A Survey of the Competency of Ambulance Service Personnel in the Diagnosis and Management of Sepsis

Sepsis awareness and knowledge amongst nurses, physicians and paramedics of a tertiary care center in Switzerland: A survey-based cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Sepsis is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Prompt recognition and management are critical to improve outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a survey among nurses and physicians of all adult departments of the Lausanne University Hospital (LUH) and paramedics transporting patients to our hospital. Measured outcomes included professionals' demographics (age, profession, seniority, unit of activity), quantification of prior sepsis education, self-evaluation, and knowledge of sepsis epidemiology, definition, recognition, and management. Correlation between surveyed personnel and sepsis perceptions and knowledge were assessed with univariable and multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Between January and October 2020, we contacted 1'216 of the 4'417 professionals (27.5%) of the LUH, of whom 1'116 (91.8%) completed the survey, including 619 of 2'463 (25.1%) nurses, 348 of 1'664 (20.9%) physicians and 149 of 290 (51.4%) paramedics. While 98.5% of the participants were familiar with the word "sepsis" (97.4% of nurses, 100% of physicians and 99.3% of paramedics), only 13% of them (physicians: 28.4%, nurses: 5.9%, paramedics: 6.8%) correctly identified the Sepsis-3 consensus definition. Similarly, only 48% and 49.3% of the physicians and 10.1% an 11.9% of the nurses knew that SOFA was a sepsis defining score and that the qSOFA score was a predictor of increased mortality, respectively. Furthermore, 15.8% of the physicians and 1.0% of the nurses knew the three components of the qSOFA score. For patients with suspected sepsis, 96.1%, 91.6% and 75.8% of physicians respectively chose blood cultures, broad-spectrum antibiotics and fluid resuscitation as therapeutic interventions to be initiated within 1 (76.4%) to 3 (18.2%) hours. For nurses and physicians, recent training correlated with knowledge of SOFA score (ORs [95%CI]: 3.956 [2.018-7.752] and 2.617 [1.527-4.485]) and qSOFA (ORs [95%CI]: 5.804 [2.653-9.742] and 2.291 [1.342-3.910]) scores purposes. Furthermore, recent training also correlated with adequate sepsis definition (ORs [95%CI]: 1.839 [1.026-3.295]) and the components of qSOFA (ORs [95%CI]: 2.388 [1.110-5.136]) in physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

This sepsis survey conducted among physicians, nurses and paramedics of a tertiary Swiss medical center identified a deficit of sepsis awareness and knowledge reflecting a lack of sepsis-specific continuing education requiring immediate corrective measures.

Derivation and internal validation of the screening to enhance prehospital identification of sepsis (SEPSIS) score in adults on arrival at the emergency department

Background

Prehospital recognition of sepsis may inform case management by ambulance clinicians, as well as inform transport decisions. The objective of this study was to develop a prehospital sepsis screening tool for use by ambulance clinicians.

Methods

We derived and validated a sepsis screening tool, utilising univariable logistic regression models to identify predictors for inclusion, and multivariable logistic regression to generate the SEPSIS score. We utilised a retrospective cohort of adult patients transported by ambulance (n = 38483) to hospital between 01 July 2013 and 30 June 2014. Records were linked using LinkPlus® software. Successful linkage was achieved in 33289 cases (86%). Eligible patients included adult, non-trauma, non-mental health, non-cardiac arrest cases. Of 33289 linked cases, 22945 cases were eligible. Eligible cases were divided into derivation (n = 16063, 70%) and validation (n = 6882, 30%) cohorts. The primary outcome measure was high risk of severe illness or death from sepsis, as defined by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Sepsis guideline.

Results

‘High risk of severe illness or death from sepsis’ was present in 3.7% of derivation (n = 593) and validation (n = 254) cohorts. The SEPSIS score comprises the following variables: age, respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturations, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, temperature and level of consciousness (p < 0.001 for all variables). Area under the curve was 0.87 (95%CI 0.85–0.88) for the derivation cohort, and 0.86 (95%CI 0.84–0.88) for the validation cohort. In an undifferentiated adult medical population, for a SEPSIS score ≥ 5, sensitivity was 0.37 (0.31–0.44), specificity was 0.96 (0.96–0.97), positive predictive value was 0.27 (0.23–0.32), negative predictive value was 0.97 (0.96–0.97), positive likelihood value was 13.5 (9.7–18.73) and the negative likelihood value was 0.83 (0.78–0.88).

