Defining significant childhood illness and injury in the Emergency Department: a consensus of UK and Ireland expert opinion.

BACKGROUND: Clarifying whether paediatric early warning scores (PEWS) accurately predict significant illness is a research priority for UK and Ireland paediatric emergency medicine (EM). However, a standardised list of significant conditions to benchmark these scores does not exist. OBJECTIVES: To establish standardised significant illness endpoints for use in determining the performance accuracy of PEWS and safety systems in emergency departments (ED), using a consensus of expert opinion in the UK and Ireland. DESIGN: Between July 2017 and February 2018, three online Delphi rounds established a consensus on 'significant' clinical conditions, derived from a list of common childhood illness/injury ED presentations. Conditions warranting acute hospital admission in the opinion of the respondent were defined as 'significant', using a 5-point Likert scale. The consensus was a priori ≥80% (positive or negative). 258 clinical conditions were tested. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTINGS: Eligible participants were consultants in acute or EM paediatrics, or adult EM, accessed via 53 PERUKI (Paediatric Emergency Research in the UK and Ireland)'s research collaborative sites, and 27 GAPRUKI (General and Adolescent Paediatric Research in the UK and Ireland)'s sites, 17 of which overlap with PERUKI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To create a list of conditions regarded as 'significant'with ≥80% expert consensus. RESULTS: 43 (68%) of 63 PERUKI and GAPRUKI sites responded; 295 experts were invited to participate. Participants in rounds 1, 2 and 3 were 223 (76%), 177 (60%) and 148 (50%), respectively; 154 conditions reached positive consensus as 'significant'; 1 condition reached a negative consensus (uncomplicated Henoch-Schönlein purpura); and 37 conditions achieved non-consensus. CONCLUSIONS: A list of significant childhood conditions has been created using UK and Irish expert consensus, for research purposes, for the first time. This will be used as the benchmark endpoint list for future research into PEWS/safety systems performance in EDs.

Early warning scores in paediatrics: an overview.

Paediatric Early Warning Scores (PEWS)are used in hospitalised patients to detect physiological deterioration and is being used increasingly throughout healthcare systems with a limited evidence based. There are two versions in general use that can lead to a clinical response, either by triggering an action or by reaching a 'threshold' when graduated responses may occur depending on the value of the score. Most evidence has come from research based on paediatric inpatients in specialist children's hospitals, although the range of research is expanding, taking into account other clinical areas such as paediatric intensive care unit, emergency department and the prehospital setting. Currrently, it is uncertain whether a unified system does deliver benefits in terms of outcomes or financial savings, but it may inform and improve patient communication. PEWS may be an additional tool in context of a patient's specific condition, and future work will include its validation for different conditions, different clinical settings, patient populations and organisational structure. The incorporation of PEWS within the electronic health records may form a keystone of the safe system framework and allow the development of consistent PEWS system to standardise practice.

Missed opportunities: incomplete and inaccurate recording of paediatric early warning scores.

BACKGROUND: Paediatric early warning scores (PEWS) are widely used as an adjunct to support staff in recognising deterioration in hospitalised children. Relatively little is known about how staff use these systems. OBJECTIVE: To examine the completeness and accuracy of PEWS recording in hospitalised children in a tertiary specialist children's hospital. DESIGN: This is a secondary analysis of retrospective, case-controlled study data. Case patients suffering from a critical deterioration event were matched with controls present on the same ward at the same time and matched for age. Data were extracted from the PEWS chart for the 48 hours before the critical deterioration event for case patients and the corresponding 48 hours period for the control. Observation sets were assessed for completeness and accuracy of PEWS scoring. RESULTS: In total 297 case events in 224 patients were available for analysis. Overall 13 816 observations sets were performed, 8543 on cases and 5273 on controls. Only 4958 (35.9%) of observation sets contained a complete set of vital sign parameters and a concurrent PEWS. Errors were more prevalent in the observation sets of case patients versus controls (19.5% vs 14.1%). More errors resulted in the PEWS value being underscored rather than overscored for all observation sets (p<0.0001). 9.1% of inaccuracies for case patients were clinically significant, as the accurately calculated PEWS would have prompted a different escalation from the documented value. CONCLUSION: Failure to record complete and accurate PEWS may jeopardise recognition of children who are deteriorating. Technology may offer an effective solution.

'The Score Matters': wide variations in predictive performance of 18 paediatric track and trigger systems.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the predictive performance of 18 paediatric early warning systems (PEWS) in predicting critical deterioration. DESIGN: Retrospective case-controlled study. PEWS values were calculated from existing clinical data, and the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) compared. SETTING: UK tertiary referral children's hospital. PATIENTS: Patients without a 'do not attempt resuscitation' order admitted between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2012. All patients on paediatric wards who suffered a critical deterioration event were designated 'cases' and matched with a control closest in age who was present on the same ward at the same time. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Respiratory and/or cardiac arrest, unplanned transfer to paediatric intensive care and/or unexpected death. RESULTS: 12 'scoring' and 6 'trigger' systems were suitable for comparative analysis. 297 case events in 224 patients were available for analysis. 244 control patients were identified for the 311 events. Three PEWS demonstrated better overall predictive performance with an AUROC of 0.87 or greater. Comparing each system with the highest performing PEWS with Bonferroni's correction for multiple comparisons resulted in statistically significant differences for 13 systems. Trigger systems performed worse than scoring systems, occupying the six lowest places in the AUROC rankings. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variation in the performance of published PEWS, and as such the choice of PEWS has the potential to be clinically important. Trigger-based systems performed poorly overall, but it remains unclear what factors determine optimum performance. More complex systems did not necessarily demonstrate improved performance.

