Clinical DeteriorationCDEWSNCT06499376
Clinical Deterioration Early Warning System Score
An observational study of Clinical Deterioration, run by Hospital Galdakao-Usansolo at 1 site in Spain.
Trial summary
At present, there is no universal early warning system implemented in all Basque hospitals, but there are previous experiences, sometimes based on models generated in other health systems. In this project we intend to provide a robust model, based on the analysis of patient data from three Basque hospitals, i.e. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Clinical Deterioration
- How many people
- 20,000 participants
- Where
- 1 siteSpain
- Study dates
- 1 Aug 2019to 15 Jan 2022
- How long will I take part?
- 30 Days
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: Medical and surgical services of the Galdakao-Usansolo Hospital (HGU), Donostia University Hospital (HUD) and Alava University Hospital (HUA). The HGU alone deals with 28592 admissions per year, of which 1088 are admitted to the intensive care unit.
Who may be able to join
- patients over 18 years of age hospitalised on conventional hospital wards, in medical and surgical departments or awaiting a bed during their stay in the emergency department.
Who cannot join
- patients with a poor prognosis for life and a DNR order.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Development, Implementation and Validation of an Early Warning System for Clinical Deterioration in Hospitalised Patients
At present, there is no universal early warning system implemented in all Basque hospitals, but there are previous experiences, sometimes based on models generated in other health systems. In this project we intend to provide a robust model, based on the analysis of patient data from three Basque hospitals, i.e. generated in our population.
A three-phase study has been designed:
Read more
- st phase: Derivation of the predictive model by means of a reprospective cohort study in which patients hospitalised at the Galdakao-Usansolo Hospital, Donostia University Hospital and Araba University Hospital will be recruited.
- nd phase: Creation of an alarm system based on the probability of risk of clinical deterioration and implementation of the system in the electronic medical record (EHR) of the HGU, in the form of an "Action Guide".
- rd phase: The model will be validated by comparing the percentages of clinical deterioration by means of a quasi-experimental intervention study, comparing the results of the HGU hospital where the system will be implemented, before and after the intervention and, on the other hand, with those of Hospital Universitario Donostia (HUD) and Hospital Universitario de Araba (HUA), where normal clinical practice will be followed, with an early warning system based on vital signs in HUD and clinical criteria in HUA.
Sociodemographic and clinical variables will be collected (patient's condition on arrival on the ward, main diagnosis, comorbidities, prescribed treatments and procedures performed during hospitalisation and prior to the onset of deterioration) and laboratory parameters.
This information will be extracted from the osabide global data exploitation system, Oracle Business Intelligence, and the laboratory data will be extracted from the information systems of the clinical laboratories of the participating centres.
Logistic regression models will be created with the dependent variable being clinical deterioration (cardiorespiratory arrest, death, admission to intensive care units) on a database of 10000 hospitalised patients. For external validation, at least 8000 admissions will be prospectively evaluated and multilevel modelling will be performed to see the influence of centre membership on the outcome variable. Confounding will be controlled for using propensity-score techniques.
Read the detailed description
Phase 1. Derivation of the predictive model Data from patients admitted to the participating centres during 2017 will be extracted from the OBI electronic medical record and the laboratory data management system. The data analyst contracted in this project, together with clinical collaborators, from the health management unit and the research unit, will be responsible for cleaning and cleaning the data and for the generation and internal validation of the predictive model.
Phase 2: Implementation in the electronic medical record: Once the model and the risk scale have been generated, it will be implemented as an alarm system in Osabide Global in the participating centres. To this end, an action guide will be created by the HGU's UGS, which, once validated, will then be exported to the other two centres. The system will operate on the basis of the RIC elements associated with vital signs, and will guide professionals through the process, so that the physician will be shown the analytical data that have been shown to be necessary to calculate the risk, or in the event that the patient has not been asked for that specific laboratory test, recommendations for extraction. Once the system has all the data, a warning will pop up on the screen with the results of the risk scale and the mild-moderate-severe risk category and a report with recommendations for action.Recommendations based on the ViEWS scale, from the physician informing the nurse in charge at the start of continuous monitoring and visit in less than 15 minutes by the responsible attending physician who will also inform the ICU physician to the transfer of the patient to a unit where he/she will be monitored and acted upon, are given in annex 1. The alarm system will be presented in the HGU by the clinical collaborators, GSU and data analyst. The data analyst will be, together with the co-researchers, the person in charge of generating the alarm system, of participating in the meetings in which it is presented in the centres and subsequently, will carry out a constant exploration of the use and adherence of the risk scale, will collect doubts and problems that may arise from the implementation of the system, and will also be responsible for the implementation of the risk scale.
