Early recognition of critically ill patients is of paramount importance to reduce pediatric mortality and morbidity. We created a risk stratification system combining vital parameters and predefined risk factors aimed at reducing the risk of unrecognized clinical deterioration compared with conventional Pediatric Early Warning Systems (PEWS). This single-center retrospective case cohort study included infants (gestational age ≥ 37 weeks) to adolescents (aged <18 years) with unplanned pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) admission between April 01, 2014, and February 28, 2018. The sensitivity in the 24 h prior to endpoint of the Pediatric Risk Evaluation and Stratification System (PRESS) was compared with that of the conventional PEWS and calculated as the proportion of study patients who received a high-risk score. Seventy-four PICU admissions were included. PRESS and PEWS sensitivities at 2 h prior to endpoint were 0.70 (95%CI 0.59 to 0.80) and 0.30 (95%CI 0.20 to 0.42) respectively (p < 0.001). Excluding patients with seizures, PRESS sensitivity increased to 0.75 (95%CI 0.64 to 0.85). Forty-nine patients (66%) scored positive on at least one high-risk factor, and “worried sign” was scored in 31 patients (42%).Conclusion: Risk stratification seems advantageous for a faster detection of clinical deterioration, providing opportunity for earlier intervention. What is Known: • Prompt detection of clinical deterioration is of essential importance to reduce morbidity and mortality. • Conventional Pediatric Early Warning Systems (PEWS) have limited sensitivity and a short window of detection of 1 to 2 h. What is New: • Risk stratification based on context factors allows earlier identification of patients at risk, well before deviation of vital signs. • Risk stratification combined with continuous monitoring of deteriorating trends in vital signs could lead to the development of next-generation warning systems achieving true patient safety. Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00431-019-03446-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Residents need to be trained across the boundaries of their own specialty to prepare them for collaborative practice. Intraprofessional learning (i.e. between individuals of different disciplines within the same profession) has received little attention in the postgraduate medical education literature, in contrast to the extensive literature on interprofessional learning between individuals of different professions. To address this gap, we performed a scoping review to investigate what and how residents learn from workplace-related intraprofessional activities, and what factors influence learning. Methods The PRISMA guidelines were used to conduct a scoping review of empirical studies on intraprofessional workplace learning in postgraduate medical education published between 1 January 2000 to 16 April 2020 in Pubmed, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC and Web of Science. This study applied ‘best fit’ framework-based synthesis to map the existing evidence, using the presage-process-product (3P) model developed by Tynjälä (2013). Results Four thousand three hundred thirty records were screened, and 37 articles were included. This review identified influencing (presage) factors that derived from the sociocultural environment, learner and learning context. Studies described that complexity of care can both facilitate and hinder learning. Furthermore, intraprofessional learning is threatened by professional stereotyping and negative perceptions, and awareness of learning opportunities and explicit reflection are critical in intraprofessional workplace learning. Studies described a range of informal and formal intraprofessional activities (process) under the headings of collaboration in clinical practice, rotations or placements, formal educational sessions and simulated workplace training. In general, learners responded well and their attitudes and perceptions improved, learners reported increased knowledge and skills and positive behavioural changes (product). Learning outcomes were reported in the domains of patient-centred care, collaborative attitudes and respect, mutual knowledge and understanding, collaborative decision making, communication, leadership, teamwork and reflexivity. Conclusions This review gives insight into the high learning potential of intraprofessional activities. Many of the included studies relied on self-reported perceptions of change, therefore, future research should focus on generating more robust evidence including objectively examined outcome measures. This review offers a comprehensive overview of the factors that influence intraprofessional workplace learning in postgraduate medical education. Finally, we provide recommendations for enhancing intraprofessional learning in clinical practice.