Implementing advance care plans in the peri-operative period, including plans for cardiopulmonary resuscitation: Association of Anaesthetists clinical practice guideline

Contemporary guidance takes a patient-centred approach and recommends discussing and planning treatments that should be considered, not just those that should be withheld. Although some organisations and communities still use specific DNACPR (do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation) forms to recommend that cardiopulmonary resuscitation is not attempted, this approach has been shown to have disadvantages and is no longer regarded as best practice. The following guidelines have been produced in response to this change. They are designed to help anaesthetists, as part of the wider healthcare team, to implement and respond to advance care planning documents before and during procedures. The guidelines apply to all procedures, however minor and low risk they are considered to be, and the same ethical and legal principles apply to procedures carried out under local or regional anaesthesia and/or conscious sedation, as well as to those under general anaesthesia.

Custodians of Information: Patient and Physician Views on Sharing Medical Records in the Acute Care Setting

In the UK, in the acute in-patient setting, the only information that a patient receives about their medical care is verbal; there is no routine patient access to any part of the medical record. It has been suggested that this should change, so that patients can have real-time access to their notes, but no one has previously explored patient or clinician views on the impact this might have. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 patients and 13 doctors about their experience of information sharing in the context of the acute care setting, and their views on sharing all of the medical records, or a summary note. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, double coded and analyzed using the constant comparative method. Patients were not given written information and did not ask questions even when they wanted to know things. Patients and doctors supported increased sharing of written information, but the purpose of the medical record - and the risks and benefits of sharing it - were disputed. Concerns included disclosing uncertainty, changing what was written, and causing patient anxiety. Benefits included increased transparency. Use of a summary record was welcomed as a way to empower patients, while doctors felt they had a responsibility to curate what information was given and when. A clinical summary for patients would be of benefit to doctors, nurses, patients and their relatives. It should be designed to reflect the needs of all users, and evaluated to consider patient-relevant outcomes and resource implications.

Family members, ambulance clinicians and attempting CPR in the community: the ethical and legal imperative to reach collaborative consensus at speed

Here we present the personal perspectives of two authors on the important and unfortunately frequent scenario of ambulance clinicians facing a deceased individual and family members who do not wish them to attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation. We examine the professional guidance and the protection provided to clinicians, which is not matched by guidance to protect family members. We look at the legal framework in which these scenarios are taking place, and the ethical issues which are presented. We consider the interaction between ethics, clinical practice and the law, and offer suggested changes to policy and guidance which we believe will protect ambulance clinicians, relatives and the patient.

Doctors have an ethical obligation to ask patients about food insecurity: what is stopping us?

Inadequate diet is the leading risk factor for morbidity and mortality worldwide. However, approaches to identifying inadequate diets in clinical practice remain inconsistent, and dietary interventions (on both individual and public health policy levels) frequently focus on facilitating 'healthy choices', with limited emphasis on structural constraints. We examine the ethical implications of introducing a routine question in the medical history about ability to access food. Not collecting data on food security means that clinicians are unable to identify people who may benefit from support on an individual level, unable to consider relevant dietary risk factors for disease and disease progression and unable to monitor population trends and inequalities in dietary access in order to design effective policy interventions. We argue that the current lack of routine screening for food insecurity is inconsistent with our approach to other health behaviours (eg, smoking and alcohol use), as well as with doctors' frequent informal role as gatekeepers to the food aid system, and recent calls for governmental action on food insecurity and health inequalities from individual clinicians and professional bodies. Potential ethical barriers to asking patients about food security are addressed, including concerns about stigma, limiting autonomy, fair resource allocation, unclear professional remits and clinicians' ability to offer effective interventions. We suggest that there is an ethical imperative for doctors to ask patients about their ability to access healthy food. Gathering this data provides a valuable first step in re-framing the social determinants of health as modifiable risks, rather than inevitable inequities.

Communicating diagnostic uncertainty in the acute and emergency medical setting: A systematic review and ethical analysis of the empirical literature

BACKGROUND

diagnostic uncertainty is ubiquitous. Its communication to patients requires further investigation.

AIMS

To determine: 1) What is known about how and why diagnostic uncertainty is communicated in acute care; 2) evidence of the effects of (not) communicating diagnostic uncertainty in the acute setting; 3) associated ethical issues.

