAR y proadrenomedulina) en los pacientes ancianos que acuden al servicio de Urgencias (SU) por un episodio de infección. Y, secundariamente, comprobar si estos mejoran la capacidad pronóstica de los criterios de sepsis (síndrome de respuesta inflamatoria sistémica y quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment [qSOFA]). Métodos: Estudio observacional, prospectivo, multicéntrico y analítico. Se incluyó consecutivamente a pacientes de 75 o más años atendidos en 8 SU por un proceso infeccioso. Se analizaron 25 variables independientes (epidemiológicas, de comorbilidad, funcionales, clínicas y analíticas) que pudieran influir en la mortalidad a corto plazo (30 días). Resultados: Se incluyó a 136 pacientes, de los que 13 (9,5%) habían fallecido a los 30 días tras su consulta en el SU. La MRproADM es el biomarcador que consigue la mayor área bajo la curva ROC para predecir mortalidad a los 30 días (0,864; IC 95% 0,775-0,997; p < 0,001), con un punto de corte de mayor capacidad predictiva de 2,07 nmol/l, que ofrece una sensibilidad del 77% y una especificidad del 96%. La escala qSOFA ≥ 2 consigue un área bajo la curva ROC de 0,763 (IC 95% 0,623-0,903; p = 0,002), con una sensibilidad del 76% y una especificidad del 75%. El modelo combinado (MRproADM con qSOFA ≥2 ) mejora el área bajo la curva ROC a 0,878 (IC 95% 0,749-1; p < 0,001) y ofrece el mejor rendimiento pronóstico, con una sensibilidad del 69% y una especificidad del 97%. Conclusiones: En los pacientes ancianos que acuden al SU por un episodio de infección, la MRproADM presenta una capacidad pronóstica de mortalidad a los 30 días superior al resto de los biomarcadores, la qSOFA obtiene mayor rendimiento que los criterios de síndrome de respuesta inflamatoria sistémica, y el modelo combinado qSOFA ≥ 2 con MRproADM > 2,07nmol/l mejora el poder predictivo de qSOFA

Objectives: To analyse and compare 30-day mortality prognostic power of several biomarkers (C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, lactate, suPAR and pro-adremomedullin) in elderly patients seen in Emergency Departments (ED) due to infections. Secondly, if these could improve the prognostic accuracy of sepsis criteria (systemic inflammatory response syndrome and quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment [qSOFA]). Methods: A prospective, observational, multicentre and analytical study. Patients aged 75 years and older who were treated for infection in the ED of 8 participating hospitals were enrolled consecutively. An assessment was made of 25 independent variables (epidemiological, comorbidity, functional, clinical and analytical variables) that could influence short-term mortality (at 30 days). Results: The study included 136 patients, 13 (9.5%) of whom died within 30 days of visiting the ED. MR-proADM is the biomarker with the best area under the curve ROC to predict 30-day mortality (0.864; 95% CI 0.775-0.997; P <.001) with a prognostic cut-off > 2.07nmol/l, sensitivity of 77% and specificity of 96%. The qSOFA score ≥ 2 had an area under the curve ROC of 0.763 (95% CI 0.623-0.903; P=.002), sensitivity of 76% and specificity of 75%. The mixed model (MR-proADM plus qSOFA ≥ 2) improved the area under the curve ROC to 0.878 (95% CI 0.749-1; P < .001) with the best prognostic performance with sensitivity of 69% and specificity of 97%. Conclusions: MR-proADM showed the best performance for 30-day mortality prognostic power compared to other biomarkers in elderly patients seen in EDs due to infections. qSOFA score achieves better results than systemic inflammatory response syndrome, and the mixed model (qSOFA ≥ 2 plus MR-proADM > 2.07nmol/l) increased the predictive power of qSOFA

