Most patients with an increased risk for sepsis-related morbidity or death do not recognize sepsis as a medical emergency: results of a survey study using case vignettes.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a medical emergency with potentially life-threatening consequences. Patients play a crucial role in preventing and recognizing sepsis at an early stage. The understanding of risk groups' sepsis knowledge and their ability to use this knowledge to recognize sepsis as an emergency is incomplete. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey in Germany and included a sample of 740 persons stratified by age (< 60 years, ≥ 60 years), specific chronic diseases (e.g. diabetes, chronic diseases, cancer), and region (Berlin/Brandenburg vs. other federal states of Germany). Standardized questionnaires were administered by a market research institute through online, telephone, or face-to-face methods. We assessed sepsis knowledge through a series of questions and the ability to recognize sepsis as an emergency through five case vignettes. To identify predictors of sepsis knowledge and the ability to recognize sepsis as a medical emergency, we conducted multiple linear regressions. RESULTS: Of the 36 items on sepsis knowledge, participants answered less than 50 per cent correctly (mean 44.1%; standard deviation (SD) 20.1). Most patients knew that sepsis is a defensive host response to infection (75.9%), but only 30.8% knew that vaccination can prevent infections that lead to sepsis. Across the five vignettes, participants identified sepsis as an emergency in only 1.33 of all cases on average (SD = 1.27). Sepsis knowledge was higher among participants who were older, female, and more highly educated and who reported more extensive health information seeking behaviour. The ability to recognize sepsis as an emergency was higher among younger participants, participants without chronic diseases, and participants with higher health literacy, but it was not significantly associated with sepsis knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: Risk groups showed low levels of knowledge regarding the preventive importance of vaccination and a low ability to recognize sepsis as a medical emergency. Higher levels of sepsis knowledge alone were not sufficient to improve the ability to identify sepsis as a medical emergency. It is crucial to develop effective educational strategies-especially for persons with lower education levels and infrequent health information seeking behaviour-that not only transfer but also facilitate the choice of appropriate actions, such as seeking timely emergency care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS00024561. Registered 9 March 2021.

Sodium Thiosulfate Reduces Acute Kidney Injury in Patients Undergoing Cytoreductive Surgery Plus Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy with Cisplatin: A Single-Center Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) in combination with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) represents a multimodal treatment concept for patients with peritoneal surface malignancies. The use of intraperitoneal cisplatin (CDDP) is associated with a risk of acute kidney injury (AKI). The aim of this study is to evaluate the protective effect of perioperative sodium thiosulfate (STS) administration on kidney function in patients undergoing CRS and CDDP-based HIPEC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed clinical data of all patients who underwent CRS and CDDP-based HIPEC at our hospital between March 2017 and August 2020. Patients were stratified according to the use of sodium thiosulfate (STS vs. no STS). We compared kidney function and clinical outcome parameters between both groups and determined risk factors for postoperative AKI on univariate and multivariate analysis. AKI was classified according to acute kidney injury network (AKIN) criteria. RESULTS: Of 238 patients who underwent CRS and CDDP-based HIPEC, 46 patients received STS and 192 patients did not. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics. In patients who received STS, a lower incidence (6.5% vs. 30.7%; p = 0.001) and severity of AKI (p = 0.009) were observed. On multivariate analysis, the use of STS (OR 0.089, p = 0.001) remained an independent kidney-protective factor, while arterial hypertension (OR 5.283, p < 0.001) and elevated preoperative urea serum level (OR 5.278, p = 0.032) were predictors for postoperative AKI. CONCLUSIONS: The present data suggest that STS protects patients from AKI caused by CRS and CDDP-based HIPEC. Further prospective studies are needed to validate the benefit of STS among kidney-protective strategies.

Physostigmine for prevention of postoperative delirium and long-term cognitive dysfunction in liver surgery: A double-blinded randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Anecdotally, cholinergic stimulation has been used to treat delirium and reduce cognitive dysfunction. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this investigation was to evaluate whether physostigmine reduced the incidence of postoperative delirium (POD) and postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) in patients undergoing liver resection. DESIGN: This was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Between 11 August 2009 and 3 March 2016, patients were recruited at the Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany. Follow-ups took place at 1 week (T1), 90 days (T2) and 365 days (T3) after surgery. SETTING: This single-centre study was conducted at an academic medical centre. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 261 participants aged at least 18 years scheduled for elective liver surgery were randomised. The protocol also included 45 non-surgical matched controls to provide normative data for POCD and neurocognitive deficit (NCD). INTERVENTION: Participants were allocated to receive either intravenous physostigmine, as a bolus of 0.02 mg kg-1 body weight followed by 0.01 mg kg-1 body weight per hour (n = 130), or placebo (n = 131), for 24 h after induction of anaesthesia. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcomes were POD, assessed using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-4-TR) twice daily up to day 7 after surgery, and POCD assessed via the CANTAB neuropsychological test battery, and two paper pencil tests on the day before surgery, and on postoperative days 7, 90 and 365. RESULTS: In total, 261 patients were randomised, 130 to the physostigmine and 131 to the placebo group. The incidence of POD did not differ significantly between the physostigmine and placebo groups (20 versus 15%; P = 0.334). Preoperative cognitive impairment and POCD frequencies did not differ significantly between the physostigmine and placebo groups at any time. Lower mortality rates were found in the physostigmine group compared with placebo at 3 months [2% (95% confidence interval (CI), 0 to 4) versus 11% (95% CI, 6 to 16), P = 0.002], and 6 months [7% (95% CI, 3 to 12) versus 16% (95% CI, 10 to 23), P = 0.012] after surgery. CONCLUSION: Physostigmine had no effect on POD and POCD when applied after induction of anaesthesia up to 24 h. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DOI 10.1186/ISRCTN18978802, EudraCT 2008-007237-47, Ethics approval ZS EK 11 618/08 (15 January 2009).

