Standardization of severe sepsis management: a survey of methodologies in academic and community settings

Inside help: An integrative review of champions in healthcare-related implementation

Background/aims:

The idea that champions are crucial to effective healthcare-related implementation has gained broad acceptance; yet the champion construct has been hampered by inconsistent use across the published literature. This integrative review sought to establish the current state of the literature on champions in healthcare settings and bring greater clarity to this important construct.

Methods:

This integrative review was limited to research articles in peer-reviewed, English-language journals published from 1980 to 2016. Searches were conducted on the online MEDLINE database via OVID and PubMed using the keyword “champion.” Several additional terms often describe champions and were also included as keywords: implementation leader, opinion leader, facilitator, and change agent. Bibliographies of full-text articles that met inclusion criteria were reviewed for additional references not yet identified via the main strategy of conducting keyword searches in MEDLINE. A five-member team abstracted all full-text articles meeting inclusion criteria.

Results:

The final dataset for the integrative review consisted of 199 unique articles. Use of the term champion varied widely across the articles with respect to topic, specific job positions, or broader organizational roles. The most common method for operationalizing champion for purposes of analysis was the use of a dichotomous variable designating champion presence or absence. Four studies randomly allocated of the presence or absence of champions.

Conclusions:

The number of published champion-related articles has markedly increased: more articles were published during the last two years of this review (i.e. 2015–2016) than during its first 30 years (i.e. 1980–2009).

The number of champion-related articles has continued to increase sharply since the year 2000. Individual studies consistently found that champions were important positive influences on implementation effectiveness. Although few in number, the randomized trials of champions that have been conducted demonstrate the feasibility of using experimental design to study the effects of champions in healthcare.

Implementation of modified early-goal directed therapy for sepsis in the emergency center of a comprehensive cancer center

PURPOSE

The investigation examines the impact of a standardized sepsis order set and algorithm utilizing non-invasive monitoring for early-goal directed therapy (EGDT) in an emergency center setting on the clinical outcomes of sepsis in cancer patients.

METHODS

Single-center, retrospective study comparing clinical outcomes of sepsis before and after routine usage of a standardized order set and algorithm for non-invasive elements of EGDT for sepsis in an emergency center of a comprehensive cancer center. The outcomes measures evaluated were 28-day in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit length of stay, hospital length of stay, goal mean arterial pressure and urine output within the first 6 h of treatment, time to measurement of lactic acid, and appropriateness and timeliness of initial antibiotic therapy.

RESULTS

The 28-day in-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the post-intervention group compared to the pre-intervention group (20 vs. 38%, p = 0.005). The percentages of patients who reached their goal mean arterial pressure (74 vs. 90%, p = 0.004) and goal urine output (79 vs. 96%, p = 0.002) during the first 6 h of treatment were higher the after than the before group. No significant differences were detected in the rest of the outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a standardized sepsis order set and algorithm to improve compliance with the non-invasive elements of EGDT for sepsis in cancer patients in the emergency center setting was associated with a decreased 28-day in-hospital mortality rate.

ED identification of patients with severe sepsis/septic shock decreases mortality in a community hospital

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to quantify the mortality difference between patients with severe sepsis/septic shock (SS/SS) identified in the emergency department (EDI) vs those not identified in the emergency department (NEDI) within our community hospital.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of all patients with SS/SS from July 2007 to January 2010 who were admitted to the intensive care unit within our community hospital. Our primary outcome measure was the difference in mortality rates of patients with SS/SS between the EDI and NEDI cohorts. Our secondary outcome measures included the final disposition, the length of stay, and direct cost (DC) for both groups. The data were analyzed using a 2 × 2 contingency table and the Fisher exact test for significance to compare the mortality rates between groups. Lengths of stay and DC between both groups were reported as medians, and significance was calculated using the Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

A total of 267 patients with SS/SS were identified during the 31-month study period. Of these patients, 155 were EDI patients with a mortality rate of 27.7%, and 112 were NEDI patients with a mortality rate of 41.1%. This represents an absolute difference in mortality rates of 13.4% between the 2 groups (P = .0257). The median length of stay between both groups was 7 days for the EDI group and 12.5 days for the NEDI group, translating to median DCs of $9861.01 vs $16 031.07.

