The Use of Different Sepsis Risk Stratification Tools on the Wards and in Emergency Departments Uncovers Different Mortality Risks: Results of the Three Welsh National Multicenter Point-Prevalence Studies.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, Red Flag Sepsis, and National Institute of Clinical Excellence sepsis risk stratification tools in the identification of patients at greatest risk of mortality from sepsis in nonintensive care environments. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of three annual 24-hour point-prevalence study periods. SETTING: The general wards and emergency departments of 14 acute hospitals across Wales. Studies were conducted on the third Wednesday of October in 2017, 2018, and 2019. PATIENTS: We screened all patients presenting to the emergency department and on the general wards. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We recruited 1,271 patients, of which 724 (56.9%) had systemic inflammatory response syndrome greater than or equal to 2, 679 (53.4%) had Sequential Organ Failure Assessment greater than or equal to 2, and 977 (76.9%) had Red Flag Sepsis. When stratified according to National Institute of Clinical Excellence guidelines, 450 patients (35.4%) were in the "High risk" category in comparison with 665 (52.3%) in "Moderate to High risk" and 156 (12.3%) in "Low risk" category. In a planned sensitivity analysis, we found that none of the tools accurately predicted mortality at 90 days, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and National Institute of Clinical Excellence tools showed only moderate discriminatory power for mortality at 7 and 14 days. Furthermore, we could not find any significant correlation with any of the tools at any of the mortality time points. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that the sepsis risk stratification tools currently utilized in emergency departments and on the general wards do not predict mortality adequately. This is illustrated by the disparity in mortality risk of the populations captured by each instrument, as well as the weak concordance between them. We propose that future studies on the development of sepsis identification tools should focus on identifying predicator values of both the short- and long-term outcomes of sepsis.

Four consecutive yearly point-prevalence studies in Wales indicate lack of improvement in sepsis care on the wards.

The 'Sepsis Six' bundle was promoted as a deliverable tool outside of the critical care settings, but there is very little data available on the progress and change of sepsis care outside the critical care environment in the UK. Our aim was to compare the yearly prevalence, outcome and the Sepsis Six bundle compliance in patients at risk of mortality from sepsis in non-intensive care environments. Patients with a National Early Warning Score (NEWS) of 3 or above and suspected or proven infection were enrolled into four yearly 24-h point prevalence studies, carried out in fourteen hospitals across Wales from 2016 to 2019. We followed up patients to 30 days between 2016-2019 and to 90 days between 2017 and 2019. Out of the 26,947 patients screened 1651 fulfilled inclusion criteria and were recruited. The full 'Sepsis Six' care bundle was completed on 223 (14.0%) occasions, with no significant difference between the years. On 190 (11.5%) occasions none of the bundle elements were completed. There was no significant correlation between bundle element compliance, NEWS or year of study. One hundred and seventy (10.7%) patients were seen by critical care outreach; the 'Sepsis Six' bundle was completed significantly more often in this group (54/170, 32.0%) than for patients who were not reviewed by critical care outreach (168/1385, 11.6%; p < 0.0001). Overall survival to 30 days was 81.7% (1349/1651), with a mean survival time of 26.5 days (95% CI 26.1-26.9) with no difference between each year of study. 90-day survival for years 2017-2019 was 74.7% (949/1271), with no difference between the years. In multivariate regression we identified older age, heart failure, recent chemotherapy, higher frailty score and do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation orders as significantly associated with increased 30-day mortality. Our data suggests that despite efforts to increase sepsis awareness within the NHS, there is poor compliance with the sepsis care bundles and no change in the high mortality over the study period. Further research is needed to determine which time-sensitive ward-based interventions can reduce mortality in patients with sepsis and how can these results be embedded to routine clinical practice.Trial registration Defining Sepsis on the Wards ISRCTN 86502304 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN86502304 prospectively registered 09/05/2016.

Real World Patterns of Antimicrobial Use and Microbiology Investigations in Patients with Sepsis outside the Critical Care Unit: Secondary Analysis of Three Nation-Wide Point Prevalence Studies.

Recent description of the microbiology of sepsis on the wards or information on the real-life antibiotic choices used in sepsis is lacking. There is growing concern of the indiscriminate use of antibiotics and omission of microbiological investigations in the management of septic patients. We performed a secondary analysis of three annual 24-h point-prevalence studies on the general wards across all Welsh acute hospitals in years 2016-2018. Data were collected on patient demographics, as well as radiological, laboratory and microbiological data within 48-h of the study. We screened 19,453 patients over the three 24 h study periods and recruited 1252 patients who fulfilled the entry criteria. 775 (64.9%) patients were treated with intravenous antibiotics. Only in 33.65% (421/1252) of all recruited patients did healthcare providers obtain blood cultures; in 25.64% (321/1252) urine cultures; in 8.63% (108/1252) sputum cultures; in 6.79% (85/1252) wound cultures; in 15.25% (191/1252) other cultures. Out of the recruited patients, 59.1% (740/1252) fulfilled SEPSIS-3 criteria. Patients with SEPSIS-3 criteria were significantly more likely to receive antibiotics than the non-septic cohort (p < 0.0001). In a multivariable regression analysis increase in SOFA score, increased number of SIRS criteria and the use of the official sepsis screening tool were associated with antibiotic administration, however obtaining microbiology cultures was not. Our study shows that antibiotics prescription practice is not accompanied by microbiological investigations. A significant proportion of sepsis patients are still at risk of not receiving appropriate antibiotics treatment and microbiological investigations; this may be improved by a more thorough implementation of sepsis screening tools.