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