Systematic review of paediatric track and trigger systems for hospitalised children.

CONTEXT: Early and accurate recognition of the deteriorating hospitalised child is complex. Paediatric track and trigger systems (PTTS) support clinical decision-making by 'tracking' the child's condition through monitoring of clinical signs and 'triggering' a request for an appropriate review when pre-determined criteria are breeched. OBJECTIVE: To describe the number and nature of published PTTS and appraise the evidence on their validity, calibration, and effect on important patient outcomes (death, cardiac and/or respiratory arrest, unplanned transfer to intensive/high dependency care, immediate/urgent request for review, rapid response system activation). METHOD: GRADE methodology. Papers identified through electronic database and citation searching. RESULTS: Thirty-three PTTS were identified from 55 studies. There was considerable variety in the number and type of parameters, although all contained one or more vital signs. The evidence to support PTTS implementation was very low and the majority of outcomes did not achieve statistical significance. When PTTS was implemented as part of a rapid response system, the evidence was moderate to low but there was some evidence of a statistically significant improvement in outcome. CONCLUSION: There is now some limited evidence for the validity and clinical utility of PTTS scores. The high (and increasing) number of systems is a significant confounder. Further research is needed particularly around the thresholds for the vital signs and the reliability, accuracy and calibration of PTTS in different settings.

Prevalence and severity of patient harm in a sample of UK-hospitalised children detected by the Paediatric Trigger Tool.

UNLABELLED: The measurement and examination of adverse events (AEs) that occur in children during hospital admissions is essential if we are to prevent, reduce or ameliorate the harm experienced. The UK Paediatric Trigger Tool (UKPTT) is a method of retrospective case note review that measures harm in hospitalised children. OBJECTIVES: To examine the harm resulting from the processes of healthcare in hospitalised children from centres providing data to the National Health Service (NHS) Institute UKPTT data portal, to understand the positive predictive values of triggers and to make recommendations for the further development of the trigger tool. SETTING: 25 hospitals across the UK, including secondary, tertiary and quaternary paediatric centres. PARTICIPANTS: Randomly selected children who were admitted to hospital for longer than 24 h. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the rate of harm (the percentage of children experiencing one or more AEs during a hospital admission). Secondary measures were the severity of harm and performance of triggers. RESULTS: Data from 3992 patient admissions were reviewed across the hospitals and submitted to the trigger tool portal from February 2008 to November 2011. At least one AE was reported for 567 (14.2%) patients, with 211 (5.3%) experiencing more than one event. There were 1001 AEs identified. Where harm occurred, it was considered temporary for 923 (92.2%) AEs; however, 43 (4.3%) AEs resulted in the need for life-sustaining interventions, 18 (1.8%) AEs led to permanent harm and for 17 children (1.7% of AEs) the AE was believed to have contributed to death. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant, measurable level of harm experienced by children admitted to hospitals in the UK. While most of this harm is temporary, some of it is serious. The UKPTT offers organisations the means to measure and examine the AEs occurring in their hospital in order to reduce harm.

Systematic review of paediatric alert criteria for identifying hospitalised children at risk of critical deterioration.

INTRODUCTION: Unrecognised or untreated clinical deterioration can lead to serious adverse events, including cardiopulmonary arrest and unexpected death. Paediatric alert criteria aim to identify children with early signs of physiological instability that precede clinical deterioration so that experienced clinicians can intervene with the aim of reducing serious adverse events and improving outcome. PURPOSE: To identify the number and nature of published paediatric alert criteria and evaluate their validity, reliability, clinical effectiveness and clinical utility. METHOD: Systematic review of studies identified from electronic and citation searching and expert informants. RESULTS: Eleven studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and described ten paediatric alert criteria. Six studies described the introduction and use of the paediatric alert criteria in practice, four examined the development and testing of the paediatric alert criteria, and one described both. There was marked variability across all aspects of the paediatric alert criteria, including the method of development, and the number and type of component parameters. Five studies explored the predictive validity of the paediatric alert criteria, but only three reported appropriate methodology. Only one study evaluated reliability, and none evaluated clinical utility of paediatric alert criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence supporting the validity, reliability and utility of paediatric alert criteria is weak. Studies are needed to determine which physiological parameters or combinations of parameters, best predict serious adverse events. Prospective evaluation of validity, reliability and utility is then needed before widespread adoption into clinical practice can be recommended.