An Early Warning Scoring System to Identify Septic Patients in the Prehospital Setting: The PRESEP Score.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to develop and evaluate an early sepsis detection score for the prehospital setting. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who were admitted by emergency medical services (EMS) to the emergency department of the Jena University Hospital was performed. Because potential predictors for sepsis should be based on consensus criteria, the following parameters were extracted from the EMS protocol for further analysis: temperature, heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), oxygen saturation (SaO2 ), Glasgow Coma Scale score, blood glucose, and systolic blood pressure (sBP). Potential predictors were stratified based on inspection of Loess graphs. Backward model selection was performed to select risk factors for the final model. The Prehospital Early Sepsis Detection (PRESEP) score was calculated as the sum of simplified regression weights. Its predictive validity was compared to the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), the Robson screening tool, and the BAS 90-30-90. RESULTS: A total of 375 patients were included in the derivation sample; 93 (24.8%) of these had sepsis, including 60 patients with severe sepsis and 12 patients with septic shock. Backward model selection identified temperature, HR, RR, SaO2 , and sBP for inclusion in the PRESEP score. Simplified weights were as follows: temperature > 38°C = 4, temperature < 36°C = 1, HR > 90 beats/min = 2, RR > 22 breaths/min = 1, SaO2 < 92% = 2, and sBP < 90 mm Hg = 2. The cutoff value for a possible existing septic disease based on maximum Youden's index was ≥4 (sensitivity 0.85, specificity 0.86, positive predictive value [PPV] 0.66, and negative predictive value [NPV] 0.95). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of the PRESEP score was 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.89 to 0.96) and was larger than the AUC of the MEWS (0.93 vs. 0.77, p < 0.001). The PRESEP score surpassed MEWS and BAS 90-60-90 for sensitivity (0.74 and 0.62, respectively), specificity (0.75 and 0.83), PPV (0.45 and 0.51), and NPV (0.91 and 0.89). The Robson screening tool had a higher sensitivity and NPV (0.95 and 0.97), but its specificity and PPV were lower (0.43 and 0.32). CONCLUSIONS: The PRESEP score could be a valuable tool for identifying septic patients in the prehospital setting in the case of suspected infection. It should be prospectively validated.

Present-day prehospital airway management in the former Eastern German state of Thuringia: equipment and education of emergency physicians.

We describe the condition of education and equipment regarding prehospital airway management in the German federal state of Thuringia, representing a part of former Eastern Germany. In 2006 a postal survey of the 39 emergency medical stations (EMS) in Thuringia was carried out. The response rate was 100%. In 72% of the EMS, a device for extraglottic airway management and in all EMS a device for cricothyrotomy was available. A device to monitor end-tidal CO2 was available in 41%. Difficulties in airway management in the past two years were reported from 74% of the EMS. Ongoing training and education in airway management is provided in 82% of the emergency districts. This survey reveals wide variations in the equipment for airway management available to prehospital emergency physicians in Thuringia. Given the reported difficulties in airway management, availability of a more standardized set of airway management devices in Thuringia may be helpful.