E care unit (ICU) individuals. Over the last decade there has been a move towards

E care unit (ICU) individuals. Over the last decade there has been a move towards transportation of kids to regional ICUs utilising specialised retrieval teams. The effect of this around the validity of normally utilised BFH772 scoring systems is unknown. Method: Data were prospectively collected on all young children retrieved by two teaching hospitals within the South-East of England more than a 21-month period (December 1997 eptember 1999). Three scoring systems had been compared: (1) PIM, a point of care score encompassing eight variables from time of 1st patient speak to by the retrieval team up till 1 hour just after physical ICU admission; (two) PRISM II, a physiological based technique incorporating 14 variables over the first 24 hours of physical ICU admission; and (three) pre-ICU PRISM, which contains variables collected as much as 24 hours just before and soon after ICU admission. Results: Information have been readily available on 929 retrieved patients (hospital A 593, B 336). The median (interquartile) age was 15 monthsTable Pre-ICU PRISM Median threat (interquartile) AUC (95 CI) SMR (95 CI) Hosmer emeshow 2 six.1 (2.9?7.5) 0.83 (0.78?.89) 0.54 (0.41?.67) 59.4 < 0.0001 PIM 6.9 (4.1?2.6) 0.86 (0.81?.91) 0.68 (0.52?.84) 20.6 0.008 PRISM II 3.3 (1.4?0.8) 0.86 (0.81?.92) 0.71 (0.53?.89) 14.2 0.(3?4), with a crude mortality of 7.8 (72/929). Seventy-six percent were mechanically ventilated. Accurate data collection was verified by an intraclass correlation coefficient of > 0.80 on all scoring systems for 50 randomly selected individuals.Illness categories differed in between the two hospitals, with a getting a larger proportion of respiratory and cardiac illness, and B a higher degree of sepsis (P = 0.002). Distribution of patients across mortality risk bands (< 1 , 1? , 5?5 , 15?0 , > 30 ) was related in between hospital A and B making use of PRISM II (P = 0.27) and pre-ICU PRISM (P = 0.82), but not with PIM (P = 0.006).Conclusion: All 3 scoring systems create acceptable discrimination. PRISM II seems to be best calibrated. PIM however, is easiest to collect, and with recalibration may possibly represent a additional eye-catching alternative.Hosmer emeshow PAUC = location beneath receiver operating characteristic curve; SMR = standardised mortality ratio.P232 Comparison of three scoring systems for mortality risk assessment among retrieved young children with meningococcal sepsisSM Tibby*, M Festa*, M Hatherill*, G Jones*, P Habibi, IA Murdoch* *Guy’s Hospital, London SE1 9RT, UK: St Mary’s Hospital, London W2 1PG, UK Objective: Scoring systems assess mortality danger following intensive care unit (ICU) admission. They might also be utilised as risk stratification tools, each to assess PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20727129 severity of illness involving ICUs, and as a screening tool to choose sufferers who may benefit from novel therapies. The latter is particularly relevant to meningococcal sepsis (MNS), as mortality is highest within this condition within the 1st 24 hours. With the advent of paediatric retrieval teams, ICU care now basically starts with the arrival in the team, before physical admission of your patient towards the ICU. The impact of this practice on mortality risk assessment in MNS is unknown. Method: Data were prospectively collected on all kids with MNS retrieved by two teaching hospitals in the South-East of England over a 21-month period (December 1997 eptember 1999). Three scoring systems had been compared: PIM, a point of care score encompassing eight variables from time of 1st patient speak to by the retrieval team up until 1 hour right after physical ICU admission; PRISM II, a p.