Management and outcomes of patients presenting with sepsis and septic shock to the emergency department during nursing handover: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical handover is an important process for the transition of patient-care responsibility to the next healthcare provider, but it may divert the attention of the team away from active patients. This is challenging in the Emergency Department (ED) because of highly dynamic patient conditions and is likely relevant in conditions that requires time-sensitive therapies, such as sepsis. We aimed to examine the management and outcomes of patients presenting with sepsis and septic shock to the ED during nursing handover. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a 115-bed ED and more than 200,000 annual ED visits, within a 900-bed academic tertiary care center. Data on Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) bundle elements and hospital mortality were collected for all ≥14-year-old patients who presented to the ED with a diagnosis of sepsis and septic shock between January 1, 2011 and October 30, 2013. Our primary outcome was time to antibiotics, were other SSC bundle elements and mortality counted as secondary outcomes. Patients were divided into two groups: 1) handover time group, comprising patients who presented an hour before or after the start of handover time (6-8 AM/PM), and 2) non-handover time group, comprising patients who presented over the remaining 20 h. RESULTS: During the study period, 1330 patients presented with sepsis or septic shock (228, handover time group; 1102, non-handover time group). No significant differences were found between the handover time and non-handover time groups, respectively, in median time to antibiotic administration (100 [interquartile range (IQR) 57-172] vs. 95 [IQR 50-190] minutes; P = 0.07), median time to serum lactate result (162 [IQR 108-246] vs. 156 [IQR 180-246] minutes; P = 0.33) and median time to obtain blood culture (54 [IQR 36-119] vs. 52 [IQR 28-103] minutes; P = 0.52), and hospital mortality rate (29.4% vs. 28.9%; P = 0.89). CONCLUSION: No significant differences were found in median time of SSC bundle elements or hospital mortality between patients who presented during the handover and non-handover times.

Critically Ill Patients With the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe patient characteristics, clinical manifestations, disease course including viral replication patterns, and outcomes of critically ill patients with severe acute respiratory infection from the Middle East respiratory syndrome and to compare these features with patients with severe acute respiratory infection due to other etiologies. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Patients admitted to ICUs in 14 Saudi Arabian hospitals. PATIENTS: Critically ill patients with laboratory-confirmed Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection (n = 330) admitted between September 2012 and October 2015 were compared to consecutive critically ill patients with community-acquired severe acute respiratory infection of non-Middle East respiratory syndrome etiology (non-Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection) (n = 222). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Although Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection patients were younger than those with non-Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection (median [quartile 1, quartile 3] 58 yr [44, 69] vs 70 [52, 78]; p < 0.001), clinical presentations and comorbidities overlapped substantially. Patients with Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection had more severe hypoxemic respiratory failure (PaO2/FIO2: 106 [66, 160] vs 176 [104, 252]; p < 0.001) and more frequent nonrespiratory organ failure (nonrespiratory Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score: 6 [4, 9] vs 5 [3, 7]; p = 0.002), thus required more frequently invasive mechanical ventilation (85.2% vs 73.0%; p < 0.001), oxygen rescue therapies (extracorporeal membrane oxygenation 5.8% vs 0.9%; p = 0.003), vasopressor support (79.4% vs 55.0%; p < 0.001), and renal replacement therapy (48.8% vs 22.1%; p < 0.001). After adjustment for potential confounding factors, Middle East respiratory syndrome was independently associated with death compared to non-Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection (adjusted odds ratio, 5.87; 95% CI, 4.02-8.56; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial overlap exists in the clinical presentation and comorbidities among patients with Middle East respiratory syndrome severe acute respiratory infection from other etiologies; therefore, a high index of suspicion combined with diagnostic testing is essential component of severe acute respiratory infection investigation for at-risk patients. The lack of distinguishing clinical features, the need to rely on real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction from respiratory samples, variability in viral shedding duration, lack of effective therapy, and high mortality represent substantial clinical challenges and help guide ongoing clinical research efforts.