Can acutely ill patients predict their outcomes? A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: The full impact of an acute illness on subsequent health is seldom explicitly discussed with patients. Patients' estimates of their likely prognosis have been explored in chronic care settings and can contribute to the improvement of clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. This scoping review aimed to identify studies of acutely ill patients' estimates of their outcomes and potential benefits for their care. METHODS: A search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Google Scholar, using terms related to prognostication and acute care. After removal of duplicates, all articles were assessed for relevance by six investigator pairs; disagreements were resolved by a third investigator. Risk of bias was assessed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. RESULTS: Our search identified 3265 articles, of which 10 were included. The methods of assessing self-prognostication were very heterogeneous. Patients seem to be able to predict their need for hospital admission in certain settings, but not their length of stay. The severity of their symptoms and the burden of their disease are often overestimated or underestimated by patients. Patients with severe health conditions and their relatives tend to be overoptimistic about the likely outcome. CONCLUSION: The understanding of acutely ill patients of their likely outcomes and benefits of treatment has not been adequately studied and is a major knowledge gap. Limited published literature suggests patients may be able to predict their need for hospital admission. Illness perception may influence help-seeking behaviour, speed of recovery and subsequent quality of life. Knowledge of patients' self-prognosis may enhance communication between patients and their physicians, which improves patient-centred care.

Patients' Perspectives and Feasibility of Home Monitoring in Acute Care: The AcuteCare@Home Flash Mob Study.

Objective: To determine patients' perspectives on home monitoring at emergency department (ED) presentation and shortly after admission and compare these with their physicians' perspectives. Methods: Forty Dutch hospitals participated in this prospective flash mob study. Adult patients with acute medical conditions, treated by internal medicine specialties, presenting at the ED or admitted at the admission ward within the previous 24 h were included. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who were able and willing to undergo home monitoring. Secondary outcomes included identifying barriers to home monitoring, patient's prerequisites, and assessing the agreement between the perspectives of patients and treating physicians. Results: On February 2, 2023, in total 665 patients [median age 69 (interquartile range: 55-78) years; 95.5% community dwelling; 29.3% Modified Early Warning Score ≥3; 29.5% clinical frailty score ≥5] were included. In total, 19.6% of ED patients were admitted and 26% of ward patients preferred home monitoring as continuation of care. Guaranteed readmission (87.8%), ability to contact the hospital 24/7 (77.3%), and a family caregiver at home (55.7%) were the most often reported prerequisites. Barriers for home monitoring were feeling too severely ill (78.8%) and inability to receive the required treatment at home (64.4%). The agreement between patients and physicians was fair (Cohens kappa coefficient 0.26). Conclusions: A substantial proportion of acutely ill patients stated that they were willing and able to be monitored at home. Guaranteed readmission, availability of a treatment team (24/7), and a home support system are needed for successful implementation of home monitoring in acute care.

The impact of a sepsis performance improvement program in the emergency department: a before-after intervention study.

PURPOSE: The latest Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines advocate that all hospitals use sepsis performance improvement programs. However, there is a limited evidence about how to structure such programs and what their potential impact is on sepsis management and outcomes in the emergency department (ED). In this study, we evaluated the implementation of a sepsis performance improvement program in the ED including a dedicated sepsis response team and analyzed the management and outcomes of sepsis patients before and after. METHODS: We conducted a before-after interventional study in the ED of the Amsterdam University Medical Centers, the Netherlands. The sepsis performance improvement program included regular educational meetings, daily audits and weekly feedback, a screening tool, and a dedicated multidisciplinary sepsis response team. We studied all adult patients who presented to the ED with a suspected infection and a Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) ≥ 3 during their stay. In the postintervention phase, these patients were seen by the sepsis team. Process-related and patient-related outcomes were measured between November 2019 and February 2020 (preintervention) and December 2021-May 2022 (postintervention). RESULTS: A total of 265 patients were included in the primary study, 132 patients preintervention and 133 patients postintervention. The postintervention phase was associated with improvements in nearly all process-related outcomes, such as a shorter time to antibiotics (66 vs. 143 min; p < 0.001), increased number of lactate measurements (72.9 vs. 46.2%; p < 0.001), and improved completeness of documented MEWS scores (85.0 vs. 62.9%; p < 0.001). Except for an improvement in the number of immediate versus delayed ICU admissions (100% immediate vs. 64.3% immediate; p = 0.012), there was no improvement in the other patient-related outcomes such as 28 days mortality (14.3 vs. 9.1%; p = 0.261), during the postintervention phase. CONCLUSION: Our program stimulated physicians to make timely decisions regarding diagnostics and treatment of sepsis in the ED. Implementing the sepsis performance improvement program was associated with significant improvements in most process-related outcomes but with minimal improvements in patient-related outcomes in our cohort.