Prognostic power of biomarkers for short-term mortality in the elderly patients seen in Emergency Departments due to infections. / Poder pronóstico de mortalidad a corto plazo de los biomarcadores en los ancianos atendidos en Urgencias por infección.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse and compare 30-day mortality prognostic power of several biomarkers (C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, lactate, suPAR and pro-adremomedullin) in elderly patients seen in Emergency Departments (ED) due to infections. Secondly, if these could improve the prognostic accuracy of sepsis criteria (systemic inflammatory response syndrome and quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment [qSOFA]). METHODS: A prospective, observational, multicentre and analytical study. Patients aged 75 years and older who were treated for infection in the ED of 8 participating hospitals were enrolled consecutively. An assessment was made of 25 independent variables (epidemiological, comorbidity, functional, clinical and analytical variables) that could influence short-term mortality (at 30 days). RESULTS: The study included 136 patients, 13 (9.5%) of whom died within 30 days of visiting the ED. MR-proADM is the biomarker with the best area under the curve ROC to predict 30-day mortality (0.864; 95% CI 0.775-0.997; P<.001) with a prognostic cut-off>2.07nmol/l, sensitivity of 77% and specificity of 96%. The qSOFA score≥2 had an area under the curve ROC of 0.763 (95% CI 0.623-0.903; P=.002), sensitivity of 76% and specificity of 75%. The mixed model (MR-proADM plus qSOFA≥2) improved the area under the curve ROC to 0.878 (95% CI 0.749-1; P<.001) with the best prognostic performance with sensitivity of 69% and specificity of 97% CONCLUSIONS: MR-proADM showed the best performance for 30-day mortality prognostic power compared to other biomarkers in elderly patients seen in EDs due to infections. qSOFA score achieves better results than systemic inflammatory response syndrome, and the mixed model (qSOFA≥2 plus MR-proADM>2.07nmol/l) increased the predictive power of qSOFA.

Which unscheduled return visits indicate a quality-of-care issue?

BACKGROUND: The rate of unscheduled return visits is often used as a quality-of-care indicator in EDs, although its validity is not yet fully established. Our aim was to identify the characteristics of return visits that may be attributed to problems in quality of care. METHODS: Retrospective paired review of medical charts in a random sample of return visits during the 72 hours following discharge from the ED in three hospitals of Andalusia, Spain in 2013. Charts were reviewed by senior medical physicians to determine which return visits reflected quality-of-care problems. Time frame for return visit, index and return visit acuity, disposition and diagnosis were compared with determine which variables were associated with a quality problem. Sensitivity and specificity for each variable to indicate a quality problem were determined. RESULTS: We studied the causes of 895 return visits, finding that 65 (7.3%) were due to inadequate quality of care in the index visit. Potentially avoidable return visits were more common in more severely ill patients, in those with greater severity in the return than in the index visit and in patients hospitalised after the return. The combination of this three variables presented sensitivity 66% and specificity 68% in identification of quality-related returns. CONCLUSIONS: The overall level of return visits cannot be considered a valid indicator of quality of care. However, certain specific variables, including the level of severity of the patient's condition or the discharge destination following the return visits, could be considered valid in this respect.

Causas de los retornos durante las 72 horas siguientes al alta de urgencias / Causes of 72-hour return visits to hospital emergency departments

Objetivo: La tasa de retornos a urgencias (RU) se ha propuesto como indicador de calidad asistencial en servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH). Nuestro objetivo fue conocer las causas de los RU y la proporción de RU relacionados con problemas de calidad asistencial en la urgencia previa. Método: Estudio observacional transversal con auditoría de historias clínicas sobre una muestra aleatoria de RU durante las 72 horas siguientes al alta de un SUH de tres hospitales que prestan atención a casi un millón de habitantes de la provincia de Málaga. Revisión independiente por pares y asignación de la causa del RU según una clasificación estandarizada. Resultados: Se analizó una muestra de 1.075 RU, de los que 895 cumplían los criterios de inclusión. Las causas de RU más frecuentes fueron la persistencia o progresión de la enfermedad (48,8%), la aparición de un nuevo problema no relacionado (9,3%) y la derivación a otro hospital por no disponer del especialista necesario (8,6%). Las causas se agruparon en 14,5% atribuibles al paciente, 15,2% a los profesionales sanitarios, 9,2% a la organización del sistema y 61,1% a la enfermedad. Conclusiones: La mayor parte de los RU se debe a la evolución de la enfermedad que motivó la urgencia inicial y solo una pequeña proporción se relaciona con errores en el diagnóstico o tratamiento de la urgencia previa (AU)

