[Linking Health Claims Data and Records of Emergency Medical Services: Building a Bridge via Patient's Health Insurance Number?]

Sepsis incidence, suspicion, prediction and mortality in emergency medical services: a cohort study related to the current international sepsis guideline

PURPOSE

Sepsis suspicion by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) is associated with improved patient outcomes. This study assessed sepsis incidence and recognition by EMS and analyzed which of the screening tools recommended by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign best facilitates sepsis prediction.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of claims data from health insurances (n = 221,429 EMS cases), and paramedics' and emergency physicians' EMS documentation (n = 110,419); analyzed outcomes were: sepsis incidence and case fatality compared to stroke and myocardial infarction, the extent of documentation for screening-relevant variables and sepsis suspicion, tools' intersections for screening positive in identical EMS cases and their predictive ability for an inpatient sepsis diagnosis.

RESULTS

Incidence of sepsis (1.6%) was similar to myocardial infarction (2.6%) and stroke (2.7%); however, 30-day case fatality rate was almost threefold higher (31.7% vs. 13.4%; 11.8%). Complete vital sign documentation was achieved in 8.2% of all cases. Paramedics never, emergency physicians rarely (0.1%) documented a sepsis suspicion, respectively septic shock. NEWS2 had the highest sensitivity (73.1%; Specificity:81.6%) compared to qSOFA (23.1%; Sp:96.6%), SIRS (28.2%; Sp:94.3%) and MEWS (48.7%; Sp:88.1%). Depending on the tool, 3.7% to 19.4% of all cases screened positive; only 0.8% in all tools simultaneously.

CONCLUSION

Incidence and mortality underline the need for better sepsis awareness, documentation of vital signs and use of screening tools. Guidelines may omit MEWS and SIRS as recommendations for prehospital providers since they were inferior in all accuracy measures. Though no tool performed ideally, NEWS2 qualifies as the best tool to predict the highest proportion of septic patients and to rule out cases that are likely non-septic.

Understanding health care pathways of patients with sepsis: protocol of a mixed-methods analysis of health care utilization, experiences, and needs of patients with and after sepsis

BACKGROUND

Sepsis is associated with about 20% of deaths worldwide. It often presents with non-specific initial symptoms, making its emergency treatment an interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral challenge. Three in four sepsis survivors suffers from new cognitive, psychological, or physical sequelae for which specific treatment concepts are scarce. The AVENIR project aims to improve the understanding of patient pathways, and subjective care experiences and needs along the entire healthcare pathway before, with and after sepsis. Based on this, concrete recommendations for the organization of care and patient information materials will be developed with close patient participation.

METHODS

Mixed-methods study including (1) analysis of anonymized nationwide health claims data from Germany, (2) linkage of health claims data with patient care reports (PCR) of emergency medical services from study regions in two federal states within Germany, and (3) qualitative exploration of the patient, relative, and care provider perspective on sepsis care. In (1), we analyze inpatient and outpatient health care utilization until 30 days pre-sepsis; clinical sepsis care including intra- and inter-hospital transfers; and rehabilitation, inpatient and outpatient aftercare of sepsis survivors as well as costs for health care utilization until 24 months post-sepsis. We attempt to identify survivor classes with similar health care utilization by Latent Class Analyses. In (2), PCR are linked with health claims data to establish a comprehensive database outlining care pathways for sepsis patients from pre-hospital to follow-up. We investigate e.g., whether correct initial assessment is associated with acute (e.g., same-day lethality) and long-term (e.g., new need for care, long-term mortality) outcomes of patients. We compare the performance of sepsis-specific screening tools such as qSOFA, NEWS-2 or PRESEP in the pre-clinical setting. In (3), semi-structured interviews as well as synchronous and asynchronous online focus groups are conducted and analyzed using qualitative content analyses techniques.

DISCUSSION

The results of the AVENIR study will contribute to a deeper understanding of sepsis care pathways in Germany. They may serve as a base for improvements and innovations in sepsis care, that in the long-term can contribute to reduce the personal, medical, and societal burden of sepsis and its sepsis sequelae.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered at German Clinical Trial Register (ID: DRKS00031302, date of registration: 5th May 2023).

Integrierte Versorgung von Rettungsdienstpatienten. Konsentierte Empfehlungen für optimale Prozesse und Strukturen

Hintergrund

Das vom Innovationsfonds geförderte Projekt „Integrierte Notfallversorgung: Rettungsdienst im Fokus“ (Inno_RD) bringt anhand datenbasierter Analysen Handlungsempfehlungen zur Verbesserung der (Notfall‑)Versorgung in den Diskurs zum Gesetzentwurf zur Reformierung der Notfallversorgung ein.

Methoden

Die Handlungsempfehlungen (HE) basieren auf Analysen von drei Fokusgruppen mit Experten der Notfallversorgung, auf Rettungsdienst- und Krankenkassendaten und einer schriftlichen Patientenbefragung. Im Rahmen einer anschließenden Online-Befragung wurden 55 Aussagen (davon 35 HE und 20 vertiefende Statements) zwei getrennten Gruppen, d. h. den Fokusgruppenteilnehmern („purposive sampling“) und weiteren Experten der Notfallversorgung („convenience sample“ mit gesondertem Befragungslink) vorgelegt. Die Teilnehmer wurden gebeten, die Empfehlungen zu bewerten. 442 Fragebögen wurden für die Analyse berücksichtigt.

Ergebnisse

Alle 55 Aussagen wurden von beiden Gruppen mehrheitlich positiv bewertet (≥50 % Zustimmung), d. h. 19 Aussagen für den Bereich Leitstelle, 14 für Patientenversorger, 19 zur Dokumentation und Evaluation sowie drei HE, die die Bevölkerung adressieren. Vorschläge für die Leitstellen und die Dokumentation und Evaluation von Einsätzen wurden überwiegend mit starkem Konsens (>95 %) und Empfehlungen für den Bereich bevölkerungsbezogene HE und Patientenversorger mehrheitlich mit Konsens (>75–95 %) bewertet.

Schlussfolgerung

Die Aussagen fanden bei den an der Umfrage teilnehmenden Experten große Zustimmung. Die Empfehlungen sollten im Diskurs zur Organisation und Qualitätssicherung der Notfallversorgung berücksichtigt werden.