Prehospital Recognition and Management of Pediatric Sepsis: A Qualitative Assessment.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Sepsis is a life-threatening disease in children and is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Early prehospital recognition and management of children with sepsis may have significant effects on the timely resuscitation of this high-risk clinical condition. However, the care of acutely ill and injured children in the prehospital setting can be challenging. This study aims to understand barriers, facilitators, and attitudes regarding recognition and management of pediatric sepsis in the prehospital setting. METHODS: This was a qualitative study of EMS professionals participating in focus groups using a grounded theory-based design to gather information on recognition and management of septic children in the prehospital setting. Focus groups were held for EMS administrators and medical directors. Separate focus groups were held for field clinicians. Focus groups were conducted via video conference until saturation of ideas was reached. Using consensus methodology, transcripts were coded in an iterative process. Data were then organized into positive and negative factors based on the validated PRECEDE-PROCEED model for behavioral change. RESULTS: Thirty-eight participants in six focus groups identified nine environmental factors, 21 negative factors, and 14 positive factors pertaining to recognition and management of pediatric sepsis. These findings were organized into the PRECEDE-PROCEED planning model. Pediatric sepsis guidelines were identified as positive factors when they did exist and negative factors when they were complicated or did not exist. Six interventions were identified by participants. These include raising awareness of pediatric sepsis, increasing pediatric education, receiving feedback on prehospital encounters, increasing pediatric exposure and skills training, and improving dispatch information. CONCLUSION: This study fills a gap by examining barriers and facilitators to prehospital diagnosis and management of pediatric sepsis. Using the PRECEDE-PROCEED model, nine environmental factors, 21 negative factors, and 14 positive factors were identified. Participants identified six interventions that could create the foundation to improve prehospital pediatric sepsis care. Policy changes were suggested by the research team based on the results of this study. These interventions and policy changes provide a roadmap for improving care in this population and lay the groundwork for future research.

Implementation of an Automated Sepsis Screening Tool in a Children's Hospital Emergency Department: A Cost Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of implementation of an automated sepsis screening tool on the median cost of affected patient encounters. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study used propensity score-matched comparison groups to assess the difference in median cost for comparable affected patient encounters before and after the implementation of an automated sepsis screening tool in a large US children's hospital emergency department (ED) with >90 000 annual visits. All patient encounters in 2018 impacted by the automated sepsis screening tool were included and compared with a propensity score-matched comparison group drawn from patient encounters in 2012 that might have been affected by the screening tool had it been active at that time. The main outcome was the change in the median cost for comparable affected patient encounters. RESULTS: The overall median cost for those affected by an automated sepsis screening tool decreased by 21.2%, from $6454 (IQR, $968-$21 697) to $5084 (IQR, $802-$16 618). The median cost for encounters with an associated International Classification of Diseases sepsis code decreased by 51.1%, from $58 685 (IQR, $32 224-$134 895) to $28 672 (IQR, $16 796-$60 657). CONCLUSIONS: The median cost for comparable patient encounters decreased with implementation of an automated sepsis screening tool in the pediatric ED. Costs were decreased even more substantially for patients with sepsis. In addition to improving outcomes, an automated sepsis screening tool appears to be at least cost-effective and may be cost-saving, an incentive for more widespread use of this technology.

Automating a Manual Sepsis Screening Tool in a Pediatric Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVE: This article describes the method of integrating a manual pediatric emergency department sepsis screening process into the electronic health record that leverages existing clinical documentation and keeps providers in their current, routine clinical workflows. METHODS: Criteria in the manual pediatric emergency department sepsis screening tool were mapped to standard documentation routinely entered in the electronic health record. Data elements were extracted and scored from the medical history, medication record, vital signs, and physical assessments. Scores that met a predefined sepsis risk threshold triggered interruptive system alerts which notified emergency department staff to perform sepsis huddles and consider appropriate interventions. Statistical comparison of the new electronic tool to the manual process was completed by a two-tail paired t-test. RESULTS: The performance of the pediatric electronic sepsis screening tool was evaluated by comparing flowsheet row documentation of the manual, sepsis alert process against the interruptive system alert instance of the electronic sepsis screening tool. In an 8-week testing period, the automated pediatric electronic sepsis screening tool identified 100% of patients flagged by the manual process (n = 29), on average, 68 minutes earlier. CONCLUSION: Integrating a manual sepsis screening tool into the electronic health record automated identification of pediatric sepsis screening in a busy emergency department. The electronic sepsis screening tool is as accurate as a manual process and would alert bedside clinicians significantly earlier in the emergency department course. Deployment of this electronic tool has the capability to improve timely sepsis detection and management of patients at risk for sepsis without requiring additional documentation by providers.