Skip to main content

Table 4 Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis for “poor recovery”

From: The association of clinical frailty with outcomes of patients reviewed by rapid response teams: an international prospective observational cohort study

Variable Univariable Multivariable
OR 95% CI p value OR 95% CI p value
UK country 0.8 0.6–1.0 0.057 0.8 0.6–1.1 0.151
Age 1.0 1.0–1.1 < 0.001 1.04 1.03–1.05 < 0.001
Male 1.1 0.8–1.4 0.548    
Medical admission 1.4 1.1–1.8 0.013    
Frailty levela       < 0.001
 1–2 Reference    Reference   
 3–4 2.9 2.1–3.9 < 0.001 1.8 1.2–2.5 < 0.001
 5–6 5.1 3.6–7.2 < 0.001 2.2 1.5–3.4 < 0.001
 7–9 9.9 6.2–16.6 < 0.001 5.1 3.1–8.6 < 0.001
Patients per nurseb
 1–4 Reference      
 5–8 1.3 1.0–1.7 0.065    
 9–12 1.3 0.9–1.9 0.142    
  ≥ 13 1.3 0.7–2.4 0.384    
Existing limitation of care 4.5 3.1–6.4 < 0.001 2.0 1.3–3.0 < 0.001
NEWS 1.1 1.0–1.1 < 0.001    
qSOFA score 1.8 1.5–2.1 < 0.001    < 0.001
 1     1.7 1.1–2.4 0.009
 2     2.4 1.6–3.7 < 0.001
 3     4.3 2.1–9.1 < 0.001
Weekend calls 1.0 0.8–1.3 0.861    
Night calls 0.8 0.6–1.1 0.104 0.7 0.5–1.0 0.065
  1. Univariable and multivariable analysis for “poor recovery”. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test suggested a good fit (p = 0.29)
  2. qSOFA quick sequential organ failure assessment, NEWS National Early Warning Score
  3. aFrailty levels were compared for the proportion with 1–2 versus higher levels
  4. bNursing ratios were compared for the proportion with 1–4 patients per nurse versus higher loads