Concordance Between Initial Presumptive and Final Adjudicated Diagnoses of Infection Among Patients Meeting Sepsis-3 Criteria in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines emphasize rapid antibiotic treatment for sepsis, but infection presence is often uncertain at initial presentation. We investigated the incidence and drivers of false-positive presumptive infection diagnosis among emergency department (ED) patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria. METHODS: For a retrospective cohort of patients hospitalized after meeting Sepsis-3 criteria (acute organ failure and suspected infection including blood cultures drawn and intravenous antimicrobials administered) in 1 of 4 EDs from 2013 to 2017, trained reviewers first identified the ED-diagnosed source of infection and adjudicated the presence and source of infection on final assessment. Reviewers subsequently adjudicated final infection probability for a randomly selected 10% subset of subjects. Risk factors for false-positive infection diagnosis and its association with 30-day mortality were evaluated using multivariable regression. RESULTS: Of 8267 patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria in the ED, 699 (8.5%) did not have an infection on final adjudication and 1488 (18.0%) patients with confirmed infections had a different source of infection diagnosed in the ED versus final adjudication (ie, initial/final source diagnosis discordance). Among the subset of patients whose final infection probability was adjudicated (n = 812), 79 (9.7%) had only "possible" infection and 77 (9.5%) were not infected. Factors associated with false-positive infection diagnosis included hypothermia, altered mental status, comorbidity burden, and an "unknown infection source" diagnosis in the ED (odds ratio: 6.39; 95% confidence interval: 5.14-7.94). False-positive infection diagnosis was not associated with 30-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In this large multihospital study, <20% of ED patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria had no infection or only possible infection on retrospective adjudication.

Relationship Between Resuscitation Team Members' Self-Efficacy and Team Competence During In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

OBJECTIVES: Inadequate self-efficacy of resuscitation team members may impair team performance, but high self-efficacy does not guarantee competence. We evaluated the relationship between individual self-efficacy and resuscitation team competence. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. SETTING: High-fidelity in situ in-hospital cardiac arrest simulations at seven hospitals in Utah. SUBJECTS: Multidisciplinary cardiac arrest resuscitation team members. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Resuscitation team members completed surveys evaluating resuscitation self-efficacy (confidence in resuscitation role, difficulty thinking clearly, and concerns about committing errors) after each simulation. The primary outcome was event-level chest compression hands-on fraction greater than 75%. Secondary outcomes included other measures of resuscitation quality, advanced cardiac life support protocol adherence, and nontechnical team performance. Analyses employed the Datta-Satten rank-sum method to account for response clustering within simulation events. Of 923 participants in 76 analyzable simulations, 612 (66%) submitted complete surveys and 33 (43%) resuscitation teams achieved hands-on fraction greater than 75%. Event-level chest compression hands-on fraction greater than 75% versus less than or equal to 75% was not associated with the percentage of resuscitation team members reporting confidence in their team role (n = 213 [74%] vs. n = 251 [77%], respectively, p = 0.18), lack of difficulty thinking clearly (n = 186 [65%] vs. n = 214 [66%], p = 0.92), or lack of worry about making errors (n = 155 [54%] vs. n = 180 [55%], p = 0.41). Team members' confidence was also not associated with secondary outcomes, except that teams with confident members had better values for composite (3.55 [interquartile range, IQR 3.00-3.82] vs. 3.18 [IQR 2.57-3.64], p = 0.024) and global (8 [7-9] vs. 8 [6-8], p = 0.029) scales measuring nontechnical team performance. CONCLUSIONS: Team members' self-efficacy was not associated with most team-level competence metrics during simulated cardiac arrest resuscitation. These data suggest that self-efficacy should have a limited role for evaluation of resuscitation training programs and for initial certification and monitoring of individual resuscitation team members' competence.

Effectiveness and Safety of an Emergency Department Code Sepsis Protocol: A Pragmatic Clinical Trial.

RATIONALE: Sepsis care delivery - including initiation of prompt, appropriate antimicrobials - remains suboptimal. OBJECTIVE: Determine direct and off-target effects of emergency department (ED) sepsis care reorganization. METHODS: This pragmatic pilot trial enrolled adult patients presenting November 2019 to February 2021 to an ED in Utah before and after implementation of a multimodal, team-based "Code Sepsis" protocol. Patients presenting to two other EDs where usual care was continued served as contemporaneous controls. The primary outcome was door-to-antimicrobial time among patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria before ED departure. Secondary and safety outcomes included all-cause 30-day mortality, antimicrobial utilization and overtreatment, and antimicrobial-associated adverse events. Multivariable regression analyses employed difference-in-differences methods to account for trends in outcomes unrelated to the studied intervention. RESULTS: Code Sepsis protocol activation (N=307) exhibited 8.5% sensitivity and 66% positive predictive value for patients meeting sepsis criteria before ED departure. Among 10,151 patients meeting sepsis criteria during the study, adjusted difference-in-differences analysis demonstrated a 13-minute (95% CI 7-19-minute) decrease in door-to-antimicrobial time associated with Code Sepsis implementation (p<0.001). Mortality and clinical safety outcomes were unchanged, but Code Sepsis implementation was associated with increased false-positive presumptive infection diagnosis among patients meeting sepsis criteria in the ED and increased antimicrobial utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a team-based protocol for rapid sepsis evaluation and treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic's first year was associated with decreased ED door-to-antimicrobial time but also increased antimicrobial utilization. Measurement of both patient-centered and off-target effects of sepsis care improvement interventions is essential to comprehensive assessment of their value. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04148989) This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).