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency department identification of patients with SS/SS in the community hospital significantly improves mortality.

Early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) for severe sepsis/septic shock: which components of treatment are more difficult to implement in a community-based emergency department?

BACKGROUND

Early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) has been shown to reduce mortality in patients with severe sepsis/septic shock, however, implementation of this protocol in the emergency department (ED) is sometimes difficult.

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated our sepsis protocol to determine which EGDT elements were more difficult to implement in our community-based ED.

METHODS

This was a non-concurrent cohort study of adult patients entered into a sepsis protocol at a single community hospital from July 2008 to March 2009. Charts were reviewed for the following process measures: a predefined crystalloid bolus, antibiotic administration, central venous catheter insertion, central venous pressure measurement, arterial line insertion, vasopressor utilization, central venous oxygen saturation measurement, and use of a standardized order set. We also compared the individual component adherence with survival to hospital discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 98 patients presented over a 9-month period. Measures with the highest adherence were vasopressor administration (79%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 69-89%) and antibiotic use (78%; 95% CI 68-85%). Measures with the lowest adherence included arterial line placement (42%; 95% CI 32-52%), central venous pressure measurement (27%; 95% CI 18-36%), and central venous oxygen saturation measurement (15%; 95% CI 7-23%). Fifty-seven patients survived to hospital discharge (Mortality: 33%). The only element of EDGT to demonstrate a statistical significance in patients surviving to hospital discharge was the crystalloid bolus (79% vs. 46%) (respiratory rate [RR] = 1.76, 95% CI 1.11-2.58).

CONCLUSION

In our community hospital, arterial line placement, central venous pressure measurement, and central venous oxygen saturation measurement were the most difficult elements of EGDT to implement. Patients who survived to hospital discharge were more likely to receive the crystalloid bolus.

The international PROGRESS registry of patients with severe sepsis: drotrecogin alfa (activated) use and patient outcomes

Introduction

Since the launch of drotrecogin alfa activated (DrotAA), institutions and individual countries have published data on its use in clinical practice, based on audit or registry data. These studies were limited in size and geographic locale and included patients with greater disease severity and higher mortality than those in clinical trials. The purpose of this study was to compare baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes (using appropriate statistical adjustments) of patients treated or not treated with DrotAA from the international PROGRESS (Promoting Global Research Excellence in Severe Sepsis) cohort study of severe sepsis.

Methods

PROGRESS was a global, non-interventional, multi-center, prospective, observational study of patients having a diagnosis of severe sepsis treated in intensive care units at a participating institution. All treatment modalities were as per standard of care at the participating institutions. Baseline characteristics and hospital mortality were analyzed and regression techniques used to develop propensity and outcome models adjusted for baseline imbalances between groups.

Results

Overall, 14,543 patients from 37 countries were enrolled and 12,492 had complete data for analysis. Germany was the highest enrolling country (1,810; 14.5%) and the US had the most DrotAA patients (206, 23.3%); 882 (7%) overall received DrotAA therapy. DrotAA-treated patients were younger (median age 58 vs. 61 years), had greater organ dysfunction (cardiovascular: 90% vs. 74%; respiratory: 90% vs. 81%; renal: 60% vs. 45%; metabolic: 63% versus 42%; 3 or more organ dysfunctions: 84% vs. 67%) and had a higher median APACHE II score (26 vs. 23, all with P < 0.001). Although in-hospital mortality was similar for DrotAA and non-DrotAA-treated patients (49.6% vs. 49.7%, respectively), after adjusting for imbalances, patients receiving DrotAA had a 28% (0.60 to 0.86, 95% Confidence Intervals) reduction in the odds of death and a relative risk reduction of 17% (P = 0.0003).

Conclusions

In the PROGRESS registry, DrotAA-treated patients were younger, more severely ill, and had fewer co-morbidities than patients not treated with DrotAA. After adjustment for group differences, a significant reduction in the odds of death was observed for patients that received DrotAA compared with those that did not.