The usefulness of implementing minimum retest intervals in reducing inappropriate laboratory test requests in a Dutch hospital.

OBJECTIVES: Inappropriate use of laboratory testing remains a challenging problem worldwide. Minimum retest intervals (MRI) are used to reduce inappropriate laboratory testing. However, their effectiveness and the usefulness in reducing inappropriate laboratory testing is still a matter of debate. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of broadly implemented MRIs as a means of reducing inappropriate laboratory test requests. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study in a general care and teaching hospital in the Netherlands, where MRI alerts have been implemented as standard care since June 7th 2017. Clinical chemistry test orders in adult internal medicine patients placed between July 13th 2017 and December 31st 2019 were included. The primary outcome was the effectiveness of MRIs, expressed as percentages of tests ordered and barred as a result of MRIs. RESULTS: Of a total of 218,511 test requests, 4,159 (1.90%) got an MRI alert. These MRIs were overruled by physicians in 21.76% of the cases. As a result of implementing MRIs, 3,254 (1.49%) tests were barred. The financial savings for the department of internal medicine directly related to the included barred laboratory tests during this period were 11,880 euros on a total amount of 636,598 euros for all performed tests. CONCLUSIONS: Only a small proportion of laboratory tests are barred after implementation of MRIs, with a limited impact on the annual costs. However, MRIs provide a continuous reminder to focus on appropriate testing and the effectiveness of MRIs is potentially higher than described in this study.

Sepsis Performance Improvement Programs: From Evidence Toward Clinical Implementation.

This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2022. Other selected articles can be found online at https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/annualupdate2022 . Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from https://link.springer.com/bookseries/8901 .

Understanding what matters most to patients in acute care in seven countries, using the flash mob study design.

BACKGROUND: Truly patient-centred care needs to be aligned with what patients consider important, and is highly desirable in the first 24 h of an acute admission, as many decisions are made during this period. However, there is limited knowledge on what matters most to patients in this phase of their hospital stay. The objective of this study was to identify what mattered most to patients in acute care and to assess the patient perspective as to whether their treating doctors were aware of this. METHODS: This was a large-scale, qualitative, flash mob study, conducted simultaneously in sixty-six hospitals in seven countries, starting November 14th 2018, ending 50 h later. One thousand eight hundred fifty adults in the first 24 h of an acute medical admission were interviewed on what mattered most to them, why this mattered and whether they felt the treating doctor was aware of this. RESULTS: The most reported answers to "what matters most (and why)?" were 'getting better or being in good health' (why: to be with family/friends or pick-up life again), 'getting home' (why: more comfortable at home or to take care of someone) and 'having a diagnosis' (why: to feel less anxious or insecure). Of all patients, 51.9% felt the treating doctor did not know what mattered most to them. CONCLUSIONS: The priorities for acutely admitted patients were ostensibly disease- and care-oriented and thus in line with the hospitals' own priorities. However, answers to why these were important were diverse, more personal, and often related to psychological well-being and relations. A large group of patients felt their treating doctor did not know what mattered most to them. Explicitly asking patients what is important and why, could help healthcare professionals to get to know the person behind the patient, which is essential in delivering patient-centred care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR (Netherlands Trial Register) NTR7538 .

Frequency, Determinants, and Satisfaction of Breast Augmentation in Trans Women Receiving Hormone Treatment.

