Predicting transfers to intensive care in children using CEWT and other early warning systems

Abstract

Background and ObjectiveThe Children’s Early Warning Tool (CEWT), developed in Australia, is widely used in many countries to monitor the risk of deterioration in hospitalized children. Our objective was to compare CEWT prediction performance against a version of the Bedside Pediatric Early Warning Score (Bedside PEWS), Between the Flags (BTF), and the pediatric Calculated Assessment of Risk and Triage (pCART). MethodsWe conducted a retrospective observational study of all patient admissions to the Comer Children’s Hospital at the University of Chicago between 2009–2019. We compared performance for predicting the primary outcome of a direct ward-to-intensive care unit (ICU) transfer within the next 12 h using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Alert rates at various score thresholds were also compared. ResultsOf 50,815 ward admissions, 1,874 (3.7%) experienced the primary outcome. Among patients in Cohort 1 (years 2009–2017, on which the machine learning-based pCART was trained), CEWT performed slightly worse than Bedside PEWS but better than BTF (CEWT AUC 0.74 vs. Bedside PEWS 0.76, P < 0.001; vs. BTF 0.66, P < 0.001), while pCART performed best for patients in Cohort 2 (years 2018–2019, pCART AUC 0.84 vs. CEWT AUC 0.79, P < 0.001; vs. BTF AUC 0.67, P < 0.001; vs. Bedside PEWS 0.80, P < 0.001). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values varied across all four tools at the examined thresholds for alerts. ConclusionCEWT has good discrimination for predicting which patients will likely be transferred to the ICU, while pCART performed the best.