Conclusion

This is the first screening tool developed to identify NICE high risk of severe illness or death from sepsis. The SEPSIS score is significantly associated with high risk of severe illness or death from sepsis on arrival at the Emergency Department. It may assist ambulance clinicians to identify those patients with sepsis in need of antibiotic therapy. However, it requires external validation, in clinical practice by ambulance clinicians, in an independent population.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13049-019-0642-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Understanding the Knowledge and Attitude of Prehospital Sepsis Care among Emergency Medical Service Personnel

Background:

Sepsis represents a huge burden for the health-care system. Septic patients presented by emergency medical services (EMS) are usually sicker in comparison to patients arriving by other means. Knowledge of sepsis is a key factor in recognizing and providing the appropriate care; it is not the only barrier as EMS providers do not have access to the proper diagnostic investigation. This work highlighted the level of knowledge, awareness, and attitude of EMS providers regarding prehospital care of sepsis in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Methods:

This study was a cross-sectional study that conducted among EMS personnel of Saudi Red Crescent Authority and King Abdulaziz Medical City. One hundred and ninety-seven individuals were sampled (99 were technicians and 98 were paramedics).

Results:

Most participants (71%) were aware of the term “sepsis;” however, only 48% of participants correctly defined sepsis (30% between emergency medical technicians [EMTs] vs. 66% paramedics group, P < 0.01). Paramedics were noted to have a better understanding of signs, symptoms, and management of sepsis. Most of the participants thought that sepsis can be identified during prehospital care (55%) and 75% suggested that they should be involved in the management of septic patients. About 80% responded that their intervention would result in a better outcome for patients and would influence the behavior of emergency department medical care. Most of the participants (83%) were willing to be actively engaged in the prehospital care of septic patients.

Conclusion:

This study showed an insufficient level of knowledge and awareness regarding sepsis care in the EMS field in Saudi Arabia. Paramedics had more knowledge and awareness about sepsis care compared to EMT personnel. Future work should focus on exploring the reasons behind this, as well as implementing plans to improve education about sepsis for EMS personnel.

Knowledge and attitude towards identification of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and sepsis among emergency personnel in tertiary teaching hospital

INTRODUCTION

An emergency department (ED) is often the first point of medical contact for sepsis patient, which plays an important role in early identification and management of high-risk septic patients. The present study was aim to evaluate emergency personnel's knowledge and attitude toward identification and management of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and sepsis.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted in a tertiary teaching hospital and recruited all emergency personnel. A validated questionnaire on knowledge and attitude towards identification and management of SIRS/sepsis was distributed among 120 emergency personnel. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics.

RESULTS

Overall finding founds emergency nurses and assistant medical officer appeared to have moderate knowledge in several important areas of SIRS/sepsis identification and management. Majority of the emergency personnel have neutral attitudes, as they do not give enough importance towards identification of patients with SIRS and sepsis. The present study finding found that knowledge of clinical criteria and management of SIRS/sepsis was highest among assistant medical officers (p=0.02) and bachelor's degree holders (p=0.02) with emergency experience more than 5 years (p=0.03). A trend toward an increase in knowledge of SIRS and sepsis is significantly correlated with positive attitudes.

CONCLUSION

The emergency personnel demonstrated a moderate knowledge and neutral attitude toward identification and management of SIRS and sepsis. Therefore, the awareness and knowledge of SIRS and sepsis should be enhanced among emergency personnel in order to improve outcome.

Emergency medical service personnel need to improve knowledge and attitude regarding prehospital sepsis care

Objective

We aimed to evaluate the knowledge and attitudes of emergency medical service (EMS) personnel pertaining to sepsis. We also compared EMS personnel’s knowledge of sepsis and their intention to engage in prehospital sepsis management.

