Outcome prediction in dogs admitted through the emergency room: Accuracy of staff prediction and comparison with an illness severity stratification system for hospitalized dogs

IF 1.1 3区 农林科学 Q3 VETERINARY SCIENCES Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care Pub Date : 2023-11-21 DOI:10.1111/vec.13350
Alice Le Gal DVM, MVetMed, DACVECC, DECVECC, Dominic Martin Barfield BSc, BVSc, MVetMed, DACVECC, DECVECC, Roseanne Helen Wignall RVN, Simon David Cook BSc, BVSc, MVetMed, DACVECC, DECVECC
{"title":"Outcome prediction in dogs admitted through the emergency room: Accuracy of staff prediction and comparison with an illness severity stratification system for hospitalized dogs","authors":"Alice Le Gal DVM, MVetMed, DACVECC, DECVECC,&nbsp;Dominic Martin Barfield BSc, BVSc, MVetMed, DACVECC, DECVECC,&nbsp;Roseanne Helen Wignall RVN,&nbsp;Simon David Cook BSc, BVSc, MVetMed, DACVECC, DECVECC","doi":"10.1111/vec.13350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To determine whether emergency staff and students can predict patient outcome within 24 hours of admission, comparing the accuracy of clinician prognostication with outcome prediction by Acute Patient Physiologic and Laboratory Evaluation (APPLE)<sub>fast</sub> scoring and identifying whether experience or mood would be associated with accuracy.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design</h3>\n \n <p>Prospective observational study between April 2020 and March 2021.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Setting</h3>\n \n <p>University teaching hospital.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Animals</h3>\n \n <p>One hundred and sixty-one dogs admitted through an Emergency Service were assessed. Where data were available, an APPLE<sub>fast</sub> score was calculated per patient. An APPLE<sub>fast</sub> score of &gt;25 was deemed a predictor for mortality.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Interventions</h3>\n \n <p>None.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Measurements and Main Results</h3>\n \n <p>Emergency staff and students were asked to complete surveys about dogs admitted to the emergency room. All clinicopathological data were available for review, and the animals were available for examination. Data collected included opinions on whether the patient would be discharged from hospital, a mood score, position, and experience in Emergency and Critical Care. One-hundred and twenty-five dogs (77.6%) were discharged; 36 dogs (22.4%) died or were euthanized. Two hundred and sixty-six responses were obtained; 202 responses (75.9%) predicted the correct outcome. Students, interns, residents, faculty, and nurses predicted the correct outcome in 81.4%, 58.3%, 83.3%, 82.1%, and 65.5% of cases, respectively. Of 64 incorrect predictions, 43 (67.2%) predicted death in hospital. APPLE<sub>fast</sub> scores were obtained in 121 cases, predicting the correct outcome in 83 cases (68.6%). Of 38 cases in which APPLE<sub>fast</sub> was incorrect, 27 (71.1%) were dogs surviving to discharge. Mean APPLE<sub>fast</sub> score was 22.9 (± 6.2). There was no difference in outcome prediction accuracy between staff and APPLE<sub>fast</sub> scores (<i>P</i> = 0.13). Neither experience nor mood score was associated with outcome prediction ability (<i>P</i> = 0.55 and <i>P</i> = 0.74, respectively).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Outcome prediction accuracy by staff is not significantly different to APPLE<sub>fast</sub> scoring where a cutoff of &gt;25 is used to predict mortality. When predictions were incorrect, they often predicted nonsurvival.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":17603,"journal":{"name":"Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care","volume":"34 1","pages":"69-75"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/vec.13350","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/vec.13350","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To determine whether emergency staff and students can predict patient outcome within 24 hours of admission, comparing the accuracy of clinician prognostication with outcome prediction by Acute Patient Physiologic and Laboratory Evaluation (APPLE)fast scoring and identifying whether experience or mood would be associated with accuracy.

Design

Prospective observational study between April 2020 and March 2021.

Setting

University teaching hospital.

Animals

One hundred and sixty-one dogs admitted through an Emergency Service were assessed. Where data were available, an APPLEfast score was calculated per patient. An APPLEfast score of >25 was deemed a predictor for mortality.