Phase 3: External validation of the predictive model. Comparison of clinical outcomes: The predictive model will be validated once 100 events per centre have occurred (hopefully once about 8000 patients have been admitted). During this time, data will be collected during and after implementation in order to compare clinical deteriorations observed before and after implementation. The data analyst will be extracting the information, sorting and cleaning it in order to be able to carry out the corresponding statistical analyses later on.
STATISTICAL ANALSIS
The data processing procedure of the present project will be established following the following steps, divided into two sections:
- Development and validation of predictive models of clinical deterioration, transfer to the critical care unit, cardiorespiratory arrest or death during hospitalisation.
Descriptive analysis of the model derivation/internal validation cohort consisting of patients from the three participating centres of the retrospective cohort. Information on losses in the variables recorded in the study will be collected. Information on excluded patients will also be collected. The possibility of applying imputation techniques to the missing data in the variables recorded will be assessed.
2.- The following points will be followed for the creation of the predictive models: a. The sample collected shall be divided into two subsamples: Derivation group 1: The total sample will be divided into 60% for the derivation of the predictive models for the main outcome variable - clinical deterioration; Group 2 of validation of the predictive rules: the models will be validated in this sample (40% of the sample). Analyses will also be performed disaggregated by gender. b. In Group 1, risk factors for clinical deterioration will be identified, as well as for transfer to the critical care unit, cardiorespiratory arrest or death during hospitalisation. A bivariate analysis will be performed to study which of the possible predictor variables are related to each outcome parameter. Those variables with a p-value <0.20 will be identified as potential predictors to be entered into a multilevel multivariate logistic regression model. Those variables that are statistically significant will be chosen for the final scale. The categories of variables in this model will be assigned a score in relation to the parameter β obtained in that multivariate model. In this way, a total score and an ROC curve will be obtained for it. From this scale, X risk categories will be created.
3.- Goodness of fit and comparison of the predictive models developed. Parameters will be found to evaluate the discriminative and calibration capacity of the predictive models developed in section 2. On the one hand, in the case of dichotomous dependent variables, the area under the ROC curve (AUC, discriminative capacity) will be calculated, considering a value >0.80 to be a robust predictive model. In addition to the AUC, the calibration of the model will be estimated through the Hosmer-Lemeshow test (good calibration for a p-value ≥0.05).
4.- Internal validation of the predictive models The validation of the predictive model will be carried out in validation group 2. The predictive model and the scale will be validated in this group by musing the predicted values obtained in the derivation sample (group 1). Sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve will be obtained by comparing them with the results obtained in the derivation sample. The calibration capability of the models will be assessed by the Hosmer-Lemeshow test and the discrimination capability by ROC curves. As a form of additional internal validation, a validation by bootstrapping methods will be performed.
5.-External validation of predictive models External validation of the models developed in the retrospective cohort will be applied to the prospective cohort. The linear predictor (LP) will first be found in the remaining cohorts by considering the regression coefficients obtained in the original models. Logistic regression models will be developed. Three main procedures will be considered for the external validation of these models: model fit, discrimination and calibration. First, to verify model fit, we will develop a logistic regression model on the remaining cohorts, considering LP as a covariate to estimate its beta regression coefficient. If the beta regression coefficient of the slope is 1, it will be considered a good fit.Secondly, to assess the discrimination of the model, the AUC will be calculated, by bootstrapping and cross-validation methods. An AUC value >0.80 will be considered a robust predictive model. Thirdly, the calibration will be evaluated by calculating the overall calibration, the calibration slope (both derived from the calibration plots) and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test.
