• Kirsty Challen, Mike Bradburn, and Steve W Goodacre.
• University of Sheffield, Regent Court, Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK. kirstychallen@hotmail.com.
• Scand J Trauma Resus. 2015 Sep 17; 23: 67.

BackgroundRisk stratification methods developed on the basis of predicting illness severity are often used to prioritise patients on the basis of urgency. Illness severity and urgency may not be interchangeable. Severe illness places patients at risk of adverse outcome, but treatment is only urgent if adverse outcome can be prevented by time-sensitive treatment. We aimed to develop a score to identify patients in need of urgent treatment, on the basis of potential to benefit from time-sensitive intervention, and to compare this with a severity score identifying patients at high risk of death.MethodsA sequential cohort of adults presenting to one Emergency Department by ambulance and admitted to hospital was prospectively collected (2437 derivation, 2322 validation). Data on outcomes representing potential to benefit was collected retrospectively on a random subset (398 derivation, 227 validation). Logistic regression identified variables predictive of death and potential to benefit from urgent treatment.ResultsDeath was predicted using age, respiratory rate, diastolic blood pressure, oxygen saturations, temperature, GCS and respiratory disease (AUROC 0.84 (95 % CI 0.8-0.89) derivation and 0.74 (0.69-0.81) validation), while potential to benefit was predicted by pulse, systolic blood pressure and GCS (AUROC 0.74 (0.67-0.80) derivation and 0.71 (0.59-0.82) validation).ConclusionsA score developed to predict the need for urgent treatment has a different composition to a score developed to predict illness severity, suggesting that triage methods based on predicting severity could lead to inappropriate prioritisation on the intended basis of urgency.

26 keywords...

hide…