Accuracy and reliability of APACHE II scoring in two intensive care units: Problems and pitfalls in the use of APACHE II and suggestions for improvement

K. H. Polderman, A. R.J. Girbes, L. G. Thijs, R. J.M. Van Strack Schijndel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scoring is widely used as an index of illness severity, for outcome prediction, in research protocols and to assess intensive care unit performance and quality of care. Despite its widespread use, little is known about the reliability and validity of APACHE II scores generated in everyday clinical practice. We retrospectively re-assessed APACHE II scores from the charts of 186 randomly selected patients admitted to our medical and surgical intensive care units. These 'new' scores were compared with the original scores calculated by the attending physician. We found that most scores calculated retrospectively were lower than the original scores; 51% of our patients would have received a lower score, 26% a higher score and only 23% would have remained unchanged. Overall, the original scores changed by an average of 6.4 points. We identified various sources of error and concluded that wide variability exists in APACHE II scoring in everyday clinical practice, with the score being generally overestimated. Accurate use of the APACHE II scoring system requires adherence to strict guidelines and regular training of medical staff using the system.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)47-50
Number of pages4
JournalAnaesthesia
Volume56
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 13 Feb 2001

Cite this

@article{ef8e0f32bcad44e7990cdcf7bc6bca8c,
title = "Accuracy and reliability of APACHE II scoring in two intensive care units: Problems and pitfalls in the use of APACHE II and suggestions for improvement",
abstract = "Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scoring is widely used as an index of illness severity, for outcome prediction, in research protocols and to assess intensive care unit performance and quality of care. Despite its widespread use, little is known about the reliability and validity of APACHE II scores generated in everyday clinical practice. We retrospectively re-assessed APACHE II scores from the charts of 186 randomly selected patients admitted to our medical and surgical intensive care units. These 'new' scores were compared with the original scores calculated by the attending physician. We found that most scores calculated retrospectively were lower than the original scores; 51{\%} of our patients would have received a lower score, 26{\%} a higher score and only 23{\%} would have remained unchanged. Overall, the original scores changed by an average of 6.4 points. We identified various sources of error and concluded that wide variability exists in APACHE II scoring in everyday clinical practice, with the score being generally overestimated. Accurate use of the APACHE II scoring system requires adherence to strict guidelines and regular training of medical staff using the system.",
keywords = "Intensive therapy: APACHE II score",
author = "Polderman, {K. H.} and Girbes, {A. R.J.} and Thijs, {L. G.} and {Van Strack Schijndel}, {R. J.M.}",
year = "2001",
month = "2",
day = "13",
doi = "10.1046/j.1365-2044.2001.01763.x",
language = "English",
volume = "56",
pages = "47--50",
journal = "Anaesthesia",
issn = "0003-2409",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

Accuracy and reliability of APACHE II scoring in two intensive care units : Problems and pitfalls in the use of APACHE II and suggestions for improvement. / Polderman, K. H.; Girbes, A. R.J.; Thijs, L. G.; Van Strack Schijndel, R. J.M.

In: Anaesthesia, Vol. 56, No. 1, 13.02.2001, p. 47-50.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Accuracy and reliability of APACHE II scoring in two intensive care units

T2 - Problems and pitfalls in the use of APACHE II and suggestions for improvement

AU - Polderman, K. H.

AU - Girbes, A. R.J.

AU - Thijs, L. G.

AU - Van Strack Schijndel, R. J.M.

PY - 2001/2/13

Y1 - 2001/2/13

N2 - Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scoring is widely used as an index of illness severity, for outcome prediction, in research protocols and to assess intensive care unit performance and quality of care. Despite its widespread use, little is known about the reliability and validity of APACHE II scores generated in everyday clinical practice. We retrospectively re-assessed APACHE II scores from the charts of 186 randomly selected patients admitted to our medical and surgical intensive care units. These 'new' scores were compared with the original scores calculated by the attending physician. We found that most scores calculated retrospectively were lower than the original scores; 51% of our patients would have received a lower score, 26% a higher score and only 23% would have remained unchanged. Overall, the original scores changed by an average of 6.4 points. We identified various sources of error and concluded that wide variability exists in APACHE II scoring in everyday clinical practice, with the score being generally overestimated. Accurate use of the APACHE II scoring system requires adherence to strict guidelines and regular training of medical staff using the system.

AB - Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scoring is widely used as an index of illness severity, for outcome prediction, in research protocols and to assess intensive care unit performance and quality of care. Despite its widespread use, little is known about the reliability and validity of APACHE II scores generated in everyday clinical practice. We retrospectively re-assessed APACHE II scores from the charts of 186 randomly selected patients admitted to our medical and surgical intensive care units. These 'new' scores were compared with the original scores calculated by the attending physician. We found that most scores calculated retrospectively were lower than the original scores; 51% of our patients would have received a lower score, 26% a higher score and only 23% would have remained unchanged. Overall, the original scores changed by an average of 6.4 points. We identified various sources of error and concluded that wide variability exists in APACHE II scoring in everyday clinical practice, with the score being generally overestimated. Accurate use of the APACHE II scoring system requires adherence to strict guidelines and regular training of medical staff using the system.

KW - Intensive therapy: APACHE II score

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035145324&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1046/j.1365-2044.2001.01763.x

DO - 10.1046/j.1365-2044.2001.01763.x

M3 - Article

VL - 56

SP - 47

EP - 50

JO - Anaesthesia

JF - Anaesthesia

SN - 0003-2409

IS - 1

ER -