Warning scores in triage – Is there any point?

Managing acute abdominal pain in the emergency centre: Lessons from a patient's experience

Pain is one of the most common reasons people present to the emergency centre with 7-10% of presentations being due to acute abdominal pain. However, pain is also often neglected by clinicians in emergency centres. The well validated South African Triage Score (SATS) incorporates pain assessment in the prioritising of patients with the aim of guiding clinicians. Based on the SATS, severe pain (a score of ≥8 out of 10) should prompt the clinician to initiate treatment within 10 min of presentation, as unmanaged pain has multiple negative consequences, including poor outcomes of the acute incident with delayed healing and increased risk of developing chronic pain. In this commentary, we present a patient's experience when attending an emergency centre for acute abdominal pain, describe relevant pain mechanisms and highlight the stages where clinical management could have been optimised.

Using modified early warning score to predict need of lifesaving intervention in adult non-trauma patients in a tertiary state hospital

Background:

Modified early warning score has been validated in many uses in the emergency department. We propose that the modified early warning score performs well in predicting the need of lifesaving interventions in the emergency department, as a predictor of patients who are critically ill.

Objective:

The study aims to evaluate the use of modified early warning score in sorting out critically ill patients in the emergency department.

Methods:

The patients’ demographic data and first vital signs (blood pressure, heart rate, temperature, respiratory rate, and level of consciousness) were collected prospectively. Individual modified early warning score was calculated. The outcome was a patient received one or more lifesaving interventions toward the end of stay in emergency department. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was utilized to assess the association between modified early warning score and other potential predictors with outcome.

Results:

There are a total of 259 patients enrolled into the study. The optimal modified early warning score in predicting lifesaving intervention was ≥4 with a sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 81%. Modified early warning score ≥4 (odds ratio = 96.97, 95% confidence interval = 11.82–795.23, p < 0.001) was found to significantly increase the risk of receiving lifesaving intervention in the emergency department.

Conclusion:

Modified early warning score is found to be a good predictor for patients in need of lifesaving intervention in the emergency department.

Scoping review: The use of early warning systems for the identification of in-hospital patients at risk of deterioration

INTRODUCTION

Early warning systems (EWS) were developed as a means of alerting medical staff to patient clinical decline. Since 85% of severe adverse events are preceded by abnormal physiological signs, the patient bed-side vital signs observation chart has emerged as an EWS tool to help staff identify and quantify deteriorating patients. There are three broad categories of patient observation chart EWS: single or multiple parameter systems; aggregated weighted scoring systems; or combinations of single or multiple parameter and aggregated weighted scoring systems.

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review is an overview of quantitative studies and systematic reviews examining the efficiency of the adult EWS charts in the recognition of in-hospital patient deterioration.

METHOD

A broad search was undertaken of peer-reviewed publications, official government websites and databases housing research theses, using combinations of keywords and phrases.

DATA SOURCES

CINAHL with full text; MedLine, PsycINFO, MasterFILE Premier, GreenFILE and ScienceDirect. Also, the Cochrane Library database, Department of Health government websites and Ethos, ProQuest and Trove databases were searched.

EXCLUSIONS

Paediatric, obstetric and intensive care studies, studies undertaken at the point of hospital admission or pre-admission, non-English publications and editorials.

RESULTS

Five hundred and sixty five publications, government documents, reports and theses were located of which 91 were considered and 21 were included in the scoping review. Of the 21 publications eight studies compared the efficacy of various EWS and 13 publications validated specific EWS.

CONCLUSIONS

There is low level quantitative evidence that EWS improve patient outcomes and strong anecdotal evidence that they augment the ability of the clinical staff to recognise and respond to patient decline, thus reducing the incidence of severe adverse events. Although aggregated weighted scoring systems are most frequently used, the efficiency of the specific EWS appears to be dependent on the patient cohort, facilities available and staff training and attitude. While the review demonstrates support for EWS, researchers caution that given the contribution of human factors to the EWS decision-making process, patient EWS charts alone cannot replace good clinical judgment.

Electronic Medical Records in low to middle income countries: The case of Khayelitsha Hospital, South Africa

INTRODUCTION

Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) have shown benefit for clinical, organisational, and societal outcomes. In low-to-middle-income countries, the desire for EMRs will continue to rise as increasing trauma and infectious disease rates necessitate adequate record keeping for effective follow-up. 114 nations are currently working on national EMRs, with some using both a full EMR (Clinicom) and a paper-based system scanned to an online Enterprise Content Management (ECM) database.

METHODS

The authors sought to evaluate the ability and completeness of the EMR at Khayelitsha Hospital (KH) to capture all Emergency Centre (EC) encounters classified as trauma. Based on the high trauma rates in the Khayelitsha area and equally high referral rates from KH to higher-level trauma centres, an assumption was made that its rates would mirror nationwide estimates of 40% of EC visits. Records from July 2012 to June 2013 were examined.

RESULTS

3488 patients visited the EC in the month of July 2012. 10% were noted as trauma on Clinicom and within their records were multiple sections with missing information. The remaining months of Aug 2012-June 2013 had an average trauma load of 8%. On further investigation, stacks of un-scanned patient folders were identified in the records department, contributing to the unavailability of records from January 2013 to the time of study (June 2013) on ECM.

CONCLUSION

The results highlight difficulties with implementing a dual record system, as neither the full EMR nor ECM was able to accurately capture the estimated trauma load. Hospitals looking to employ such a system should ensure that sufficient funds are in place for adequate support, from supervision and training of staff to investment in infrastructure for efficient transfer of information. In the long run, efforts should be made to convert to a complete EMR to avoid the many pitfalls associated with handling paper records.