INTRODUCTION: As breast development in trans women (male sex assigned at birth, female gender identity) who receive gender-affirming hormone treatment is often moderate, they may choose breast augmentation as part of their treatment. AIM: The aim of the study was to investigate the frequency, determinants, and satisfaction of breast augmentation among trans women receiving hormone treatment. METHODS: Trans women who started hormone treatment between 1972 and 2018 at our center received an anonymous questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The questionnaire contained questions about the start date of hormone treatment, the current age of the respondent, whether or not she underwent breast augmentation, what her considerations in this decision were, and, if the respondent did have breast implants, whether she was satisfied with the result and/or experienced health complaints she attributed to her breast implants. RESULTS: A total of 3,073 questionnaires were distributed, of which 773 were retrieved back (median age of the respondents: 50 years, interquartile range: 35-59). Age and year of start of hormone treatment was comparable between responders and nonresponders. The frequency of breast augmentation varied from 70% in trans women who started hormone treatment between 1980 and 2000 to 20% in those who started between 2010 and 2015. Trans women underwent breast augmentation median 2 years after the start of hormone treatment (interquartile range: 2-4), and 80% was satisfied with the result. Approximately one-third experienced health complaints they attributed to their breast implants. People who considered breast augmentation reported financial limitations as an important reason not to undergo breast augmentation. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This study shows that it is important to discuss pros and cons of breast augmentation to support trans women in making a well-informed decision. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: This is the largest study performed on the frequency and satisfaction of breast augmentation among trans women, which also includes health complaints and considerations in the decision whether or not to undergo breast augmentation. One of the limitations was that we were unable to link other clinical data. CONCLUSION: 4 of 5 trans women either chose or considered breast augmentation as part of their gender-affirming treatment. Most of the trans women who underwent breast augmentation were satisfied with the result, although approximately one-third experienced health complaints they attributed to their breast implants. Reasons not to undergo breast augmentation included financial limitations. This study shows that it is important to discuss with trans women the positive effects and possible side-effects of breast augmentation to help them make a well-informed decision whether or not to undergo breast augmentation. de Blok CJM, Staphorsius AS, Wiepjes CM, et al. Frequency, Determinants, and Satisfaction of Breast Augmentation in Trans Women Receiving Hormone Treatment. J Sex Med 2020;17:342-348.

Outcome of Immediate Versus Early Antibiotics in Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Debate exists about the mortality benefit of administering antibiotics within either 1 or 3 hours of sepsis onset. We performed this meta-analysis to analyze the effect of immediate (0 to 1 hour after onset) versus early (1 to 3 hours after onset) antibiotics on mortality in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. METHODS: This review was consistent with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Searched databases included PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, as well as gray literature. Included studies were conducted with consecutive adults with severe sepsis or septic shock who received antibiotics within each period and provided mortality data. Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers and pooled with random effects. Two authors independently assessed quality of evidence across all studies with Cochrane's Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology and risk of bias within each study, using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included: 5 prospective longitudinal and 8 retrospective cohort ones. Three studies (23%) had a high risk of bias (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale). Overall, quality of evidence across all studies (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) was low. Pooling of data (33,863 subjects) showed no difference in mortality between patients receiving antibiotics in immediate versus early periods (odds ratio 1.09; 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.21). Analysis of severe sepsis studies (8,595 subjects) found higher mortality in immediate versus early periods (odds ratio 1.29; 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 1.53). CONCLUSION: We found no difference in mortality between immediate and early antibiotics across all patients. Although the quality of evidence across studies was low, these findings do not support a mortality benefit for immediate compared with early antibiotics across all patients with sepsis.

The Prospective Studies of Atherosclerosis (Proof-ATHERO) Consortium: Design and Rationale.