METHODS

systematic review of Medline, Web of Science and SCOPUS for (acute or emergency care) AND (diagnostic uncertainty) AND (ethics OR behaviours). Critical interpretive synthesis and ethical analysis were conducted.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Nine studies (primarily surveys and interviews) were identified. Doctors are not trained in communicating diagnostic uncertainty and perceive it to have negative effects on patients; however not communicating diagnostic uncertainty can disempower patients, resulting in delayed/missed diagnoses or inappropriate use of resource.

Integrating philosophy, policy and practice to create a just and fair health service

To practise 'fairly and justly' a clinician must balance the needs of both the many and the few: the individual patient in front of them, and the many unseen patients in the waiting room, and in the county. They must consider the immediate clinical needs of those in the present, and how their actions will impact on future patients. The good medical practice guidance 'Make the care of your patient your first concern' provides no guidance on how doctors should act when they care for multiple patients with conflicting needs. Moreover, conflicting needs extend far past simply those between different patients. At an organisational level, financial obligations must be balanced with clinical ones; the system must support those who work within it in a variety of roles; and, finally, in order for a healthcare service to be sustainable, the demands of current and future generations must be balanced.The central problem, we propose, is that there is no shared philosophical framework on which the provision of care or the development of health policy is based, nor is there a practical, fair and transparent process to ensure that the service is equipped to deal justly with new challenges as they emerge. Many philosophers have grappled with constructing a set of principles which would lead to a 'good' society which is just to different users; prominent among them is Rawls.Four important principles can be derived using a Rawlsian approach: equity of access, distributive justice, sustainability and openness. However, Rawls' approach is sometimes considered too abstract to be applied readily to policymaking; it does not provide clear guidance for how individuals working within existing institutions can enact the principles of justice. We therefore combine the principles derived from Rawls with Scanlonian contractualism: by demanding that decisions are made in a way which cannot be 'reasonably rejected' by different stakeholders (including 'trustees' for those who cannot represent themselves), we ensure that conflicting needs are considered robustly.We demonstrate how embedding this framework would ensure just policies and fair practice. We illustrate this by using examples of how it would help prevent injustice among different socioeconomic groups, prevent intergenerational injustice and prevent injustice in a crisis, for example, as we respond to new challenges such as COVID-19.Attempts to help individual doctors practise fairly and justly throughout their professional lives are best focused at an institutional or systemic level. We propose a practical framework: combining Scanlonian contractualism with a Rawlsian approach. Adopting this framework would equip the workforce and population to contribute to fair policymaking, and would ultimately result in a healthcare system whose practice and policies-at their core-were just.

91 To What Extent are Patients’ Future Care Preferences Shared Between Secondary and Primary Care? A Retrospective Chart Review

Introduction

When a doctor is informed of a patient’s future care preferences if they were to lose capacity, there is an ethical and legal obligation to share this information with the treating medical team. In frail older patients, conversations about treatment preferences often occur during hospital admission. We sought to assess the communication of these preferences to the patient’s GP.

Methods

Retrospective chart review of consecutive discharges from acute geriatric wards across seven hospitals. Records were excluded if the patient was admitted for less than 48 hours, was under orthogeriatric care, or died in hospital.

Results

339 notes were included, 41-50 from each hospital. GPs were informed of the resuscitation status of 28% of all patients. 52% of patients had an inpatient DNACPR, the GP was informed of 54% of these. 36% of patients had an inpatient ceiling of treatment documented, of which GPs were informed of 19%. 53% of hospital DNACPRs were converted into community DNACPRs on discharge: GPs were informed of only 24% of new community DNACRPs. 47% of patients discharged with a new community DNACPR lacked capacity to be involved in that decision; for just 6% of these was the GP asked to review the DNACPR order in the community. Inpatient Advance Care Planning (ACP) discussions were held for 9% of patients, of which the GP was informed in 59% of cases. 49% of ACP conversations involved the next-of-kin but not the patient. Among patients who had a new DNACPR decision made during their admission (n=124), there was documentary evidence in only 25% that the patient or next-of-kin was informed whether this was time-limited or indefinite.

Conclusions

Communication from hospitals to GPs about resuscitation, ceiling of care and ACP discussions is very limited. For patients who have expressed ongoing future care preferences, there is a legal obligation to share this information with the treating medical team, which on discharge is the GP.

