In previous research [18,27,34,35] we found that specific blood biomarkers (i.e. proADM) have very high prognostic accuracy in the range of

clinical risk learn more scores, and that this is true across different medical conditions. However, other “baseline” factors, such as age and comorbidities are likely providing prognostic information beyond that of blood markers. Thus, it Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical is a promising approach to combine these factors in a combined risk model. Our model 3 (post-acute care needs) will focus on care needs in patients after hospital discharge. The PACD score was developed for this purpose. However, the PACD focuses mainly on care needs of patients prior to hospital admission and availability of help in the home setting, but not as much on the current medical situation. It is therefore possible that addition of parameters reflecting the severity of disease (vital signs, blood markers) or the nutritional condition (blood markers) further improves its accuracy. We will therefore start with the PACD and investigate whether addition Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical of other parameters significantly improves its accuracy as outlined above. We aim to include a total of at least 5000 patients over the course of 12 months, with expected rates for high treatment priority of 20% (n=1000), for adverse outcomes of 10% (n=500) and for post-acute

care needs of 20% (n=1000). This will provide 50–100 degrees of freedom for each model (with 10 cases in the data set per degree of freedom in the statistical model), and thus high power for the Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical calculation of the main multivariate models overall, in pre-defined subgroups and after inclusion of interaction terms. Discussion Potential limitations and bias Treatment priority as adjudicated by the attending physicians at ED discharge is not a “hard” endpoint and may be subject to variation due to different levels of experience of physicians. Nevertheless, we have developed Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical guidelines

(Figure  2) that will help to standardize adjudication based on previous research in this field [37]. In addition, we will also look at other more objective endpoints (i.e. mortality, ICU admission, LOS). We will also collect information about physicians (years of experience, and age, baseline “opinion” about risk scoring) and will thus be able to adjust the analysis accordingly. Also, physicians and nurses will not be blinded to the MTS, PACD and the risk assessment overall and thus may adapt their priority recommendation accordingly. This may overestimate the performance of the triage scoring systems. In terms of other blood markers and clinical parameters to improve the MTS, this bias will be minimal. Within this observational quality control project, we will not be able to demonstrate whether improved triage of patients translates into better management and improved outcomes; for this reason, we plan a second randomized controlled trial.