Atherosclerosis - the pathophysiological mechanism shared by most cardiovascular diseases - can be directly or indirectly assessed by a variety of clinical tests including measurement of carotid intima-media thickness, carotid plaque, -ankle-brachial index, pulse wave velocity, and coronary -artery calcium. The Prospective Studies of Atherosclerosis -(Proof-ATHERO) consortium (https://clinicalepi.i-med.ac.at/research/proof-athero/) collates de-identified individual-participant data of studies with information on atherosclerosis measures, risk factors for cardiovascular disease, and incidence of cardiovascular diseases. It currently comprises 74 studies that involve 106,846 participants from 25 countries and over 40 cities. In summary, 21 studies recruited participants from the general population (n = 67,784), 16 from high-risk populations (n = 22,677), and 37 as part of clinical trials (n = 16,385). Baseline years of contributing studies range from April 1980 to July 2014; the latest follow-up was until June 2019. Mean age at baseline was 59 years (standard deviation: 10) and 50% were female. Over a total of 830,619 person-years of follow-up, 17,270 incident cardiovascular events (including coronary heart disease and stroke) and 13,270 deaths were recorded, corresponding to cumulative incidences of 2.1% and 1.6% per annum, respectively. The consortium is coordinated by the Clinical Epidemiology Team at the Medical University of Innsbruck, Austria. Contributing studies undergo a detailed data cleaning and harmonisation procedure before being incorporated in the Proof-ATHERO central database. Statistical analyses are being conducted according to pre-defined analysis plans and use established methods for individual-participant data meta-analysis. Capitalising on its large sample size, the multi-institutional collaborative Proof-ATHERO consortium aims to better characterise, understand, and predict the development of atherosclerosis and its clinical consequences.

Unplanned return presentations of older patients to the emergency department: a root cause analysis.

BACKGROUND: In line with demographic changes, there is an increase in ED presentations and unplanned return presentations by older patients (≥70 years). It is important to know why these patients return to the ED shortly after their initial presentation. Therefore, the aim of this study was to provide insight into the root causes and potential preventability of unplanned return presentations (URP) to the ED within 30 days for older patients. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted from February 2018 to November 2018 in an academic hospital in Amsterdam. We included 83 patients, aged 70 years and older, with an URP to the ED within 30 days of the initial ED presentation. Patients, GPs and doctors at the ED were interviewed by trained interviewers and basic administrative data were collected in order to conduct a root cause analysis using the PRISMA-method. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-one root causes were identified and almost half (49%) of them were disease-related. Fifty-two percent of the patients returned to the ED within 7 days after the initial presentation. In 77% of the patients the URP was related to the initial presentation. Patients judged 17% of the URPs as potentially preventable, while doctors at the ED judged 25% and GPs 23% of the URPs as potentially preventable. In none of the cases, there was an overall agreement from all three perspectives on the judgement that an URP was potentially preventable. CONCLUSION: Disease-related factors were most often identified for an URP and half of the patients returned to the ED within 7 days. The majority of the URPs was judged as not preventable. However, an URP should trigger healthcare workers to focus on the patient's process of care and their needs and to anticipate on potential progression of disease. Future research should assess whether this may prevent that patients have to return to the ED.

Different Perspectives on Predictability and Preventability of Surgical Readmissions.

BACKGROUND: Although unscheduled readmissions are increasingly being used as a quality indicator, only few readmission studies have focused on surgical patient populations. METHODS: An observational study "CURIOS@" was performed at three centers in the Netherlands. Readmitted patients and treating doctors were surveyed to assess the discharge process during index admission and their opinion on predictability and preventability of the readmission. Risk factors associated with predictability and preventability as judged by patients and their doctor were identified. Cohen's kappa was calculated to measure pairwise agreement of considering readmission as predictable/preventable. PRISMA root cause categories were used to qualify the reasons for readmission. RESULTS: In 237 unscheduled surgical readmissions, more patients assessed their readmissions to be likely preventable compared with their treating doctors (28.7% versus 6.8%; kappa, 0.071). This was also reflected in poor consensus about risk factors and root causes of these readmissions. When patients reported that they did not feel ready for discharge or requested their doctor to allow them to stay longer at discharge during index admission, they deemed their readmission more likely predictable and preventable. Doctors focused on measurable factors such as the clinical frailty scale and biomarkers during discharge process. Health-care worker failures were strongly associated with preventable readmissions. CONCLUSIONS: There is no consensus between readmitted patients and treating doctors about predictability and preventability of readmissions, nor about associated risk factors and root causes. Patients should be more effectively involved in their discharge process, and the relevance of optimal communication between them should be emphasized to create a safe and efficient discharge process.

