A Multicenter Survey of House Staff Knowledge About Sepsis and the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock".

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of resident physicians regarding sepsis in general and the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines in particular. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, we surveyed internal medicine (IM) and emergency medicine (EM) house staff from 3 separate institutions. House staff were notified of the survey via e-mail from their residency director or chief resident. The survey was Internet-based (using http://www.surveymonkey.com ), voluntary, and anonymous. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines were used to develop the survey. The survey was open between December 2015 and April 2016. No incentives for participation were given. Reminder e-mails were sent approximately every 3 to 4 weeks to all eligible participants. Comparisons of responses were evaluated using the N-1 2-proportion test. RESULTS: A total of 133 responses were received. These included 84 from IM house staff, 27 from EM house staff, and 22 who selected "other." Eighty (101/126) percent reported managing at least 1 patient with sepsis in the preceding 30 days, 85% (97/114) rated their knowledge of the Surviving Sepsis Guidelines as "very familiar" or at least "somewhat familiar," and 84% (91/108) believed their training in the diagnosis and management of sepsis was "excellent" or at least "good." However, 43% (47/108) reported not receiving any feedback on their treatment of patients with sepsis in the last 30 days, while 24% (26/108) received feedback once. Both IM and EM house staff received comparable rates of feedback (62% vs 48%, respectively; P = .21). For the 3 questions that directly tested knowledge of the guidelines, the scores of the IM and EM house staff were similar. Notably, <20% of both groups correctly identified diagnostic criteria for sepsis. CONCLUSION: Additional education of IM and EM house staff on the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines is warranted, along with more consistent feedback regarding their diagnosis and management of sepsis.

Quality of life assessment following amputation for septic shock: a long-term descriptive survey after symmetric peripheral gangrene.

PURPOSE: To assess health-related quality of life (HRQOL) following rehabilitation of amputees suffering symmetric peripheral gangrene (SPG) after septic shock. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in nine French specialized rehabilitation centers. Thirty-two ICU adult patients hospitalized between 2005 and 2015 for septic shock who additionally presented with SPG resulting in at least two major amputations were enrolled. HRQOL was assessed by EQ-5D-3 L questionnaire. RESULTS: All patients (mean ICU length of stay 39 ±â€¯22d, SAPS II 58 ±â€¯18) had both lower limbs amputated and 84% were quadruple amputees. HRQOL, assessed 4.8 ±â€¯2.8 years after amputation, was inferior to the French reference. However, patients' self-rated health status was similar to the reference at the time of HRQOL assessment. The main factor of impaired HRQOL was intense phantom pain, not the mobility or self-care dimensions of EQ-5D. All patients except one preferred to be treated again for SPG despite disability. CONCLUSION: ICU survivors referred to rehabilitation centers after SPG-related amputations had impaired HRQOL. At the time of HRQOL assessment, they considered themselves in good health and preferred to be treated again despite disability. Appraisal of long-term functional outcome should not be used to guide end-of-life decision-making in this situation.

Understanding the lingering consequences of what we treat and what we do.

Granja and colleagues have helped us by showing that long-term follow-up is feasible and by trying to tease out whether select intensive care unit patient populations are at particular risk of adverse outcomes. This work gives us clues for future investigations which will hopefully interrogate further the potential mechanisms of action that underlie poor long-term outcomes. In the meantime, we can hope that this quality of follow-up will move from the research arena to become a part of routine clinical care.

Quality of life of survivors from severe sepsis and septic shock may be similar to that of others who survive critical illness.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of the present study was to compare the health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) of survivors from severe sepsis and septic shock with HR-QoL in others who survived critical illness not involving sepsis. METHODS: From March 1997 to March 2001, adult patients in an eight-bed medical/surgical intensive care unit (ICU) of a tertiary care hospital admitted with severe sepsis or septic shock (sepsis group; n = 305) were enrolled and compared with patients admitted without sepsis (control group; n = 392). Patients younger than 18 years (n = 48) and those whose ICU stay was 1 day or less (n = 453) were excluded. In addition, patients exhibiting nonsevere sepsis on admission were excluded (n = 87). Finally, patients who developed nonsevere sepsis or severe sepsis/septic shock after admission were also excluded (n = 88). RESULTS: In-hospital mortality rates were 34% in the sepsis group and 26% in the control group. There were no differences in sex, age, main activity (work status), and previous health state between groups. Survivors in the sepsis group had a significantly higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score on admission (17 versus 12) and stayed significantly longer in the ICU. A follow-up appointment was held 6 months after ICU discharge, and an EQ-5D (EuroQol five-dimension) questionnaire was administered. A total of 104 sepsis survivors and 133 survivors in the control group answered the EQ-5D questionnaire. Sepsis survivors reported significantly fewer problems only in the anxiety/depression dimension. Although there were no significant differences in the other dimensions of the EQ-5D, there was a trend towards fewer problems being reported by sepsis survivors. CONCLUSION: Evaluation using the EQ-5D at 6 months after ICU discharge indicated that survivors from severe sepsis and septic shock have a similar HR-QoL to that of survivors from critical illness admitted without sepsis.