Does Use of Electronic Alerts for Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) to Identify Patients With Sepsis Improve Mortality?

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to assess whether earlier antibiotic administration in patients with systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and evidence of organ dysfunction identified through electronic alerts improves patient mortality. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational cohort study of adult patients admitted across 5 acute-care hospitals. Mortality, Premier CareScienceTM Analytics Expected Mortality Score, and clinical and demographic variables were obtained through the electronic medical record and Premier (Premier Healthcare Solutions, Inc, Charlotte NC) reports. Patients with 2 SIRS criteria and organ dysfunction were identified through an automated alert. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was performed. RESULTS: Of those with SIRS and organ dysfunction, 8146 patients were identified through the electronic Best Practice Alert (BPA). Overall 30-day mortality rate was 8.7%. There was no significant association between time to antibiotic administration from BPA alert and mortality (P = 0.21) after adjusting for factors that could influence mortality, including age, heart rate, blood pressure, plasma lactate levels, creatinine, bilirubin levels, and the CareScienceTM Predicted Mortality Risk Score. Female gender (odds ratio [OR] 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.63) and facility were also independently associated with mortality. CONCLUSION: The use of alerts in the electronic medical record may misclassify patients with SIRS as having sepsis. Time to antibiotic administration in patients meeting SIRS criteria and evidence of end-organ dysfunction through BPA alerts did not affect 30-day mortality rates across a health system. Patient severity of illness, gender, and facility also independently predicted mortality. There were higher rates of antibiotic use and Clostridioides difficile infection in patients with BPA alerts.

Healthcare Antibiotic Resistance Prevalence - DC (HARP-DC): A Regional Prevalence Assessment of Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) in Healthcare Facilities in Washington, District of Columbia.

OBJECTIVE Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) are a significant clinical and public health concern. Understanding the distribution of CRE colonization and developing a coordinated approach are key components of control efforts. The prevalence of CRE in the District of Columbia is unknown. We sought to determine the CRE colonization prevalence within healthcare facilities (HCFs) in the District of Columbia using a collaborative, regional approach. DESIGN Point-prevalence study. SETTING This study included 16 HCFs in the District of Columbia: all 8 acute-care hospitals (ACHs), 5 of 19 skilled nursing facilities, 2 (both) long-term acute-care facilities, and 1 (the sole) inpatient rehabilitation facility. PATIENTS Inpatients on all units excluding psychiatry and obstetrics-gynecology. METHODS CRE identification was performed on perianal swab samples using real-time polymerase chain reaction, culture, and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST). Prevalence was calculated by facility and unit type as the number of patients with a positive result divided by the total number tested. Prevalence ratios were compared using the Poisson distribution. RESULTS Of 1,022 completed tests, 53 samples tested positive for CRE, yielding a prevalence of 5.2% (95% CI, 3.9%-6.8%). Of 726 tests from ACHs, 36 (5.0%; 95% CI, 3.5%-6.9%) were positive. Of 244 tests from long-term-care facilities, 17 (7.0%; 95% CI, 4.1%-11.2%) were positive. The relative prevalence ratios by facility type were 0.9 (95% CI, 0.5-1.5) and 1.5 (95% CI, 0.9-2.6), respectively. No CRE were identified from the inpatient rehabilitation facility. CONCLUSION A baseline CRE prevalence was established, revealing endemicity across healthcare settings in the District of Columbia. Our study establishes a framework for interfacility collaboration to reduce CRE transmission and infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:921-929.