Nurses and physicians in a medical admission unit can accurately predict mortality of acutely admitted patients: a prospective cohort study
There exist several risk stratification systems for predicting mortality of emergency patients. However, some are complex in clinical use and others have been developed using suboptimal methodology. The objective was to evaluate the capability of the staff at a medical admission unit (MAU) to use cl...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2014-07, Vol.9 (7), p.e101739 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 7 |
container_start_page | e101739 |
container_title | PloS one |
container_volume | 9 |
creator | Brabrand, Mikkel Hallas, Jesper Knudsen, Torben |
description | There exist several risk stratification systems for predicting mortality of emergency patients. However, some are complex in clinical use and others have been developed using suboptimal methodology. The objective was to evaluate the capability of the staff at a medical admission unit (MAU) to use clinical intuition to predict in-hospital mortality of acutely admitted patients.
This is an observational prospective cohort study of adult patients (15 years or older) admitted to a MAU at a regional teaching hospital. The nursing staff and physicians predicted in-hospital mortality upon the patients' arrival. We calculated discriminatory power as the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUROC) and accuracy of prediction (calibration) by Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test.
We had a total of 2,848 admissions (2,463 patients). 89 (3.1%) died while admitted. The nursing staff assessed 2,404 admissions and predicted mortality in 1,820 (63.9%). AUROC was 0.823 (95% CI: 0.762-0.884) and calibration poor. Physicians assessed 738 admissions and predicted mortality in 734 (25.8% of all admissions). AUROC was 0.761 (95% CI: 0.657-0.864) and calibration poor. AUROC and calibration increased with experience. When nursing staff and physicians were in agreement (±5%), discriminatory power was very high, 0.898 (95% CI: 0.773-1.000), and calibration almost perfect. Combining an objective risk prediction score with staff predictions added very little.
Using only clinical intuition, staff in a medical admission unit has a good ability to identify patients at increased risk of dying while admitted. When nursing staff and physicians agreed on their prediction, discriminatory power and calibration were excellent. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0101739 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1545002602</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A418553101</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_2697de000663445c9ff25365e8e2310f</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A418553101</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c758t-8bb3c4b5975c95c072e312357f083068d0dabe9c082e74d2a30b9017f60d573c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk12L1DAUhoso7rr6D0QDguDFjCdJk7ZeCMvix8Digl-3IZOmMxk6TTdJF-c3-Kc9s9NdpqAgvWjJed43h7fnZNlzCnPKC_p244fQ6Xbe-87OgQItePUgO6UVZzPJgD88-j7JnsS4ARC8lPJxdsIEYE3kp9nvL0OINhLd1aRf76IzTneRuI5osrW1M7olut66GJ3vyNC5RIzGojFD0Mm2O9KHPZbI1oekW5d2xDdYH26Le2lKFr11crZL8R369sHH3prkbiwxfo06EtNQ755mjxrdRvtsfJ9lPz5--H7xeXZ59WlxcX45M4Uo06xcLrnJl6IqhKmEgYJZThkXRQMlB1nWUOulrQyUzBZ5zTSHZYXxNBJqUXDDz7KXB9--9VGNOUZFRS4AmASGxOJA1F5vVB_cVoed8tqp2wMfVkqH5ExrFZNVUVsAkJLnOXbUNExwKWxpGafQoNf78bZhiYkaTCHodmI6rXRurVb-RuVQSQmABq9Gg-CvBxvTP1oeqZXGrlzXeDQz-OOMOs9pKQQ2Q5Ga_4XCp7ZbZ3CSGofnE8GbiQCZZH-llR5iVItvX_-fvfo5ZV8fsWur27SOvh0SjlmcgvkBNDg1MdjmPjkKar8Id2mo_SKocRFQ9uI49XvR3eTzP6IGBGE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1545002602</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Nurses and physicians in a medical admission unit can accurately predict mortality of acutely admitted patients: a prospective cohort study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Brabrand, Mikkel ; Hallas, Jesper ; Knudsen, Torben</creator><contributor>Landoni, Giovanni</contributor><creatorcontrib>Brabrand, Mikkel ; Hallas, Jesper ; Knudsen, Torben ; Landoni, Giovanni</creatorcontrib><description>There exist several risk stratification systems for predicting mortality of emergency patients. However, some are complex in clinical use and others have been developed using suboptimal methodology. The objective was to evaluate the capability of the staff at a medical admission unit (MAU) to use clinical intuition to predict in-hospital mortality of acutely admitted patients.
This is an observational prospective cohort study of adult patients (15 years or older) admitted to a MAU at a regional teaching hospital. The nursing staff and physicians predicted in-hospital mortality upon the patients' arrival. We calculated discriminatory power as the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUROC) and accuracy of prediction (calibration) by Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test.
We had a total of 2,848 admissions (2,463 patients). 89 (3.1%) died while admitted. The nursing staff assessed 2,404 admissions and predicted mortality in 1,820 (63.9%). AUROC was 0.823 (95% CI: 0.762-0.884) and calibration poor. Physicians assessed 738 admissions and predicted mortality in 734 (25.8% of all admissions). AUROC was 0.761 (95% CI: 0.657-0.864) and calibration poor. AUROC and calibration increased with experience. When nursing staff and physicians were in agreement (±5%), discriminatory power was very high, 0.898 (95% CI: 0.773-1.000), and calibration almost perfect. Combining an objective risk prediction score with staff predictions added very little.