- Evaluation of the EWS for clinical impairment 6.- Comparison of results: For the comparison of results after the implementation of the alarm system, a comparison will be made of percentages of patients suffering clinical deterioration before and after its implementation the HGU and also between the percentages appearing in the HGU, where the alarm system will be implemented and the HUDs and HUAs where they will continue with their usual practice during this evaluation period. In order to evaluate the possibility of bias occurring when forming the cohorts, a propensity score will be calculated to explain the probability of being assigned to one (HGU patients) or the other cohort (HUD+HUA) conditional on the independent variables observed and explained in the section "Exposure variables". This propensity score will be entered as an independent variable in a replication of the final models together with exposure and the coefficients obtained in both cases will be compared.
- Conditions
- Clinical Deterioration
- Keywords
- Early warning system, clinical deterioration
- Medical subject headings
- Clinical Deterioration
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| PATIENTS ADMITTED IN THE HOSPITAL IN 2019 | Inclusion criteria: patients over 18 years of age hospitalised on conventional hospital wards, in medical and surgical departments or awaiting a bed during their stay in the emergency department. Exclusion criteria: patients with poor vital prognosis and DNR orders. | |
| PATIENTS ADMITTED IN THE HOSPITAL IN 2021 | Inclusion criteria: patients over 18 years of age hospitalised on conventional hospital wards, in medical and surgical departments or awaiting a bed during their stay in the emergency department. Exclusion criteria: patients with poor vital prognosis and DNR orders. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Clinical deterioration
death in admission or length of stay more than 12 hours in intensive or intermediary care unit (ICU).
Measured: at least 24 hours after admission
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted12 Jul 2024
- Study start1 Aug 2019
- Primary completion31 Dec 2021
- Study completion15 Jan 2022
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Clinical DeteriorationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Other
- Enrolment
- 20,000 participants (actual)
- Target duration
- 30 Days
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Hospital Galdakao-Usansolo
- Sponsor type
- Other government
- Collaborators
- Biosistemak Institute for Health Systems Research, Biobizkaia Health Research Institute
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Susana García Gutiérrez, Hospital Galdakao-Usansolo
- Investigators
- Naia Mas, PhD, Principal investigator, Hospital Galdakao-Usansolo
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06499376
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- PI2019030
- Acronym
- CDEWS
- Status last verified
- Jul 2024
- First submitted
- 26 Jun 2024
- Last updated
- 12 Jul 2024
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 12 Jul 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Development, Implementation and Validation of an Early Warning System for Clinical Deterioration in Hospitalised Patients
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06499376
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- CDEWS / PI2019030
- Conditions
- Clinical Deterioration
- Keywords
- Early warning system, clinical deterioration
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 20,000 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Hospital Galdakao-UsansoloOther government
- Collaborators
- Biosistemak Institute for Health Systems Research, Biobizkaia Health Research Institute
- Study start
- 1 Aug 2019 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Dec 2021 (actual)
- Study completion
- 15 Jan 2022 (actual)
- First posted
- 12 Jul 2024 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
At present, there is no universal early warning system implemented in all Basque hospitals, but there are previous experiences, sometimes based on models generated in other health systems. In this project we intend to provide a robust model, based on the analysis of patient data from three Basque hospitals, i.e. generated in our population.
A three-phase study has been designed:
- st phase: Derivation of the predictive model by means of a reprospective cohort study in which patients hospitalised at the Galdakao-Usansolo Hospital, Donostia University Hospital and Araba University Hospital will be recruited.
- nd phase: Creation of an alarm system based on the probability of risk of clinical deterioration and implementation of the system in the electronic medical record (EHR) of the HGU, in the form of an "Action Guide".
- rd phase: The model will be validated by comparing the percentages of clinical deterioration by means of a quasi-experimental intervention study, comparing the results of the HGU hospital where the system will be implemented, before and after the intervention and, on the other hand, with those of Hospital Universitario Donostia (HUD) and Hospital Universitario de Araba (HUA), where normal clinical practice will be followed, with an early warning system based on vital signs in HUD and clinical criteria in HUA.
Sociodemographic and clinical variables will be collected (patient's condition on arrival on the ward, main diagnosis, comorbidities, prescribed treatments and procedures performed during hospitalisation and prior to the onset of deterioration) and laboratory parameters.
This information will be extracted from the osabide global data exploitation system, Oracle Business Intelligence, and the laboratory data will be extracted from the information systems of the clinical laboratories of the participating centres.
