English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

There is increasing interest in predicting and avoiding cardiac arrest in hospitalized patients. Multiple studies have used vital signs or scores based upon them, such as the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS). Scoring systems that measure supportive care, such as the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and the 28-item Therapeutic Interventions Scoring System (TISS-28) might be superior to systems used in previous studies. This study was performed to determine if a system using SOFA and/or TISS would be superior in detecting clinical deterioration prior to cardiac arrest. Using a retrospective chart review, MEWS, SOFA and TISS-28 scores were calculated for twenty patients at baseline and then in the 24 hours prior to their cardiac arrest. Supportive interventions and nursing care (SOFA and TISS-28) changed more than measures of physiology (MEWS) in the period prior to cardiac arrest, likely due to the fact that vital sign deterioration can be delayed by supportive measures. These results support the idea that a SOFA and/or TISS-28 scoring system might be superior to the MEWS, which could be used to make hospital rapid response teams more effective.

Intervention- versus physiology-based risk assessment scores for predicting cardiac arrest: a pilot study