There is poor documentary evidence of discussions with patients about whether DNACPR decisions are time-limited or indefinite. Furthermore, many hospitalised frail patients lack capacity to make DNACPR decisions but they may subsequently regain capacity, particularly those with delirium. Despite this, GPs are rarely asked to review new community DNACPRs, including those made for patients without capacity.

Advance care planning in patients referred to hospital for acute medical care: Results of a national day of care survey

BACKGROUND

Advance care planning (ACP) is a voluntary process of discussion about future care between an individual and their care provider. ACP is a key focus of national policy as a means to improve patient centered care at the end-of-life. Despite a wide held belief that ACP is beneficial, uptake is sporadic with considerable variation depending on age, ethnicity, location and disease group.

METHODS

This study looked to establish the prevalence of ACP on initial presentation to hospital with a medical emergency within The Society for Acute Medicine Benchmarking Audit (SAMBA18). 123 acute hospitals from across the UK collected data during a day of care survey. The presence of ACP and the presence of 'Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation' orders were recorded separately.

FINDINGS

Among 6072 patients presenting with an acute medical emergency, 290 patients (4.8%) had an ACP that was available for the admitting medical team. The prevalence of ACP increased incrementally with age, in patients less than 80 years old the prevalence was 2·9% (95% CI 2·7-3·1) compared with 9·5% (95% CI 9·1-10·0%) in patients aged over 80. In the patients aged over 90 the prevalence of ACP was 12·6% (95% CI 9·8-16·0). ACP was present in 23·3% (95% CI 21.8-24.8%) of patients admitted from institutional care compared with 3·5% (95% CI 3·3-3·7) of patients admitted from home. The prevalence of ACP was 7.1% (95% CI 6·6-7·6) amongst patients re-admitted to the hospital within the previous 30 days.

INTERPRETATION

Very few patients have an ACP that is available to admitting medical teams during an unscheduled hospital admission. Even among patients with advanced age, and who have recently been in hospital, the prevalence of available ACP remains low, in spite of national guidance. Further interventions are needed to ensure that patients' wishes for care are known by providers of acute medical care.

Implementing an intervention to improve decision making around referral and admission to intensive care: Results of feasibility testing in three NHS hospitals

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

Decisions about whether to refer or admit a patient to an intensive care unit (ICU) are clinically, organizationally, and ethically challenging. Many explicit and implicit factors influence these decisions, and there is substantial variability in how they are made, leading to concerns about access to appropriate treatment for critically ill patients. There is currently no guidance to support doctors making these decisions. We developed an intervention with the aim of supporting doctors to make more transparent, consistent, patient-centred, and ethically justified decisions. This paper reports on the implementation of the intervention at three NHS hospitals in England and evaluates its feasibility in terms of usage, acceptability, and perceived impact on decision making.

METHODS

A mixed method study including quantitative assessment of usage and qualitative interviews.

RESULTS

There was moderate uptake of the framework (28.2% of referrals to ICU across all sites during the 3-month study period). Organizational structure and culture affected implementation. Concerns about increased workload in the context of limited resources were obstacles to its use. Doctors who used it reported a positive impact on decision making, with better articulation and communication of reasons for decisions, and greater attention to patient wishes. The intervention made explicit the uncertainty inherent in these decisions, and this was sometimes challenging. The patient and family information leaflets were not used.

CONCLUSIONS

While it is feasible to implement an intervention to improve decision making around referral and admission to ICU, embedding the intervention into existing organizational culture and practice would likely increase adoption. The doctor-facing elements of the intervention were generally acceptable and were perceived as making ICU decision making more transparent and patient-centred. While there remained difficulties in articulating the clinical reasoning behind some decisions, the intervention offers an important step towards establishing a more clinically and ethically sound approach to ICU admission.

Development of the Recommended Summary Plan for eEmergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT)

INTRODUCTION

Do-not-attempt-cardiopulmonary-resuscitation (DNACPR) practice has been shown to be variable and sub-optimal. This paper describes the development of the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT). ReSPECT is a process which encourages shared understanding of a patient's condition and what outcomes they value and fear, before recording clinical recommendations about cardiopulmonary-resuscitation (CPR) within a broader plan for emergency care and treatment.

