Standardization of severe sepsis management: a survey of methodologies in academic and community settings.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based therapies for severe sepsis include early antibiotics, early goal-directed therapy, corticosteroids, recombinant human activated protein C, glucose control, and lung protective strategies. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to analyze methods, challenges, and outcomes observed by hospitals that implemented a hospital-wide sepsis management protocol incorporating evidence-based therapies. METHODS: In a cross-sectional multi-center telephone survey over a 4-month period, clinicians (participants) responsible for developing a hospital sepsis protocol were questioned regarding its development and outcomes. RESULTS: Participants completing surveys represented 40 hospitals (20 academic and 20 community). Twenty-seven percent of protocol champions were Emergency physicians or nurses. Sixty-three percent reported protocol development time of 6-12 months. Eighty-eight percent of participants reported protocol initiation in the Emergency Department. Three participants reported hiring a nurse educator to implement the protocol. Ninety-five percent of participants measure lactate as part of patient screening. Protocol therapies reported included early antibiotics (98%), early goal directed-therapy (EGDT) (98%), corticosteroids (80%), and activated protein C (73%). Contributions to success included having a protocol champion (85%) and sepsis education program (65%). Twenty-one participants had recorded patient-level data, totaling 2319 protocol patients, compared to 1719 non-protocol patients, with in-hospital mortality of 23% and 44%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a sepsis management protocol incorporating evidence-based therapies can be accomplished in both academic and community hospitals, with minimal additional staffing. The presence of a protocol champion and education program is crucial to success, and may result in improved patient outcome.

Mortality predictions using current physiologic scoring systems in patients meeting criteria for early goal-directed therapy and the severe sepsis resuscitation bundle.

Physiologic scoring systems are often used to prognosticate mortality in critically ill patients. This study examined the performance of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II, Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis (MEDS), and Mortality Probability Models (MPM) II0 in predicting in-hospital mortality of patients in the emergency department meeting criteria for early goal-directed therapy and the severe sepsis resuscitation bundle. The discrimination and calibration characteristics of APACHE II, SAPS II, MEDS, and MPM II0 were evaluated. Data are presented as median and quartiles (25th, 75th). Two-hundred forty-six patients aged 68 (52, 81) years were analyzed from a prospectively maintained sepsis registry, with 76.0% of patients in septic shock, 45.5% blood culture positive, and 35.0% in-hospital mortality. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, SAPS II, and MEDS scores were 29 (21, 37), 54 (40, 70), and 13 (11, 16), with predicted mortalities of 64% (40%, 85%), 58% (25%, 84%), and 16% (9%, 39%), respectively. Mortality Probability Models II0 showed a predicted mortality of 60% (27%, 80%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves was 0.73 for APACHE II, 0.71 for SAPS II, 0.60 for MEDS, and 0.72 for MPM II0. The standardized mortality ratios were 0.59, 0.63, 1.68, and 0.64, respectively. Thus, APACHE II, SAPS II, MEDS, and MPM II0 have variable abilities to discriminate early and estimate in-hospital mortality of patients presenting to the emergency department requiring the severe sepsis resuscitation bundle. Adoption of these prognostication tools in this setting may influence therapy and resource use for these patients.