Background and objective: The return-visit rate has been suggested as a measure of emergency department quality of care. We aimed to identify the reasons for emergency revisits and the percentage of returns related to problems with quality of care in the previous visit. Methods: Cross-sectional observational study of clinical records for a random sample of unscheduled returns within 72 hours of discharge from the emergency departments of 3 hospitals attending a population of nearly 3 million in the Spanish province of Malaga. The records were reviewed by 2 data collectors, who assigned a reason for revisits according to a standardized classification. Results: A sample of 1075 emergency revisits were reviewed; 895 met the inclusion criteria. The most common reasons for revisits were the persistence or progression of disease (48.8%), an unrelated new problem (9.3%), and referral from a hospital that did not have the required specialized service (8.6%). Reasons attributable to the patient accounted for 14.5% of the revisits; 15.2% were attributable to health care staff errors, 9.2% to system organization, and 61.1% to the disease process. Conclusions: Most emergency department revisits are related to the progression of the disease that led to the first visit. Only a small percentage can be linked to diagnostic or treatment errors in the previous visit (AU)

[Causes of 72-hour return visits to hospital emergency departments]. / Causas de los retornos durante las 72 horas siguientes al alta de urgencias.

OBJECTIVES: The return-visit rate has been suggested as a measure of emergency department quality of care. We aimed to identify the reasons for emergency revisits and the percentage of returns related to problems with quality of care in the previous visit. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cross-sectional observational study of clinical records for a random sample of unscheduled returns within 72 hours of discharge from the emergency departments of 3 hospitals attending a population of nearly 3 million in the Spanish province of Malaga. The records were reviewed by 2 data collectors, who assigned a reason for revisits according to a standardized classification. RESULTS: A sample of 1075 emergency revisits were reviewed; 895 met the inclusion criteria. The most common reasons for revisits were the persistence or progression of disease (48.8%), an unrelated new problem (9.3%), and referral from a hospital that did not have the required specialized service (8.6%). Reasons attributable to the patient accounted for 14.5% of the revisits; 15.2% were attributable to health care staff errors, 9.2% to system organization, and 61.1% to the disease process. CONCLUSION: Most emergency department revisits are related to the progression of the disease that led to the first visit. Only a small percentage can be linked to diagnostic or treatment errors in the previous visit.

OBJETIVO: La tasa de retornos a urgencias (RU) se ha propuesto como indicador de calidad asistencial en servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH). Nuestro objetivo fue conocer las causas de los RU y la proporción de RU relacionados con problemas de calidad asistencial en la urgencia previa. METODO: Estudio observacional transversal con auditoría de historias clínicas sobre una muestra aleatoria de RU durante las 72 horas siguientes al alta de un SUH de tres hospitales que prestan atención a casi un millón de habitantes de la provincia de Málaga. Revisión independiente por pares y asignación de la causa del RU según una clasificación estandarizada. RESULTADOS: Se analizó una muestra de 1.075 RU, de los que 895 cumplían los criterios de inclusión. Las causas de RU más frecuentes fueron la persistencia o progresión de la enfermedad (48,8%), la aparición de un nuevo problema no relacionado (9,3%) y la derivación a otro hospital por no disponer del especialista necesario (8,6%). Las causas se agruparon en 14,5% atribuibles al paciente, 15,2% a los profesionales sanitarios, 9,2% a la organización del sistema y 61,1% a la enfermedad. CONCLUSIONES: La mayor parte de los RU se debe a la evolución de la enfermedad que motivó la urgencia inicial y solo una pequeña proporción se relaciona con errores en el diagnóstico o tratamiento de la urgencia previa.