Summary: The effects of introducing Modified Early Warning scores to identify medical patients at risk of catastrophic deterioration have not been examined. We prospectively studied 1695 acute medical admissions. All patients were scored in the admissions unit. Patients with a Modified Early Warning score > 4 were referred for urgent medical and critical care outreach team review. Data was compared with an observational study performed in the same unit during the proceeding year. There was no change in mortality of patients with low, intermediate or high Modified Early Warning scores. Rates of cardio‐pulmonary arrest, intensive care unit or high dependency unit admission were similar. Data analysis confirmed respiratory rate as the best discriminator in identifying high‐risk patient groups. The therapeutic interventions performed in response to abnormal scores were not assessed. We are convinced that the Modified Early Warning score is a suitable scoring tool to identify patients at risk. However, outcomes in medical emergency admissions are influenced by a multitude of factors and so it may be difficult to demonstrate the score's benefit without further standardizing the response to abnormal values.

Delayed response to clinical deterioration of ward patients is common. We performed a prospective before-and-after study in all patients admitted to two clinical ward areas in a district general hospital in the UK. We examined the effect on clinical outcomes of deploying an electronic automated advisory vital signs monitoring and notification system, which relayed abnormal vital signs to a rapid response team (RRT). We studied 2139 patients before (control) and 2263 after the intervention. During the intervention the number of RRT notifications increased from 405 to 524 (p = 0.001) with more notifications triggering fluid therapy, bronchodilators and antibiotics. Moreover, despite an increase in the number of patients with “do not attempt resuscitation” orders (from 99 to 135; p = 0.047), mortality decreased from 173 to 147 (p = 0.042) patients and cardiac arrests decreased from 14 to 2 events (p = 0.002). Finally, the severity of illness in patients admitted to the ICU was reduced (mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score: 26 (SD 9) vs. 18 (SD 8)), as was their mortality (from 45% to 24%; p = 0.04). Deployment of an electronic automated advisory vital signs monitoring and notification system to signal clinical deterioration in ward patients was associated with significant improvements in key patient-centered clinical outcomes. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01692847 . Registered on 21 September 2012.

Scoring systems that weigh the degree of abnormality of bedside observations might be able to identify patients at risk of catastrophic deterioration. To establish a frequency distribution for typical physiological scoring systems and to establish the potential benefit of adding these to an existing triage system in accident and emergency departments. Physiological data were collected from 53 unselected emergency department admissions, from 50 patients admitted from the emergency department to intensive care, and from 50 patients admitted from emergency department to general wards and then to intensive care. Three different physiological scores were calculated from the data. Identification of sick patients by the scores was compared with triage information from the Manchester Triage System (MTS). Most patients admitted to the emergency department would not be identified as critically ill with the aid of physiological scoring systems. This was true even for patients who were admitted to intensive care. Only in 0-8% of unselected patients did the scores indicate increased risk. In 100 patients admitted to the intensive care, adding of medical emergency team call-out criteria, Modified Early Warning Score or Assessment Score for Sick patient Identification and Step-up in Treatment would identify none, seven or one patient in addition to those triaged as orange and red by the MTS. Introduction of a physiological scoring system would have identified only a small number of additional patients as critically ill and added little to the triage system currently in use.

For healthcare systems, an ageing population poses challenges in the delivery of equitable and effective care. Frailty assessment has the potential to improve care in the intensive care setting, but applying assessment tools in critical illness may be problematic. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate evidence for the feasibility and reliability of frailty assessment in critical care. Our primary search was conducted in Medline, Medline In-process, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science (January 2001 to October 2017). We included observational studies reporting data on feasibility and reliability of frailty assessment in the critical care setting in patients 16 years and older. Feasibility was assessed in terms of timing of evaluation, the background, training and expertise required for assessors, and reliance upon proxy input. Reliability was assessed in terms of inter-rater reliability. Data from 11 study publications are included, representing 8 study cohorts and 7761 patients. Proxy involvement in frailty assessment ranged from 58 to 100%. Feasibility data were not well-reported overall, but the exclusion rate due to lack of proxy availability ranged from 0 to 45%, the highest rate observed where family involvement was mandatory and the assessment tool relatively complex (frailty index, FI). Conventional elements of frailty phenotype (FP) assessment required modification prior to use in two studies. Clinical staff tended to use a simple judgement-based tool, the clinical frailty scale (CFS). Inter-rater reliability was reported in one study using the CFS and although a good level of agreement was observed between clinician assessments, this was a small and single-centre study. Though of unproven reliability in the critically ill, CFS was the tool used most widely by critical care clinical staff. Conventional FP assessment required modification for general application in critical care, and an FI-based assessment may be difficult to deliver by the critical care team on a routine basis. There is a high reliance on proxies for frailty assessment, and the reliability of frailty assessment tools in critical care needs further evaluation. CRD42016052073 .

Purpose Patients undergoing systemic anti-cancer treatment experience distressing side effects, and these symptoms are often experienced outside the hospital setting. The impact of usage of cancer-related mobile health (mHealth) applications on patient-related outcomes requires investigation. Methods A critical appraisal of the literature was performed for the following question: ‘In patients with cancer have mHealth applications been compared with usual care to examine impact on commonly used clinical outcomes’. Literature searches were undertaken with the help of a research librarian and included Medline, Cochrane Collaboration, clinical trial databases and grey searches. Results Seventeen studies including between 12 and 2352 patients were identified and reviewed. Smartphone applications or internet portals collected data on symptoms or patient activity. Several studies showed statistically significant differences in patient-reported outcomes when symptom monitoring using mobile health application was compared to usual care. Change in mobility was the only outcome that was related directly to toxicity. Only limited data on mortality, cancer-related morbidity including complications of care, health-economic outcomes or long-term outcomes were reported. Conclusions Studies on mHealth applications might improve aspects of symptom control in patients with cancer, but there is currently little evidence for impact on other outcomes. This requires future research in interventional studies.