Using only clinical intuition, staff in a medical admission unit has a good ability to identify patients at increased risk of dying while admitted. When nursing staff and physicians agreed on their prediction, discriminatory power and calibration were excellent.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0101739</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25019354</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Acute Disease - mortality ; Admitting Department, Hospital ; Adolescent ; Adult ; Analysis ; Area Under Curve ; Calibration ; Cohort analysis ; Cohort Studies ; Critical care ; Denmark - epidemiology ; Emergency communications systems ; Emergency medical care ; Epidemiology ; Goodness of fit ; Hospital Mortality ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Illnesses ; Insurance discrimination ; Intensive care ; Medical personnel ; Medical research ; Medicine ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Mortality ; Nurses ; Nursing ; Nursing research ; Patients ; Physicians ; Physiology ; Predictions ; Prognosis ; Prospective Studies ; Public health ; Risk ; ROC Curve ; Studies ; Systematic review ; Telecommunications equipment</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2014-07, Vol.9 (7), p.e101739</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2014 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2014 Brabrand et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2014 Brabrand et al 2014 Brabrand et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c758t-8bb3c4b5975c95c072e312357f083068d0dabe9c082e74d2a30b9017f60d573c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c758t-8bb3c4b5975c95c072e312357f083068d0dabe9c082e74d2a30b9017f60d573c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4096600/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4096600/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2102,2928,23866,27924,27925,53791,53793,79600,79601</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25019354$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Landoni, Giovanni</contributor><creatorcontrib>Brabrand, Mikkel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hallas, Jesper</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Knudsen, Torben</creatorcontrib><title>Nurses and physicians in a medical admission unit can accurately predict mortality of acutely admitted patients: a prospective cohort study</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>There exist several risk stratification systems for predicting mortality of emergency patients. However, some are complex in clinical use and others have been developed using suboptimal methodology. The objective was to evaluate the capability of the staff at a medical admission unit (MAU) to use clinical intuition to predict in-hospital mortality of acutely admitted patients.
This is an observational prospective cohort study of adult patients (15 years or older) admitted to a MAU at a regional teaching hospital. The nursing staff and physicians predicted in-hospital mortality upon the patients' arrival. We calculated discriminatory power as the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUROC) and accuracy of prediction (calibration) by Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test.
We had a total of 2,848 admissions (2,463 patients). 89 (3.1%) died while admitted. The nursing staff assessed 2,404 admissions and predicted mortality in 1,820 (63.9%). AUROC was 0.823 (95% CI: 0.762-0.884) and calibration poor. Physicians assessed 738 admissions and predicted mortality in 734 (25.8% of all admissions). AUROC was 0.761 (95% CI: 0.657-0.864) and calibration poor. AUROC and calibration increased with experience. When nursing staff and physicians were in agreement (±5%), discriminatory power was very high, 0.898 (95% CI: 0.773-1.000), and calibration almost perfect. Combining an objective risk prediction score with staff predictions added very little.
Using only clinical intuition, staff in a medical admission unit has a good ability to identify patients at increased risk of dying while admitted. When nursing staff and physicians agreed on their prediction, discriminatory power and calibration were excellent.</description><subject>Acute Disease - mortality</subject><subject>Admitting Department, Hospital</subject><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Area Under Curve</subject><subject>Calibration</subject><subject>Cohort analysis</subject><subject>Cohort Studies</subject><subject>Critical care</subject><subject>Denmark - epidemiology</subject><subject>Emergency communications systems</subject><subject>Emergency medical care</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Goodness of fit</subject><subject>Hospital Mortality</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Illnesses</subject><subject>Insurance discrimination</subject><subject>Intensive care</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Nurses</subject><subject>Nursing</subject><subject>Nursing research</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Physicians</subject><subject>Physiology</subject><subject>Predictions</subject><subject>Prognosis</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>Risk</subject><subject>ROC Curve</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Telecommunications equipment</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk12L1DAUhoso7rr6D0QDguDFjCdJk7ZeCMvix8Digl-3IZOmMxk6TTdJF-c3-Kc9s9NdpqAgvWjJed43h7fnZNlzCnPKC_p244fQ6Xbe-87OgQItePUgO6UVZzPJgD88-j7JnsS4ARC8lPJxdsIEYE3kp9nvL0OINhLd1aRf76IzTneRuI5osrW1M7olut66GJ3vyNC5RIzGojFD0Mm2O9KHPZbI1oekW5d2xDdYH26Le2lKFr11crZL8R369sHH3prkbiwxfo06EtNQ755mjxrdRvtsfJ9lPz5--H7xeXZ59WlxcX45M4Uo06xcLrnJl6IqhKmEgYJZThkXRQMlB1nWUOulrQyUzBZ5zTSHZYXxNBJqUXDDz7KXB9--9VGNOUZFRS4AmASGxOJA1F5vVB_cVoed8tqp2wMfVkqH5ExrFZNVUVsAkJLnOXbUNExwKWxpGafQoNf78bZhiYkaTCHodmI6rXRurVb-RuVQSQmABq9Gg-CvBxvTP1oeqZXGrlzXeDQz-OOMOs9pKQQ2Q5Ga_4XCp7ZbZ3CSGofnE8GbiQCZZH-llR5iVItvX_-fvfo5ZV8fsWur27SOvh0SjlmcgvkBNDg1MdjmPjkKar8Id2mo_SKocRFQ9uI49XvR3eTzP6IGBGE</recordid><startdate>20140714</startdate><enddate>20140714</enddate><creator>Brabrand, Mikkel</creator><creator>Hallas, Jesper</creator><creator>Knudsen, Torben</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140714</creationdate><title>Nurses