Predicting clinical deterioration with Q-ADDS compared to NEWS, Between the Flags, and eCART track and trigger tools

Early warning tools have been widely implemented without evidence to guide (a) recognition and (b) response team expertise optimisation. With growing databases from MET-calls and digital hospitals, we now have access to guiding information. The Queensland Adult-Deterioration-Detection-System (Q-ADDS) is widely used and requires validation. Compare the accuracy of Q-ADDS to National Early Warning Score (NEWS), Between-the-Flags (BTF) and the electronic Cardiac Arrest Risk Triage Score (eCART)). Data from the Chicago University hospital database were used. Clinical deterioration was defined as unplanned admission to ICU or death. Currently used NEWS, BTF and eCART trigger thresholds were compared with a clinically endorsed Q-ADDS variant. Of 224,912 admissions, 11,706 (5%) experienced clinical deterioration. Q-ADDS (AUC 0.71) and NEWS (AUC 0.72) had similar predictive accuracy, BTF (AUC 0.64) had the lowest, and eCART (AUC 0.76) the highest. Early warning alert (advising ward MO review) had similar NPV (99.2–99.3%), for all the four tools however sensitivity varied (%: Q-ADDS = 47/NEWS = 49/BTF = 66/eCART = 40), as did alerting rate (% vitals sets: Q-ADDS = 1.4/NEWS = 3.5/BTF = 4.1/eCART = 3.4). MET alert (advising MET/critical-care review) had similar NPV for all the four tools (99.1–99.2%), however sensitivity varied (%: Q-ADDS = 14/NEWS = 24/BTF = 19/eCART = 29), as did MET alerting rate (%: Q-ADDS = 1.4/NEWS = 3.5/BTF = 4.1/eCART = 3.4). High-severity alert (advising advanced ward review, Q-ADDS only): NPV = 99.1%, sensitivity = 26%, alerting rate = 3.5%. The accuracy of Q-ADDS is comparable to NEWS, and higher than BTF, with eCART being the most accurate. Q-ADDS provides an additional high-severity ward alert, and generated significantly fewer MET alerts. Impacts of increased ward awareness and fewer MET alerts on actual MET call numbers and patient outcomes requires further evaluation.