Logistic regression models will be created with the dependent variable being clinical deterioration (cardiorespiratory arrest, death, admission to intensive care units) on a database of 10000 hospitalised patients. For external validation, at least 8000 admissions will be prospectively evaluated and multilevel modelling will be performed to see the influence of centre membership on the outcome variable. Confounding will be controlled for using propensity-score techniques.
Detailed description
Phase 1. Derivation of the predictive model Data from patients admitted to the participating centres during 2017 will be extracted from the OBI electronic medical record and the laboratory data management system. The data analyst contracted in this project, together with clinical collaborators, from the health management unit and the research unit, will be responsible for cleaning and cleaning the data and for the generation and internal validation of the predictive model.
Phase 2: Implementation in the electronic medical record: Once the model and the risk scale have been generated, it will be implemented as an alarm system in Osabide Global in the participating centres. To this end, an action guide will be created by the HGU's UGS, which, once validated, will then be exported to the other two centres. The system will operate on the basis of the RIC elements associated with vital signs, and will guide professionals through the process, so that the physician will be shown the analytical data that have been shown to be necessary to calculate the risk, or in the event that the patient has not been asked for that specific laboratory test, recommendations for extraction. Once the system has all the data, a warning will pop up on the screen with the results of the risk scale and the mild-moderate-severe risk category and a report with recommendations for action.Recommendations based on the ViEWS scale, from the physician informing the nurse in charge at the start of continuous monitoring and visit in less than 15 minutes by the responsible attending physician who will also inform the ICU physician to the transfer of the patient to a unit where he/she will be monitored and acted upon, are given in annex 1. The alarm system will be presented in the HGU by the clinical collaborators, GSU and data analyst. The data analyst will be, together with the co-researchers, the person in charge of generating the alarm system, of participating in the meetings in which it is presented in the centres and subsequently, will carry out a constant exploration of the use and adherence of the risk scale, will collect doubts and problems that may arise from the implementation of the system, and will also be responsible for the implementation of the risk scale.
Phase 3: External validation of the predictive model. Comparison of clinical outcomes: The predictive model will be validated once 100 events per centre have occurred (hopefully once about 8000 patients have been admitted). During this time, data will be collected during and after implementation in order to compare clinical deteriorations observed before and after implementation. The data analyst will be extracting the information, sorting and cleaning it in order to be able to carry out the corresponding statistical analyses later on.
STATISTICAL ANALSIS
The data processing procedure of the present project will be established following the following steps, divided into two sections:
- Development and validation of predictive models of clinical deterioration, transfer to the critical care unit, cardiorespiratory arrest or death during hospitalisation.
Descriptive analysis of the model derivation/internal validation cohort consisting of patients from the three participating centres of the retrospective cohort. Information on losses in the variables recorded in the study will be collected. Information on excluded patients will also be collected. The possibility of applying imputation techniques to the missing data in the variables recorded will be assessed.
2.- The following points will be followed for the creation of the predictive models: a. The sample collected shall be divided into two subsamples: Derivation group 1: The total sample will be divided into 60% for the derivation of the predictive models for the main outcome variable - clinical deterioration; Group 2 of validation of the predictive rules: the models will be validated in this sample (40% of the sample). Analyses will also be performed disaggregated by gender. b. In Group 1, risk factors for clinical deterioration will be identified, as well as for transfer to the critical care unit, cardiorespiratory arrest or death during hospitalisation. A bivariate analysis will be performed to study which of the possible predictor variables are related to each outcome parameter. Those variables with a p-value <0.20 will be identified as potential predictors to be entered into a multilevel multivariate logistic regression model. Those variables that are statistically significant will be chosen for the final scale. The categories of variables in this model will be assigned a score in relation to the parameter β obtained in that multivariate model. In this way, a total score and an ROC curve will be obtained for it. From this scale, X risk categories will be created.
3.- Goodness of fit and comparison of the predictive models developed. Parameters will be found to evaluate the discriminative and calibration capacity of the predictive models developed in section 2. On the one hand, in the case of dichotomous dependent variables, the area under the ROC curve (AUC, discriminative capacity) will be calculated, considering a value >0.80 to be a robust predictive model. In addition to the AUC, the calibration of the model will be estimated through the Hosmer-Lemeshow test (good calibration for a p-value ≥0.05).