and physicians in a medical admission unit can accurately predict mortality of acutely admitted patients: a prospective cohort study</title><author>Brabrand, Mikkel ; Hallas, Jesper ; Knudsen, Torben</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c758t-8bb3c4b5975c95c072e312357f083068d0dabe9c082e74d2a30b9017f60d573c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Acute Disease - mortality</topic><topic>Admitting Department, Hospital</topic><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Area Under Curve</topic><topic>Calibration</topic><topic>Cohort analysis</topic><topic>Cohort Studies</topic><topic>Critical care</topic><topic>Denmark - epidemiology</topic><topic>Emergency communications systems</topic><topic>Emergency medical care</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Goodness of fit</topic><topic>Hospital Mortality</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Illnesses</topic><topic>Insurance discrimination</topic><topic>Intensive care</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Nurses</topic><topic>Nursing</topic><topic>Nursing research</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Physicians</topic><topic>Physiology</topic><topic>Predictions</topic><topic>Prognosis</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>Risk</topic><topic>ROC Curve</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Telecommunications equipment</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Brabrand, Mikkel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hallas, Jesper</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Knudsen, Torben</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Brabrand, Mikkel</au><au>Hallas, Jesper</au><au>Knudsen, Torben</au><au>Landoni, Giovanni</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Nurses and physicians in a medical admission unit can accurately predict mortality of acutely admitted patients: a prospective cohort study</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2014-07-14</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>e101739</spage><pages>e101739-</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>There exist several risk stratification systems for predicting mortality of emergency patients. However, some are complex in clinical use and others have been developed using suboptimal methodology. The objective was to evaluate the capability of the staff at a medical admission unit (MAU) to use clinical intuition to predict in-hospital mortality of acutely admitted patients.
This is an observational prospective cohort study of adult patients (15 years or older) admitted to a MAU at a regional teaching hospital. The nursing staff and physicians predicted in-hospital mortality upon the patients' arrival. We calculated discriminatory power as the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUROC) and accuracy of prediction (calibration) by Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test.
We had a total of 2,848 admissions (2,463 patients). 89 (3.1%) died while admitted. The nursing staff assessed 2,404 admissions and predicted mortality in 1,820 (63.9%). AUROC was 0.823 (95% CI: 0.762-0.884) and calibration poor. Physicians assessed 738 admissions and predicted mortality in 734 (25.8% of all admissions). AUROC was 0.761 (95% CI: 0.657-0.864) and calibration poor. AUROC and calibration increased with experience. When nursing staff and physicians were in agreement (±5%), discriminatory power was very high, 0.898 (95% CI: 0.773-1.000), and calibration almost perfect. Combining an objective risk prediction score with staff predictions added very little.
Using only clinical intuition, staff in a medical admission unit has a good ability to identify patients at increased risk of dying while admitted. When nursing staff and physicians agreed on their prediction, discriminatory power and calibration were excellent.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>25019354</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0101739</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
ispartof | PloS one, 2014-07, Vol.9 (7), p.e101739 |
issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1545002602 |
source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS); PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
subjects | Acute Disease - mortality Admitting Department, Hospital Adolescent Adult Analysis Area Under Curve Calibration Cohort analysis Cohort Studies Critical care Denmark - epidemiology Emergency communications systems Emergency medical care Epidemiology Goodness of fit Hospital Mortality Hospitals Humans Illnesses Insurance discrimination Intensive care Medical personnel Medical research Medicine Medicine and Health Sciences Mortality Nurses Nursing Nursing research Patients Physicians Physiology Predictions Prognosis Prospective Studies Public health Risk ROC Curve Studies Systematic review Telecommunications equipment |
title | Nurses and physicians in a medical admission unit can accurately predict mortality of acutely admitted patients: a prospective cohort study |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T06%3A17%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Nurses%20and%20physicians%20in%20a%20medical%20admission%20unit%20can%20accurately%20predict%20mortality%20of%20acutely%20admitted%20patients:%20a%20prospective%20cohort%20study&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Brabrand,%20Mikkel&rft.date=2014-07-14&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=e101739&rft.pages=e101739-&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0101739&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA418553101%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1545002602&rft_id=info:pmid/25019354&rft_galeid=A418553101&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_2697de000663445c9ff25365e8e2310f&rfr_iscdi=true |