Interventions

None.

Measurements and Main Results

Emergency staff and students were asked to complete surveys about dogs admitted to the emergency room. All clinicopathological data were available for review, and the animals were available for examination. Data collected included opinions on whether the patient would be discharged from hospital, a mood score, position, and experience in Emergency and Critical Care. One-hundred and twenty-five dogs (77.6%) were discharged; 36 dogs (22.4%) died or were euthanized. Two hundred and sixty-six responses were obtained; 202 responses (75.9%) predicted the correct outcome. Students, interns, residents, faculty, and nurses predicted the correct outcome in 81.4%, 58.3%, 83.3%, 82.1%, and 65.5% of cases, respectively. Of 64 incorrect predictions, 43 (67.2%) predicted death in hospital. APPLEfast scores were obtained in 121 cases, predicting the correct outcome in 83 cases (68.6%). Of 38 cases in which APPLEfast was incorrect, 27 (71.1%) were dogs surviving to discharge. Mean APPLEfast score was 22.9 (± 6.2). There was no difference in outcome prediction accuracy between staff and APPLEfast scores (P = 0.13). Neither experience nor mood score was associated with outcome prediction ability (P = 0.55 and P = 0.74, respectively).

Conclusions

Outcome prediction accuracy by staff is not significantly different to APPLEfast scoring where a cutoff of >25 is used to predict mortality. When predictions were incorrect, they often predicted nonsurvival.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
通过急诊室入院犬的预后预测:工作人员预测的准确性以及与住院犬疾病严重程度分层系统的比较
目的:确定急诊人员和学生是否能够在入院24小时内预测患者的预后,比较临床医生预测的准确性与急性患者生理和实验室评估(APPLE)快速评分预测的结果,并确定经验或情绪是否与准确性相关。设计:2020年4月至2021年3月的前瞻性观察研究。单位:大学教学医院。动物:对通过紧急服务接收的161只狗进行了评估。在数据可用的情况下,对每位患者计算APPLEfast评分。APPLEfast评分为bbbb25被认为是死亡率的预测指标。干预措施:没有。测量和主要结果:要求急救人员和学生完成关于被送往急诊室的狗的调查。所有的临床病理资料都可以查阅,动物也可以进行检查。收集的数据包括对患者是否出院、情绪评分、体位以及急诊和重症监护经验的意见。出院125只,占77.6%;36只(22.4%)死亡或被安乐死。共获得266份答复;202个回答(75.9%)预测正确。学生、实习生、住院医师、教师和护士的预测正确率分别为81.4%、58.3%、83.3%、82.1%和65.5%。在64个错误预测中,43个(67.2%)预测了院内死亡。121例获得APPLEfast评分,正确预测83例(68.6%)。在APPLEfast错误的38例中,有27例(71.1%)是存活出院的狗。APPLEfast平均评分为22.9(±6.2)分。工作人员与APPLEfast评分结果预测准确率无差异(P = 0.13)。经验和情绪评分与预后预测能力均无相关性(P分别为0.55和0.74)。结论:工作人员预测结果的准确性与APPLEfast评分无显著差异,APPLEfast评分采用bbbb25作为预测死亡率的截止点。当预测不正确时,他们通常预测无法存活。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
15.40%
发文量
121
审稿时长
18-36 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care’s primary aim is to advance the international clinical standard of care for emergency/critical care patients of all species. The journal’s content is relevant to specialist and non-specialist veterinarians practicing emergency/critical care medicine. The journal achieves it aims by publishing descriptions of unique presentation or management; retrospective and prospective evaluations of prognosis, novel diagnosis, or therapy; translational basic science studies with clinical relevance; in depth reviews of pertinent topics; topical news and letters; and regular themed issues. The journal is the official publication of the Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care Society, the American College of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care, the European Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care Society, and the European College of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care. It is a bimonthly publication with international impact and adheres to currently accepted ethical standards.
期刊最新文献
Fabio Viganó Jennifer J. Devey Issue Information - Prelim AUTHOR INDEX Abstracts from the International Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care Symposium and the European Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care Annual Congress 2024
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1