METHODS

ReSPECT was developed iteratively, with integral stakeholder engagement, informed by the Knowledge-to-Action cycle. Mixed methods included: synthesis of existing literature; a national online consultation exercise; cognitive interviews with users; a patient-public involvement (PPI) workshop and a usability pilot, to ensure acceptability by both patients and professionals.

RESULTS

The majority (89%) of consultation respondents supported the concept of emergency care and treatment plans. Key features identified in the evaluation and incorporated into ReSPECT were: The importance of discussions between patient and clinician to inform realistic treatment preferences and clarity in the resulting recommendations recorded by the clinician on the form. The process is compliant with UK mental capacity laws. Documentation should be recognised across all health and care settings. There should be opportunity for timely review based on individual need.

CONCLUSION

ReSPECT is designed to facilitate discussions about a person's preferences to inform emergency care and treatment plans (including CPR) for use across all health and care settings. It has been developed iteratively with a range of stakeholders. Further research will be needed to assess the influence of ReSPECT on patient-centred decisions, experience and health outcomes.

Developing an intervention around referral and admissions to intensive care: a mixed-methods study

Background

Intensive care treatment can be life-saving, but it is invasive and distressing for patients receiving it and it is not always successful. Deciding whether or not a patient will benefit from intensive care is a difficult clinical and ethical challenge.

Objectives

To explore the decision-making process for referral and admission to the intensive care unit and to develop and test an intervention to improve it.

Methods

A mixed-methods study comprising (1) two systematic reviews investigating the factors associated with decisions to admit patients to the intensive care unit and the experiences of clinicians, patients and families; (2) observation of decisions and interviews with intensive care unit doctors, referring doctors, and patients and families in six NHS trusts in the Midlands, UK; (3) a choice experiment survey distributed to UK intensive care unit consultants and critical care outreach nurses, eliciting their preferences for factors used in decision-making for intensive care unit admission; (4) development of a decision-support intervention informed by the previous work streams, including an ethical framework for decision-making and supporting referral and decision-support forms and patient and family information leaflets. Implementation feasibility was tested in three NHS trusts; (5) development and testing of a tool to evaluate the ethical quality of decision-making related to intensive care unit admission, based on the assessment of patient records. The tool was tested for inter-rater and intersite reliability in 120 patient records.

Results

Influences on decision-making identified in the systematic review and ethnographic study included age, presence of chronic illness, functional status, presence of a do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation order, referring specialty, referrer seniority and intensive care unit bed availability. Intensive care unit doctors used a gestalt assessment of the patient when making decisions. The choice experiment showed that age was the most important factor in consultants’ and critical care outreach nurses’ preferences for admission. The ethnographic study illuminated the complexity of the decision-making process, and the importance of interprofessional relationships and good communication between teams and with patients and families. Doctors found it difficult to articulate and balance the benefits and burdens of intensive care unit treatment for a patient. There was low uptake of the decision-support intervention, although doctors who used it noted that it improved articulation of reasons for decisions and communication with patients.

Limitations

Limitations existed in each of the component studies; for example, we had difficulty recruiting patients and families in our qualitative work. However, the project benefited from a mixed-method approach that mitigated the potential limitations of the component studies.

Conclusions

Decision-making surrounding referral and admission to the intensive care unit is complex. This study has provided evidence and resources to help clinicians and organisations aiming to improve the decision-making for and, ultimately, the care of critically ill patients.

Future work

Further research is needed into decision-making practices, particularly in how best to engage with patients and families during the decision process. The development and evaluation of training for clinicians involved in these decisions should be a priority for future work.

Study registration

The systematic reviews of this study are registered as PROSPERO CRD42016039054, CRD42015019711 and CRD42015019714.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme. The University of Aberdeen and the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates fund the Health Economics Research Unit.

The experiences of health care professionals, patients, and families of the process of referral and admission to intensive care: A systematic literature review

Treatment in an intensive care unit can be life-saving but it can be distressing and not every patient can benefit. Decisions to admit a patient to an intensive care unit are complex. We wished to explore how the decision to refer or admit is experienced by those involved, and undertook a systematic review of the literature to answer the research question: What are the experiences of health care professionals, patients, and families, of the process of referral and admission to an intensive care unit? Twelve relevant studies were identified, and a thematic analysis was conducted. Most studies involved health care professionals, with only two considering patients' or families' experiences. Four themes were identified which influenced experiences of intensive care unit referral and review: the professional environment; communication; the allocation of limited resources; and acknowledging uncertainty. Patients' and families' experiences have been under-researched in this area.