Methods

The survey was conducted during education conferences for EMS personnel in December 2013 and January 2015 in Seoul, Korea. The questionnaire composed of 10 questions relevant to sepsis, was distributed on-scene, and was retrieved by investigators after the conference. We classified subjects into active and passive groups based on intent to participate in prehospital sepsis care.

Results

A total of 271 questionnaires were distributed; 255 EMS personnel (94%) completed the survey, 126 (49%) of whom were first-degree emergency medical technicians (EMTs). Less than 75% of subjects provided clinically relevant responses to questions about the definitions of sepsis, tachycardia, tachypnea, hypotension, hypothermia, fluid resuscitation, and vasopressor. Only 15% of participants had suspected that a patient had sepsis, and 9% reported that they could identify patients with sepsis during transportation. Overall, first-degree EMTs showed higher levels of knowledge and a positive attitude to sepsis compared with non-first-degree EMTs. Sixty percent of the participants reported that they were actively involved in prehospital sepsis care. The active group showed significantly higher levels of knowledge and more positive responses to the clinical impact of prehospital sepsis care.

Conclusion

Our study showed that is a substantial portion of EMS personnel lacks appropriate level of knowledge on sepsis care. We also found that the intention to engage in sepsis management was associated with appropriate knowledge of sepsis.

Identification of adults with sepsis in the prehospital environment: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Early identification of sepsis could enable prompt delivery of key interventions such as fluid resuscitation and antibiotic administration which, in turn, may lead to improved patient outcomes. Limited data indicate that recognition of sepsis by paramedics is often poor. We systematically reviewed the literature on prehospital sepsis screening tools to determine whether they improved sepsis recognition.

DESIGN

Systematic review. The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library and PubMed were systematically searched up to June 2015. In addition, subject experts were contacted.

SETTING

Prehospital/emergency medical services (EMS).

STUDY SELECTION

All studies addressing identification of sepsis (including severe sepsis and septic shock) among adult patients managed by EMS.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Recognition of sepsis by EMS clinicians.

RESULTS

Owing to considerable variation in the methodological approach adopted and outcome measures reported, a narrative approach to data synthesis was adopted. Three studies addressed development of prehospital sepsis screening tools. Six studies addressed paramedic diagnosis of sepsis with or without use of a prehospital sepsis screening tool.

CONCLUSIONS

Recognition of sepsis by ambulance clinicians is poor. The use of screening tools, based on the Surviving Sepsis Campaign diagnostic criteria, improves prehospital sepsis recognition. Screening tools derived from EMS data have been developed, but they have not yet been validated in clinical practice. There is a need to undertake validation studies to determine whether prehospital sepsis screening tools confer any clinical benefit.

Identification of adults with sepsis in the prehospital environment: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Early identification of sepsis could enable prompt delivery of key interventions such as fluid resuscitation and antibiotic administration which, in turn, may lead to improved patient outcomes. Limited data indicate that recognition of sepsis by paramedics is often poor. We systematically reviewed the literature on prehospital sepsis screening tools to determine whether they improved sepsis recognition.

DESIGN

Systematic review. The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library and PubMed were systematically searched up to June 2015. In addition, subject experts were contacted.

SETTING

Prehospital/emergency medical services (EMS).

STUDY SELECTION

All studies addressing identification of sepsis (including severe sepsis and septic shock) among adult patients managed by EMS.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Recognition of sepsis by EMS clinicians.

RESULTS

Owing to considerable variation in the methodological approach adopted and outcome measures reported, a narrative approach to data synthesis was adopted. Three studies addressed development of prehospital sepsis screening tools. Six studies addressed paramedic diagnosis of sepsis with or without use of a prehospital sepsis screening tool.

CONCLUSIONS

Recognition of sepsis by ambulance clinicians is poor. The use of screening tools, based on the Surviving Sepsis Campaign diagnostic criteria, improves prehospital sepsis recognition. Screening tools derived from EMS data have been developed, but they have not yet been validated in clinical practice. There is a need to undertake validation studies to determine whether prehospital sepsis screening tools confer any clinical benefit.