4.- Internal validation of the predictive models The validation of the predictive model will be carried out in validation group 2. The predictive model and the scale will be validated in this group by musing the predicted values obtained in the derivation sample (group 1). Sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve will be obtained by comparing them with the results obtained in the derivation sample. The calibration capability of the models will be assessed by the Hosmer-Lemeshow test and the discrimination capability by ROC curves. As a form of additional internal validation, a validation by bootstrapping methods will be performed.
5.-External validation of predictive models External validation of the models developed in the retrospective cohort will be applied to the prospective cohort. The linear predictor (LP) will first be found in the remaining cohorts by considering the regression coefficients obtained in the original models. Logistic regression models will be developed. Three main procedures will be considered for the external validation of these models: model fit, discrimination and calibration. First, to verify model fit, we will develop a logistic regression model on the remaining cohorts, considering LP as a covariate to estimate its beta regression coefficient. If the beta regression coefficient of the slope is 1, it will be considered a good fit.Secondly, to assess the discrimination of the model, the AUC will be calculated, by bootstrapping and cross-validation methods. An AUC value >0.80 will be considered a robust predictive model. Thirdly, the calibration will be evaluated by calculating the overall calibration, the calibration slope (both derived from the calibration plots) and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test.
- Evaluation of the EWS for clinical impairment 6.- Comparison of results: For the comparison of results after the implementation of the alarm system, a comparison will be made of percentages of patients suffering clinical deterioration before and after its implementation the HGU and also between the percentages appearing in the HGU, where the alarm system will be implemented and the HUDs and HUAs where they will continue with their usual practice during this evaluation period. In order to evaluate the possibility of bias occurring when forming the cohorts, a propensity score will be calculated to explain the probability of being assigned to one (HGU patients) or the other cohort (HUD+HUA) conditional on the independent variables observed and explained in the section "Exposure variables". This propensity score will be entered as an independent variable in a replication of the final models together with exposure and the coefficients obtained in both cases will be compared.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Other
- Target follow-up
- 30 Days
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| PATIENTS ADMITTED IN THE HOSPITAL IN 2019 | – | –Inclusion criteria: patients over 18 years of age hospitalised on conventional hospital wards, in medical and surgical departments or awaiting a bed during their stay in the emergency department. Exclusion criteria: patients with poor vital prognosis and DNR orders. |
| PATIENTS ADMITTED IN THE HOSPITAL IN 2021 | – | –Inclusion criteria: patients over 18 years of age hospitalised on conventional hospital wards, in medical and surgical departments or awaiting a bed during their stay in the emergency department. Exclusion criteria: patients with poor vital prognosis and DNR orders. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Medical and surgical services of the Galdakao-Usansolo Hospital (HGU), Donostia University Hospital (HUD) and Alava University Hospital (HUA). The HGU alone deals with 28592 admissions per year, of which 1088 are admitted to the intensive care unit.
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- patients over 18 years of age hospitalised on conventional hospital wards, in medical and surgical departments or awaiting a bed during their stay in the emergency department.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- patients with a poor prognosis for life and a DNR order.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
Clinical deterioration
Time frame: at least 24 hours after admission
death in admission or length of stay more than 12 hours in intensive or intermediary care unit (ICU).
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 12 Jul 2024.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for Clinical Deterioration
Recruiting
The Orientation Intervention to Rapid Response Teams (ORIENT-RRT) Study: A Quasi-Experimental Study
Deterioration, Clinical
Not yet recruiting
MAGICS - Multi-Agent Generative AI in Clinical Simulation for Clinical Deterioration Training
Clinical Reasoning in Nursing Education, Virtual Simulation
RecruitingObservational study
The ReTAVI Prospective Observational Registry
Structural Valve Deterioration, Structural Valve Degeneration
RecruitingObservational study
Repeated Examinations for Typing Pulmonary Embolism
Pulmonary Embolism (Diagnosis), Pulmonary Embolism Acute
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Development and Internal Validation of a Multimodal Prediction Score for Early Hemodynamic Deterioration in Adult Polytrauma Patients
Multiple Trauma, Polytrauma
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Naia Mas, PhD principal investigator
Hospital Galdakao-Usansolo
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Clinical Deterioration, run by Hospital Galdakao-Usansolo at 1 site in Spain.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 12 Jul 2024. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Spain. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Clinical deterioration (time frame: at least 24 hours after admission). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 12 Jul 2024.