Ethical challenges in resuscitation

PURPOSE

A rapidly evolving resuscitation science provides more effective treatments to an aging population with multiple comorbidites. Concurrently, emergency care has become patient-centered. This review aims to describe challenges associated with the application of key principles of bioethics in resuscitation and post-resuscitation care; propose actions to address these challenges; and highlight the need for evidence-based ethics and consensus on ethical principles interpretation.

METHODS

Following agreement on the article's outline, subgroups of 2-3 authors provided narrative reviews of ethical issues concerning autonomy and honesty, beneficence/nonmaleficence and dignity, justice, specific practices/circumstances such as family presence during resuscitation, and emergency research. Proposals for addressing ethical challenges were also offered.

RESULTS

Respect for patient autonomy can be realized through honest provision of information, shared decision-making, and advance directives/care planning. Essential prerequisites comprise public and specific healthcare professionals' education, appropriate regulatory provisions, and allocation of adequate resources. Regarding beneficence/nonmaleficence, resuscitation should benefit patients, while avoiding harm from futile interventions; pertinent practice should be based on neurological prognostication and patient/family-reported outcomes. Regarding dignity, aggressive life-sustaining treatments against patients preferences should be avoided. Contrary to the principle of justice, resuscitation quality may be affected by race/income status, age, ethnicity, comorbidity, and location (urban versus rural or country-specific/region-specific). Current evidence supports family presence during resuscitation. Regarding emergency research, autonomy should be respected without hindering scientific progress; furthermore, transparency of research conduct should be promoted and funding increased.

CONCLUSIONS

Major ethical challenges in resuscitation science need to be addressed through complex/resource-demanding interventions. Such actions require support by ongoing/future research.

Institute of Medical Ethics Guidelines for confirmation of appointment, promotion and recognition of UK bioethics and medical ethics researchers

This document is designed to give guidance on assessing researchers in bioethics/medical ethics. It is intended to assist members of selection, confirmation and promotion committees, who are required to assess those conducting bioethics research when they are not from a similar disciplinary background. It does not attempt to give guidance on the quality of bioethics research, as this is a matter for peer assessment. Rather it aims to give an indication of the type, scope and amount of research that is the expected in this field. It does not cover the assessment of other activities such as teaching, policy work, clinical ethics consultation and so on, but these will be mentioned for additional context. Although it mentions the UK's Research Excellence Framework (REF), it is not intended to be a detailed analysis of the place of bioethics in the REF.

Can 'Best Interests' derail the trolley? Examining withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration in patients in the permanent vegetative state

In this paper, I explore under what circumstances it might be morally acceptable to transplant organs from a patient lacking capacity. I argue, with a developed hypothetical based around a mother and son, that (1) 'Best interests' should be interpreted broadly to include the interests that people have previously expressed in the well-being of others. It could, therefore, be in the 'best interests' of an unconscious patient to donate a non-vital organ to a family member. (2) Further expanding upon this case, and developing a variation on the 'trolley problems' I argue that where it is inevitable that an incapacitous patient is going to die-and specifically when it has been agreed through the courts that a patient in a permanent vegetative state is going to have clinically assisted nutrition and hydration withdrawn (with the inevitable consequence of death, and causing desiccation of the organs such that they are no longer able to be donated)-it could be in a patient's best interests to actively end their life with a drug that would stop the heart both to minimise potential suffering and in order to be able to have vital organs donated. I argue that in this case the strict adherence to the distinction between acts and omissions is not in the patient's best interests and should be reconsidered.

Should non-disclosures be considered as morally equivalent to lies within the doctor-patient relationship?

