Causes, Diagnostic Testing, and Treatments Related to Clinical Deterioration Events among High-Risk Ward Patients.

OBJECTIVE: Timely intervention for clinically deteriorating ward patients requires that care teams accurately diagnose and treat their underlying medical conditions. However, the most common diagnoses leading to deterioration and the relevant therapies provided are poorly characterized. Therefore, we aimed to determine the diagnoses responsible for clinical deterioration, the relevant diagnostic tests ordered, and the treatments administered among high-risk ward patients using manual chart review. DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective observational study. SETTING: Inpatient medical-surgical wards at four health systems from 2006-2020 PATIENTS: Randomly selected patients (1,000 from each health system) with clinical deterioration, defined by reaching the 95th percentile of a validated early warning score, electronic Cardiac Arrest Risk Triage (eCART), were included. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Clinical deterioration was confirmed by a trained reviewer or marked as a false alarm if no deterioration occurred for each patient. For true deterioration events, the condition causing deterioration, relevant diagnostic tests ordered, and treatments provided were collected. Of the 4,000 included patients, 2,484 (62%) had clinical deterioration confirmed by chart review. Sepsis was the most common cause of deterioration (41%; n=1,021), followed by arrhythmia (19%; n=473), while liver failure had the highest in-hospital mortality (41%). The most common diagnostic tests ordered were complete blood counts (47% of events), followed by chest x-rays (42%), and cultures (40%), while the most common medication orders were antimicrobials (46%), followed by fluid boluses (34%), and antiarrhythmics (19%). CONCLUSIONS: We found that sepsis was the most common cause of deterioration, while liver failure had the highest mortality. Complete blood counts and chest x-rays were the most common diagnostic tests ordered, and antimicrobials and fluid boluses were the most common medication interventions. These results provide important insights for clinical decision-making at the bedside, training of rapid response teams, and the development of institutional treatment pathways for clinical deterioration. KEY POINTS: Question: What are the most common diagnoses, diagnostic test orders, and treatments for ward patients experiencing clinical deterioration? Findings: In manual chart review of 2,484 encounters with deterioration across four health systems, we found that sepsis was the most common cause of clinical deterioration, followed by arrythmias, while liver failure had the highest mortality. Complete blood counts and chest x-rays were the most common diagnostic test orders, while antimicrobials and fluid boluses were the most common treatments. Meaning: Our results provide new insights into clinical deterioration events, which can inform institutional treatment pathways, rapid response team training, and patient care.

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.

Prevalence, Characteristics, and Outcomes of Emergency Department Discharge Among Patients With Sepsis.

Importance: Sepsis guidelines and research have focused on patients with sepsis who are admitted to the hospital, but the scope and implications of sepsis that is managed in an outpatient setting are largely unknown. Objective: To identify the prevalence, risk factors, practice variation, and outcomes for discharge to outpatient management of sepsis among patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted at the EDs of 4 Utah hospitals, and data extraction and analysis were performed from 2017 to 2021. Participants were adult ED patients who presented to a participating ED from July 1, 2013, to December 31, 2016, and met sepsis criteria before departing the ED alive and not receiving hospice care. Exposures: Patient demographic and clinical characteristics, health system parameters, and ED attending physician. Main Outcomes and Measures: Information on ED disposition was obtained from electronic medical records, and 30-day mortality data were acquired from Utah state death records and the US Social Security Death Index. Factors associated with ED discharge rather than hospital admission were identified using penalized logistic regression. Variation in ED discharge rates between physicians was estimated after adjustment for potential confounders using generalized linear mixed models. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used in the primary analysis to assess the noninferiority of outpatient management for 30-day mortality (noninferiority margin of 1.5%) while adjusting for multiple potential confounders. Results: Among 12 333 ED patients with sepsis (median [IQR] age, 62 [47-76] years; 7017 women [56.9%]) who were analyzed in the study, 1985 (16.1%) were discharged from the ED. After penalized regression, factors associated with ED discharge included age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.90 per 10-y increase; 95% CI, 0.87-0.93), arrival to ED by ambulance (aOR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.52-0.71), organ failure severity (aOR, 0.58 per 1-point increase in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score; 95% CI, 0.54-0.60), and urinary tract (aOR, 4.56 [95% CI, 3.91-5.31] vs pneumonia), intra-abdominal (aOR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.39-0.65] vs pneumonia), skin (aOR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.14-1.72] vs pneumonia) or other source of infection (aOR, 1.67 [95% CI, 1.40-1.97] vs pneumonia). Among 89 ED attending physicians, adjusted ED discharge probability varied significantly (likelihood ratio test, P < .001), ranging from 8% to 40% for an average patient. The unadjusted 30-day mortality was lower in discharged patients than admitted patients (0.9% vs 8.3%; P < .001), and their adjusted 30-day mortality was noninferior (propensity-adjusted odds ratio, 0.21 [95% CI, 0.09-0.48]; adjusted risk difference, 5.8% [95% CI, 5.1%-6.5%]; P < .001). Alternative confounder adjustment strategies yielded odds ratios that ranged from 0.21 to 0.42. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, discharge to outpatient treatment of patients who met sepsis criteria in the ED was more common than previously recognized and varied substantially between ED physicians, but it was not associated with higher mortality compared with hospital admission. Systematic, evidence-based strategies to optimize the triage of ED patients with sepsis are needed.

Institution of an emergency department "swarming" care model and sepsis door-to-antibiotic time: A quasi-experimental retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prompt sepsis treatment is associated with improved outcomes but requires a complex series of actions by multiple clinicians. We investigated whether simply reorganizing emergency department (ED) care to expedite patients' initial evaluation was associated with shorter sepsis door-to-antibiotic times. METHODS: Patients eligible for this retrospective study received IV antibiotics and demonstrated acute organ failure after presenting to one of three EDs in Utah. On May 1, 2016, the intervention ED instituted "swarming" as the default model for initial evaluation of all mid- and low-acuity patients. Swarming involved simultaneous patient evaluation by the ED physician, nurse, and technician followed by a team discussion of the initial care plan. Care was unchanged at the two control EDs. A 30-day wash-in period separated the baseline (May 16, 2015 to April 15, 2016) and post-intervention (May 16, 2016 to November 15, 2016) analysis periods. We conducted a quasi-experimental analysis comparing door-to-antibiotic time for sepsis patients at the intervention ED after versus before care reorganization, applying difference-in-differences methods to control for trends in door-to-antibiotic time unrelated to the studied intervention and multivariable regression to adjust for patient characteristics. RESULTS: The analysis included 3,230 ED sepsis patients, including 1,406 from the intervention ED. Adjusted analyses using difference-in-differences methods to control for temporal trends unrelated to the studied intervention revealed no significant change in door-to-antibiotic time after care reorganization (-7 minutes, 95% CI -20 to 6 minutes, p = 0.29). Multivariable pre/post analyses using data only from the intervention ED overestimated the magnitude and statistical significance of outcome changes associated with ED care reorganization. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an ED care model involving parallel multidisciplinary assessment and early team discussion of the care plan was not associated with improvements in mid- and low-acuity sepsis patients' door-to-antibiotic time after accounting for changes in the outcome unrelated to the studied intervention.