Correction: Perioperative Care and the Importance of Continuous Quality Improvement-A Controlled Intervention Study in Three Tanzanian Hospitals.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136156.].

Perioperative Care and the Importance of Continuous Quality Improvement--A Controlled Intervention Study in Three Tanzanian Hospitals.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical services are increasingly seen to reduce death and disability in Sub-Saharan Africa, where hospital-based mortality remains alarmingly high. This study explores two implementation approaches to improve the quality of perioperative care in a Tanzanian hospital. Effects were compared to a control group of two other hospitals in the region without intervention. METHODS: All hospitals conducted quality assessments with a Hospital Performance Assessment Tool. Changes in immediate outcome indicators after one and two years were compared to final outcome indicators such as Anaesthetic Complication Rate and Surgical Case Fatality Rate. RESULTS: Immediate outcome indicators for Preoperative Care in the intervention hospital improved (52.5% in 2009; 84.2% in 2011, p<0.001). Postoperative Inpatient Care initially improved to then decline again (63.3% in 2009; 70% in 2010; 58.6% in 2011). In the control group, preoperative care declined from 50.8% (2009) to 32.8% (2011, p <0.001), while postoperative care did not significantly change. Anaesthetic Complication Rate in the intervention hospital declined (1.89% before intervention; 0.96% after intervention, p = 0.006). Surgical Case Fatality Rate in the intervention hospital declined from 5.67% before intervention to 2.93% after intervention (p<0.0010). Surgical Case Fatality Rate in the control group was 4% before intervention and 3.8% after intervention (p = 0.411). Anaesthetic Complication Rate in the control group was not available. DISCUSSION: Immediate outcome indicators initially improved, while at the same time final outcome declined (Surgical Case Fatality, Anaesthetic Complication Rate). Compared to the control group, final outcome improved more in the intervention hospital, although the effect was not significant over the whole study period. Documentation of final outcome indicators seemed inconsistent. Immediate outcome indicators seem more helpful to steer the Continuous Quality Improvement program. CONCLUSION: Specific interventions as part of Continuous Quality Improvement might lead to sustainable improvement of the quality of care, if embedded in a multi-faceted approach.

Immediate outcome indicators in perioperative care: a controlled intervention study on quality improvement in hospitals in Tanzania.

INTRODUCTION: Outcome assessment is the standard for evaluating the quality of health services worldwide. In this study, outcome has been divided into immediate and final outcome. Aim was to compare an intervention hospital with a Continuous Quality Improvement approach to a control group using benchmark assessments of immediate outcome indicators in surgical care. Results were compared to final outcome indicators. METHOD: Surgical care quality in six hospitals in Tanzania was assessed from 2006-2011, using the Hospital Performance Assessment Tool. Independent observers assessed structural, process and outcome quality using checklists based on evidence-based guidelines. The number of surgical key procedures over the benchmark of 80% was compared between the intervention hospital and the control group. Results were compared to Case Fatality Rates. RESULTS: In the intervention hospital, in 2006, two of nine key procedures reached the benchmark, one in 2009, and four in 2011. In the control group, one of nine key procedures reached the benchmark in 2006, one in 2009, and none in 2011. Case Fatality Rate for all in-patients in the intervention hospital was 5.5% (n = 12,530) in 2006, 3.5% (n = 21,114) in 2009 and 4.6% (n = 18,840) in 2011. In the control group it was 3.1% (n = 17,827) in 2006, 4.2% (n = 13,632) in 2009 and 3.8% (n = 17,059) in 2011. DISCUSSION: Results demonstrated that quality assurance improved performance levels in both groups. After the introduction of Continuous Quality Improvement, performance levels improved further in the intervention hospital while quality in the district hospital did not. Immediate outcome indicators appeared to be a better steering tool for quality improvement compared to final outcome indicators. Immediate outcome indicators revealed a need for improvement in pre- and postoperative care. CONCLUSION: Quality assurance programs based on immediate outcome indicators can be effective if embedded in Continuous Quality Improvement. Nevertheless, final outcome indicators cannot be neglected.