In modern practice, doctors who outright lie to their patients are often condemned, yet those who employ non-lying deceptions tend to be judged less critically. Some areas of non-disclosure have recently been challenged: not telling patients about resuscitation decisions; inadequately informing patients about risks of alternative procedures and withholding information about medical errors. Despite this, there remain many areas of clinical practice where non-disclosures of information are accepted, where lies about such information would not be. Using illustrative hypothetical situations, all based on common clinical practice, we explore the extent to which we should consider other deceptive practices in medicine to be morally equivalent to lying. We suggest that there is no significant moral difference between lying to a patient and intentionally withholding relevant information: non-disclosures could be subjected to Bok's 'Test of Publicity' to assess permissibility in the same way that lies are. The moral equivalence of lying and relevant non-disclosure is particularly compelling when the agent's motivations, and the consequences of the actions (from the patient's perspectives), are the same. We conclude that it is arbitrary to claim that there is anything inherently worse about lying to a patient to mislead them than intentionally deceiving them using other methods, such as euphemism or non-disclosure. We should question our intuition that non-lying deceptive practices in clinical practice are more permissible and should thus subject non-disclosures to the same scrutiny we afford to lies.

Do-not-attempt-cardiopulmonary-resuscitation decisions: an evidence synthesis

Background

Cardiac arrest is the final common step in the dying process. In the right context, resuscitation can reverse the dying process, yet success rates are low. However, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a highly invasive medical treatment, which, if applied in the wrong setting, can deprive the patient of dignified death. Do-not-attempt-cardiopulmonary-resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions provide a mechanism to withhold CPR. Recent scientific and lay press reports suggest that the implementation of DNACPR decisions in NHS practice is problematic.

Aims and objectives

This project sought to identify reasons why conflict and complaints arise, identify inconsistencies in NHS trusts’ implementation of national guidelines, understand health professionals’ experience in relation to DNACPR, its process and ethical challenges, and explore the literature for evidence to improve DNACPR policy and practice.

Methods

A systematic review synthesised evidence of processes, barriers and facilitators related to DNACPR decision-making and implementation. Reports from NHS trusts, the National Reporting and Learning System, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, the Office of the Chief Coroner, trust resuscitation policies and telephone calls to a patient information line were reviewed. Multiple focus groups explored service-provider perspectives on DNACPR decisions. A stakeholder group discussed the research findings and identified priorities for future research.

Results

The literature review found evidence that structured discussions at admission to hospital or following deterioration improved patient involvement and decision-making. Linking DNACPR to overall treatment plans improved clarity about goals of care, aided communication and reduced harms. Standardised documentation improved the frequency and quality of recording decisions. Approximately 1500 DNACPR incidents are reported annually. One-third of these report harms, including some instances of death. Problems with communication and variation in trusts’ implementation of national guidelines were common. Members of the public were concerned that their wishes with regard to resuscitation would not be respected. Clinicians felt that DNACPR decisions should be considered within the overall care of individual patients. Some clinicians avoid raising discussions about CPR for fear of conflict or complaint. A key theme across all focus groups, and reinforced by the literature review, was the negative impact on overall patient care of having a DNACPR decision and the conflation of ‘do not resuscitate’ with ‘do not provide active treatment’.

Limitations

The variable quality of some data sources allows potential overstatement or understatement of findings. However, data source triangulation identified common issues.

Conclusion

There is evidence of variation and suboptimal practice in relation to DNACPR decisions across health-care settings. There were deficiencies in considering, discussing and implementing the decision, as well as unintended consequences of DNACPR decisions being made on other aspects of patient care.

Future work

Recommendations supported by the stakeholder group are standardising NHS policies and forms, ensuring cross-boundary recognition of DNACPR decisions, integrating decisions with overall treatment plans and developing tools and training strategies to support clinician and patient decision-making, including improving communication.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002669.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Towards 'sepsis with optimal treatment': evaluating the sepsis care pathway in acute medicine and identifying scope for systems improvement

Sepsis commonly presents to the acute medicine unit (AMU). Timely recognition and treatment can reduce the significant associated mortality, but United Kingdom AMUs and emergency departments are often inadequately equipped to manage sepsis with early-goal directed therapy. We conducted an observational study of 50 consecutive patients admitted with severe sepsis. Demographic, physiological and microbiological data, and information about the provision and timing of care were collected in real time. Treatment fell below "surviving sepsis" targets with only 28% of patients receiving sufficient fluid, and 64% receiving antibiotics within 3 hours, associated with delays in seeing physicians; however despite this mortality was lower than the nationally quoted average (14% at 90 days).