Evaluation of an augmented emergency department electronic medical record-based sepsis alert

Comparison of clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with sepsis identified by the Sepsis-3 criteria by blood and urine culture results: A multicentre retrospective cohort study

Background and Aims

Blood and urine are the most common culture testing for sepsis patients. This study aimed to compare clinical characteristics and outcomes of sepsis patients by blood and urine culture positivity and to identify factors associated with positive cultures.

Methods

This retrospective study included patients aged ≥16 years with sepsis identified by the Sepsis-3 criteria presenting to the emergency department at four hospitals between 2017 and 2019 in Australia. Patient clinical outcomes were in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, hospital length of stay, and representation following discharge. Four culture groups were defined based on the positivity of blood cultures (BC) and urine cultures (UC) ordered within 24 h of triage.

Results

Of 4109 patient encounters with sepsis, 2730 (66%) were nonbacteremic, urine culture-negative (BC-UC-); 767 (19%) nonbacteremic, urine culture-positive (BC-UC+); 359 (9%) bacteremic, urine culture-negative (BC+UC-); and 253 (6%) bacteremic, urine culture-positive (BC+UC+). Compared with BC-UC- patients, BC+UC- patients had the highest risk of ICU admission (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 95% CI: 1.60 [1.18-2.18]) while BC-UC+ patients had lowest risk (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 0.56 [0.41-0.76]). BC+UC- patients had the highest risk of 3-day representation (AOR: 1.51 [1.02-2.25]) and second longest hospital stay (adjusted relative risk 1.17 [1.03-1.34]). Antibiotic administration before sample collection for culture was associated with lower odds of positive blood or urine culture results (AOR: 0.38, p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Enhanced clinical care should be beneficial for nongenitourinary sepsis patients (BC+UC-) who had the highest comparative risk of adverse clinical outcomes. Every effort needs to be made to collect relevant culture samples before antibiotic administration, to follow up on culture results, and tailor treatment accordingly.

The Emergency nurse Protocols Initiating Care-Sydney Triage to Admission Risk Tool (EPIC-START) trial: protocol for a stepped wedge implementation trial

INTRODUCTION

Emergency department (ED) overcrowding is a global problem and a threat to the quality and safety of emergency care. Providing timely and safe emergency care therein is challenging. To address this in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, the Emergency nurse Protocol Initiating Care-Sydney Triage to Admission Risk Tool (EPIC-START) was developed. EPIC-START is a model of care incorporating EPIC protocols, the START patient admission prediction tool, and a clinical deterioration tool to support ED flow, timely care, and patient safety. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of EPIC-START implementation across 30 EDs on patient, implementation, and health service outcomes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study protocol adopts an effectiveness-implementation hybrid design (Med Care 50: 217-226, 2012) and uses a stepped-wedge cluster randomised control trial of EPIC-START, including uptake and sustainability, within 30 EDs across four NSW local health districts spanning rural, regional, and metropolitan settings. Each cluster will be randomised independently of the research team to 1 of 4 dates until all EDs have been exposed to the intervention. Quantitative and qualitative evaluations will be conducted on data from medical records and routinely collected data, and patient, nursing, and medical staff pre- and post-surveys.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval for the research was received from the Sydney Local Health District Research Ethics Committee (Reference Number 2022/ETH01940) on 14 December 2022.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian and New Zealand Clinical trial, ACTRN12622001480774p. Registered on 27 October 2022.

Computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems for the Early Detection of Sepsis Among Adult Inpatients: Scoping Review

Background

Sepsis is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Early detection of sepsis followed promptly by treatment initiation improves patient outcomes and saves lives. Hospitals are increasingly using computerized clinical decision support (CCDS) systems for the rapid identification of adult patients with sepsis.

Objective

This scoping review aims to systematically describe studies reporting on the use and evaluation of CCDS systems for the early detection of adult inpatients with sepsis.

Methods

The protocol for this scoping review was previously published. A total of 10 electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane database, LILACS [Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature], Scopus, Web of Science, OpenGrey, ClinicalTrials.gov, and PQDT [ProQuest Dissertations and Theses]) were comprehensively searched using terms for sepsis, CCDS, and detection to identify relevant studies. Title, abstract, and full-text screening were performed by 2 independent reviewers using predefined eligibility criteria. Data charting was performed by 1 reviewer with a second reviewer checking a random sample of studies. Any disagreements were discussed with input from a third reviewer. In this review, we present the results for adult inpatients, including studies that do not specify patient age.

Results

A search of the electronic databases retrieved 12,139 studies following duplicate removal. We identified 124 studies for inclusion after title, abstract, full-text screening, and hand searching were complete. Nearly all studies (121/124, 97.6%) were published after 2009. Half of the studies were journal articles (65/124, 52.4%), and the remainder were conference abstracts (54/124, 43.5%) and theses (5/124, 4%). Most studies used a single cohort (54/124, 43.5%) or before-after (42/124, 33.9%) approach. Across all 124 included studies, patient outcomes were the most frequently reported outcomes (107/124, 86.3%), followed by sepsis treatment and management (75/124, 60.5%), CCDS usability (14/124, 11.3%), and cost outcomes (9/124, 7.3%). For sepsis identification, the systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria were the most commonly used, alone (50/124, 40.3%), combined with organ dysfunction (28/124, 22.6%), or combined with other criteria (23/124, 18.5%). Over half of the CCDS systems (68/124, 54.8%) were implemented alongside other sepsis-related interventions.

Conclusions

The current body of literature investigating the implementation of CCDS systems for the early detection of adult inpatients with sepsis is extremely diverse. There is substantial variability in study design, CCDS criteria and characteristics, and outcomes measured across the identified literature. Future research on CCDS system usability, cost, and impact on sepsis morbidity is needed.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/24899