Interhospital Sepsis Code in Catalonia (Spain): Territorial model for initial care of patients with sepsis

Use of an assessment system for the allocation of human resources in the intrahospital transport of the patient admitted to an intensive care unit

INTRODUCTION

Currently, in intensive care units (ICUs), the in-hospital transport (HIT) of patients is carried out without a unified criterion of personnel necessary for it.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the concordance of the Patient Assessment System for Transport-ICU (PAST-ICU) with the medical criteria (CM) to determine the Human Resources (HR) and identify Adverse Effects (AE).

METHODS

Descriptive, cross-sectional and prospective study of the IHT of patients admitted to an area of adult medical-surgical critical patients. The PAST-ICU instrument was created to recommend the HR of HIT. Through the assessment of clinical parameters, the Past-ICU indicates whether the HIT should be performed with (1) a stretcher-bearer (2) Stretcher-bearer/nurse or (3) stretcher-bearer/nurse/doctor. AE were recorded during the hospital transfer. Prior to the IHT, the nurse performed the PAST-ICU and the result was contrasted with the Medical Criteria (MC) responsible for the patient, the latter prevailing.

STUDY PERIOD

Phase 1: pilot test 2013-2014. Phase 2: 2015-2021.

VARIABLES

Reason and duration HIT, PAST-ICU sheet, checklist, AE.

RESULTS

Phase 1: 458 IHT were analyzed. The concordance index between the PAST-ICU and the MC was 84,9% (389 IHT). The Cohen Kappa of 58,5% and p < 0,001. There were a total of 16 AE. Phase 2: 3423 IHT. The Concordance index of 87,2% (2984 TIH). The Cohen Kappa of 63%and the P < 0,001. Registered 49 AE.

CONCLUSION

The PAST-ICU could be a useful, safe and reliable tool to adapt the necessary HR. There was good concordance between the PAST-ICU vs the MC to determine the HR in the HIT. The percentage of AE was low.

Quantification of a qualitative sepsis code: laying the foundations for the automation revolution

To quantify a qualitative screening tool for the early recognition of sepsis in children with fever either visiting the emergency department or already admitted to hospital. Prospective observational study including febrile patients under 18 years of age. Sepsis diagnosis was the main outcome. A multivariable analysis was performed with 4 clinical variables (heart rate, respiratory rate, disability, and poor skin perfusion). The cut-off points, odds ratio, and coefficients of these variables were identified. The quantified tool was then obtained from the coefficients. The area under the curve (AUC) was obtained and internal validation was performed using k-fold cross-validation. Two hundred sixty-six patients were included. The multivariable regression confirmed the independent association of the 4 variables with the outcome. The quantified screening tool yielded an excellent AUC, 0.825 (95%CI 0.772-0.878, p < 0.001), for sepsis prediction.  Conclusion: We successfully quantified a sepsis screening tool, and the resulting model has an excellent discriminatory power. What is Known: • Screening tests have to be based only on clinical variables that needs minimum technological support. • The current Sepsis Code is a qualitative screening tool. What is New: • The current screening tool was quantified using four clinical variables, weighted according to the deviation from normality and differentiated according to the age of the patient. • The resulting model has an excellent discriminatory power in identifying septic patients among febrile pediatric patients.

Trends in mortality in septic patients according to the different organ failure during 15 years

Background

The incidence of sepsis can be estimated between 250 and 500 cases/100.000 people per year and is responsible for up to 6% of total hospital admissions. Identified as one of the most relevant global health problems, sepsis is the condition that generates the highest costs in the healthcare system. Important changes in the management of septic patients have been included in recent years; however, there is no information about how changes in the management of sepsis-associated organ failure have contributed to reduce mortality.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted from hospital discharge records from the Minimum Basic Data Set Acute-Care Hospitals (CMBD-HA in Catalan language) for the Catalan Health System (CatSalut). CMBD-HA is a mandatory population-based register of admissions to all public and private acute-care hospitals in Catalonia. Sepsis was defined by the presence of infection and at least one organ dysfunction. Patients hospitalized with sepsis were detected, according ICD-9-CM (since 2005 to 2017) and ICD-10-CM (2018 and 2019) codes used to identify acute organ dysfunction and infectious processes.

