Performance of early warning and risk stratification scores versus clinical judgement in the acute setting: a systematic review

Abstract

ObjectiveRisk stratification is increasingly based on Early Warning Score (EWS)-based models, instead of clinical judgement. However, it is unknown how risk-stratification models and EWS perform as compared with the clinical judgement of treating acute healthcare providers. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of all available literature evaluating clinical judgement of healthcare providers to the use of risk-stratification models in predicting patients’ clinical outcome.MethodsStudies comparing clinical judgement and risk-stratification models in predicting outcomes in adult patients presenting at the ED were eligible for inclusion. Outcomes included the need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission; severe adverse events; clinical deterioration and mortality. Risk of bias among the included studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool.ResultsSix studies (6419 participants) were included of which 4 studies were judged to be at high risk of bias. Only descriptive analysis was performed as a meta-analysis was not possible due to few included studies and high clinical heterogeneity. The performance of clinical judgement and risk-stratification models were both moderate in predicting mortality, deterioration and need for ICU admission with area under the curves between 0.70 and 0.89. The performance of clinical judgement did not significantly differ from risk-stratification models in predicting mortality (n=2 studies) or deterioration (n=1 study). However, clinical judgement of healthcare providers was significantly better in predicting the need for ICU admission (n=2) and severe adverse events (n=1 study) as compared with risk-stratification models.ConclusionBased on limited existing data, clinical judgement has greater accuracy in predicting the need for ICU admission and the occurrence of severe adverse events compared with risk-stratification models in ED patients. However, performance is similar in predicting mortality and deterioration.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020218893.

External validation of triage tools for adults with suspected COVID-19 in a middle-income setting: an observational cohort study

“…Previous literature reviews have found that clinical decision rules and risk scores rarely outperform clinician gestalt diagnostically or in predicting outcomes 34. Our study supports this finding.…”

The accuracy of prehospital triage decisions in English trauma networks – a case-cohort study

“…Previous qualitative research has demonstrated that prehospital triage making is often heuristic with triage tools used less commonly as experience increases [ 26 ]. It is perhaps not surprising that subjective real-life decisions outperformed objective triage tool accuracy, as clinical judgement has been consistently demonstrated to be superior in multiple studies across many disease areas [ 27 , 28 ]. This has important implications, as to benefit from better overall triage performance achieved through subjective clinical judgement, some incorrect individual clinical decisions will need to be accepted; and clinical governance strategies to increase triage tool use and adherence may be counterproductive.…”

The effect of relative hypotension on 30-day mortality in older people receiving emergency care

“…Incorporating relative systolic change into a NEWS2 model marginally improved predictive performance for 30-day mortality. This yielded the best-performing AUC in this study, which at only 0.74 prompts for consideration on the limitations of risk stratification scores compared with ED clinician judgement, especially when applied to older people living with frailty [ 5 , 18 ].…”