Article Sidebar
Published:
Jul 23, 2014Article Details
Copyright of published material remains in the Authors’ name. This allows authors to use their work for their own non-commercial purposes without seeking permission from the Publisher, subject to properly acknowledging the Journal as the original place of publication.
Authors are free to copy, print and distribute their articles, in full or in part, for teaching activities, and to deposit or include their work in their own personal or institutional database or on-line website. Authors are requested to inform the Journal/Publishers of their desire/intention to include their work in a thesis or dissertation or to republish their work in any derivative form (but not for commercial use).
Material submitted for publication in the SAJCC is accepted provided it has not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere. Please inform the editorial team if the main findings of your paper have been presented at a conference and published in abstract form, to avoid copyright infringement.
Main Article Content
Paediatric Index of Mortality scores: An evaluation of function in the paediatric intensive care unit of the Red Cross War Memorial Children’s Hospital
Abstract
intensive care unit populations in the UK, New Zealand, Australia and Europe, but have never been evaluated in the South African context.
Objective. To evaluate the PIM and PIM 2 as mortality risk assessment models.
Method. A retrospective audit of case records and prospectively collected patient data from all admissions to the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) of Red Cross War Memorial Children’s Hospital, Cape Town, during the years 2000 (PIM) and 2006 (PIM 2), excluding premature infants, children who died within 2 hours of admission, or children transferred to other PICUs.
Results. For PIM and PIM 2 there were 128/962 (13.3%) and 123/1113 (11.05%) PICU deaths with expected mean mortality rates of 12.14% and 12.39%, yielding standardised mortality risk ratios (SMRs) of 1.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 - 1.34) and 0.9 (95% CI 0.74 - 1.06), respectively. Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed area under the curve of 0.849 (PIM) and 0.841 (PIM 2). Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit revealed poor calibration for PIM (÷2=19.74; p=0.02) and acceptable calibration for PIM 2 (÷2=10.06; p=0.35). SMR for age and diagnostic subgroups for both scores fell within wide confidence intervals.
Conclusion. Both scores showed good overall discrimination. PIM showed poor calibration. For PIM 2 both discrimination and calibration were comparable to the score derivation units, at the time of data collection for each. Calibration in terms of age and diagnostic categories was not validated by this study.