Results

Of 11.916.974 discharges from all acute-care hospitals during the study period (2005–2019), 296.554 had sepsis (2.49%). The mean annual sepsis incidence in the population was 264.1 per 100.000 inhabitants/year, and it increased every year, going from 144.5 in 2005 to 410.1 in 2019. Multiorgan failure was present in 21.9% and bacteremia in 26.3% of cases. Renal was the most frequent organ failure (56.8%), followed by cardiovascular (24.2%). Hospital mortality during the study period was 19.5%, but decreases continuously from 25.7% in 2005 to 17.9% in 2019 (p < 0.0001). The most important reduction in mortality was observed in cases with cardiovascular failure (from 47.3% in 2005 to 31.2% in 2019) (p < 0.0001). In the same way, mean mortality related to renal and respiratory failure in sepsis was decreased in last years (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

The incidence of sepsis has been increasing in recent years in our country. However, hospital mortality has been significantly reduced. In septic patients, all organ failures except liver have shown a statistically significant reduction on associated mortality, with cardiovascular failure as the most relevant.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-022-04176-w.

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: research priorities for the administration, epidemiology, scoring and identification of sepsis

Objective

To identify priorities for administrative, epidemiologic and diagnostic research in sepsis.

Design

As a follow-up to a previous consensus statement about sepsis research, members of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Committee, representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine addressed six questions regarding care delivery, epidemiology, organ dysfunction, screening, identification of septic shock, and information that can predict outcomes in sepsis.

Methods

Six questions from the Scoring/Identification and Administration sections of the original Research Priorities publication were explored in greater detail to better examine the knowledge gaps and rationales for questions that were previously identified through a consensus process.

Results

The document provides a framework for priorities in research to address the following questions: (1) What is the optimal model of delivering sepsis care?; (2) What is the epidemiology of sepsis susceptibility and response to treatment?; (3) What information identifies organ dysfunction?; (4) How can we screen for sepsis in various settings?; (5) How do we identify septic shock?; and (6) What in-hospital clinical information is associated with important outcomes in patients with sepsis?

Conclusions

There is substantial knowledge of sepsis epidemiology and ways to identify and treat sepsis patients, but many gaps remain. Areas of uncertainty identified in this manuscript can help prioritize initiatives to improve an understanding of individual patient and demographic heterogeneity with sepsis and septic shock, biomarkers and accurate patient identification, organ dysfunction, and ways to improve sepsis care.

Double inter-hospital transfer in Sepsis patients presenting to the ED does not worsen mortality compared to single inter-hospital transfer

PURPOSE

Sepsis is a leading cause of hospital deaths. Inter-hospital transfer is frequent in sepsis and is associated with increased mortality. Some sepsis patients undergo two inter-hospital transfers (double transfer). This study assessed the (1) prevalence, (2) associated risk factors, (3) associated mortality, and (4) hospital length-of-stay and costs of double-transfer of sepsis patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective cohort study using 2005-2014 administrative claims data in Iowa. Multivariable generalized estimating equations adjusted for potential confounding variables, with a primary outcome of mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital length-of-stay and costs. Hospital-specific cost-to-charge ratios estimated hospital costs. Hospitals were categorized into quintiles based on sepsis-volume.

RESULTS

Of 15,182 sepsis subjects, there were 45.2% non-transfers and 2.1% double-transfers. Double-transfers had worse mortality than non-transfers but not single-transfers. Of the non-transfers, 44.9% presented to a top sepsis-volume hospital compared to 22.8% of double-transfers and 25.1% of single-transfers. After transfer from first to second hospital, 93.4% of the single-transfers and 92.2% of the double-transfers were at a top sepsis-volume hospital. Double-transfers had longer length-of-stay and more in total hospital costs than single-transfers.

CONCLUSIONS

Double-transfer occurs in 2.1% of Iowa sepsis patients. Double-transfers had similar mortality and increased length of stay and costs compared to single-transfers.