An overview of positive cultures and clinical outcomes in septic patients: a sub-analysis of the Prehospital Antibiotics Against Sepsis (PHANTASi) trial.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis remains one of the most important causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. In approximately 30-50% of cases of suspected sepsis, no pathogen is isolated, disabling the clinician to treat the patient with targeted antimicrobial therapy. Studies investigating the differences in the patient outcomes between culture-positive and culture-negative sepsis patients have only been conducted in subgroups of sepsis patients and results are ambiguous. METHODS: This is a sub-analysis of the PHANTASi (Prehospital Antibiotics Against Sepsis trial), a randomized controlled trial that focused on the effect of prehospital antibiotics in sepsis patients. We evaluated the outcome of cultures from different sources and determined what the clinical implications of having a positive culture compared to negative cultures were for patient outcomes. Furthermore, we looked at the effect of antibiotics on culture outcomes. RESULTS: 1133 patients (42.6%) with culture-positive sepsis were identified, compared to 1526 (56.4%) patients with culture-negative sepsis. 28-day mortality (RR 1.43 [95% CI 1.11-1.83]) and 90-day mortality (RR 1.41 [95% CI 1.15-1.71]) were significantly higher in culture-positive patients compared to culture-negative patients. Culture-positive sepsis was also associated with ≥ 3 organ systems affected during the sepsis episode (RR 4.27 [95% CI 2.78-6.60]). Patients who received antibiotics at home more often had negative blood cultures (85.9% vs. 78%) than those who did not (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that culture-positive sepsis is associated with a higher mortality rate and culture-positive patients more often have multiple organ systems affected during the sepsis episode. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PHANTASi trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01988428 . Date of registration: November 20, 2013.

Strengths and weaknesses of the acute care systems in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands: what can we learn from each other?

BACKGROUND: The demand on Emergency Departments and acute medical services is increasing internationally, creating pressure on health systems and negatively influencing the quality of delivered care. Visible consequences of the increased demand on acute services is crowding and queuing. This manifests as delays in the Emergency Departments, adverse clinical outcomes and poor patient experience. OVERVIEW: Despite the similarities in the UK's and Dutch health care systems, such as universal health coverage, there are differences in the number of patients presenting at the Emergency Departments and the burden of crowding between these countries. Given the similarities in funding, this paper explores the similarities and differences in the organisational structure of acute care in the UK and the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, less patients are seen at the ED than in England and the admission rate is higher. GPs and so-called GP-posts serve 24/7 as gatekeepers in acute care, but EDs are heterogeneously organised. In the UK, the acute care system has a number of different access points and the accessibility of GPs seems to be suboptimal. Acute ambulatory care may relieve the pressure from EDs and Acute Medical Units. In both countries the ageing population leads to a changing case mix at the ED with an increased amount of multimorbid patients with polypharmacy, requiring generalistic and multidisciplinary care. CONCLUSION: The acute and emergency care in the Netherlands and the UK face similar challenges. We believe that each system has strengths that the other can learn from. The Netherlands may benefit from an acute ambulatory care system and the UK by optimizing the accessibility of GPs 24/7 and improving signposting for urgent care services. In both countries the changing case mix at the ED needs doctors who are superspecialists instead of subspecialists. Finally, to improve the organisation of health care, doctors need to be visible medical leaders and participate in the organisation of care.

