The Sensitivity of Clinician Diagnosis of Sepsis in Tertiary and Community-Based Emergency Settings.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether the risk of missed clinician diagnosis of pediatric sepsis requiring care in the intensive care unit (ICU) was greater in community vs tertiary pediatric emergency care settings with sepsis pathways. STUDY DESIGN: An observational cohort study in a tertiary pediatric emergency department (ED) staffed by pediatric emergency physicians and 4 affiliated community pediatric ED/urgent care sites staffed by general pediatricians. Use of an institutional sepsis order set or pathway was considered clinician diagnosis of sepsis. Risk of missed diagnosis was compared for 2 outcomes: suspected infection plus ICU admission (sepsis-ICU) and suspected infection plus vasoactive agent/positive-pressure ventilation (sepsis-VV). RESULTS: From January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015, there were 141 552 tertiary and 139 332 community emergency visits. Clinicians diagnosed sepsis in 1136 visits; median age was 5.7 (2.4, 12.0) years. In the tertiary ED, there were 306 sepsis-ICU visits (0.2%) and 112 sepsis-VV visits (0.08%). In community sites, there were 46 sepsis-ICU visits (0.03%) and 20 sepsis-VV visits (0.01%). The risk of missed diagnosis in community vs tertiary sites was significantly greater for sepsis-ICU (relative risk 4.30, CI 2.15-8.60) and sepsis-VV (relative risk 14.0, CI 2.91-67.24). Sensitivity for sepsis-ICU was 94.4% (91.3%-96.5%) at the tertiary site and 76.1% (62.1%-86.1%) at community sites. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of missed diagnosis of sepsis-ICU was greater in community vs tertiary emergency care settings despite shared pathways and education, but with differences in resources, providers, and sepsis incidence. More research is needed to optimize diagnostic approaches in all settings.

Medical students' reactions to anatomic dissection and the phenomenon of cadaver naming.

The teaching of gross anatomy has, for centuries, relied on the dissection of human cadavers, and this formative experience is known to evoke strong emotional responses. The authors hypothesized that the phenomenon of cadaver naming is a coping mechanism used by medical students and that it correlates with other attitudes about dissection and body donation. The authors developed a 33-question electronic survey to which 1,156 medical students at 12 medical schools in the United States voluntarily responded (November 2011-March 2012). They also surveyed course directors from each institution regarding their curricula and their observations of students' coping mechanisms. The majority of students (574, 67.8%) named their cadaver. Students most commonly cited the cadaver's age as the reason they chose a particular name for the cadaver. A minority of the students who did not name the cadaver reported finding the practice of naming disrespectful. Almost all students indicated that they would have liked to know more about their donor, particularly his or her medical history. Finally, students who knew the birth name of the donor used it less frequently than predicted. The authors found that the practice of naming cadavers is extremely prevalent among medical students and that inventive naming serves as a beneficial coping mechanism. The authors suggest that developing a method of providing students with more information about their cadaver while protecting the anonymity of the donor and family would be useful.