Prophylactic Use of Haloperidol and Changes in Glucose Levels in Hospitalized Older Patients.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with antipsychotic drugs has been associated with glucose dysregulation in older outpatients, especially in the early stage of therapy. The underlying mechanism is, however, unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate changes in glucose levels during haloperidol use compared with the use of placebo among older hospitalized patients. METHODS: This substudy was part of a larger multicenter, randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial among hospitalized patients aged 70 years and older who had an increased risk of in-hospital delirium. Patients who were admitted to the Jeroen Bosch Hospital in 's-Hertogenbosch between June 2014 and February 2015 were invited to participate in the study. Participating patients were randomized for treatment and given 1 mg of haloperidol or a placebo twice daily for a maximum of 7 consecutive days (14 doses). Exclusion criteria for this substudy were the use of corticosteroids and changes in diabetes medication. Random blood samples to determine glucose levels were collected before day 1 and on day 6 of the study. Student independent sample t test was used to determine differences in glucose changes between both groups. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients were included (haloperidol, n = 14; placebo, n = 15). The mean glucose level for placebo users was 139.3 mg/dL (SD, 50.1) on day 1 and 140.8 mg/dL (SD, 45.7) on day 6, and the mean glucose level for haloperidol users was 139.9 mg/dL (SD, 71.0) on day 1 and 150.2 mg/dL (SD, 39.1) on day 6. The difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.685). CONCLUSIONS: Short-term prophylactic use of haloperidol was not associated with changes in glucose levels in older hospitalized patients compared with those given a placebo in this small study.

Haloperidol versus placebo for delirium prevention in acutely hospitalised older at risk patients: a multi-centre double-blind randomised controlled clinical trial.

Background: because the few randomised placebo-controlled trials investigating the potential role for prophylactic haloperidol in delirium prevention have focused on specific surgical populations, we investigated its efficacy and safety in acutely hospitalised older patients. Methods: this multi-centre, double-blind, stratified, block randomised, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at six Dutch hospitals. Patients age ≥70 years, acutely admitted through the emergency department for general medicine or surgical specialties and at risk for delirium were randomised (n = 245) to haloperidol or placebo 1 mg orally twice-daily (maximum of 14 doses) on top of standard nonpharmacological prevention strategies. The primary outcome was delirium incidence. Other endpoints included delirium severity and duration, drug safety and clinical outcomes. Results: intention-to-treat analysis included 242 participants (calculated sample size n = 390, statistical power of current sample 59%) allocated to haloperidol (n = 118) or placebo (n = 124). In the haloperidol and placebo group, delirium incidence was 19.5 versus 14.5% (OR 1.43, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.78); median (IQR) delirium duration 4 (2, 5) versus 3 (1, 6) days (P = 0.366); maximum DRS-R-98 score 16 (9.8, 19.5) versus 10 (5.5, 22.5) (P = 0.549; 53.7% missing data); hospital LOS 7 (4, 10.3) versus 7 (5, 11.8) days (P = 0.343); 3-month mortality 9.9 versus 12.5% (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.75), respectively. No treatment-limiting side effects were noted. Conclusions: prophylactic low-dose oral haloperidol did not reduce delirium incidence in acutely hospitalised older patients. Therefore, prophylactic use of haloperidol in this population is not recommended.

Epidemiology of Sepsis and Its Recognition by Emergency Medical Services Personnel in the Netherlands.

Little is known about the epidemiology of sepsis in the Netherlands. In addition, information regarding the ability of emergency medical services (EMS) personnel to recognize sepsis is lacking. The aim of this study is to determine epidemiological characteristics of sepsis and the recognition of sepsis by EMS personnel in an urban area in the Netherlands. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using transport information from EMS Amsterdam and admission diagnoses at the emergency department gathered through discharge data from two academic hospitals in Amsterdam for the year 2012. A total of 253 patients with sepsis were evaluated, of which 131 were transported by ambulance. The in-hospital mortality rate of the total population was 21% and a mean length of hospital stay was of 13.5 days. Sixty-seven patients (26.5%) were admitted to the intensive care unit. Almost half of the patients were assigned to the internal medicine ward (117; 46.2%). The most common site of infection was the urinary tract (30%). E. coli was the most frequent cause of infections. EMS staff recognized 18/131 (13.7%) transported patients with (severe) sepsis or septic shock. In 52 cases (39.7%) sepsis went unrecognized, probably due to an incomplete primary survey. In 60 cases (45.8%) sepsis went unrecognized, although enough systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria were present at initial presentation. Recognition of sepsis by EMS staff in the Netherlands is low, probably due to a lack of awareness of the syndrome and infrequent measurement of temperature and respiratory rate. As early initiation of treatment is crucial, the EMS staff, general practitioners, and other specialties could benefit from more education on this critical illness.