The impact of a multifaceted intervention including sepsis electronic alert system and sepsis response team on the outcomes of patients with sepsis and septic shock.

BACKGROUND: Compliance with the clinical practice guidelines of sepsis management has been low. The objective of our study was to describe the results of implementing a multifaceted intervention including an electronic alert (e-alert) with a sepsis response team (SRT) on the outcome of patients with sepsis and septic shock presenting to the emergency department. METHODS: This was a pre-post two-phased implementation study that consisted of a pre-intervention phase (January 01, 2011-September 24, 2012), intervention phase I (multifaceted intervention including e-alert, from September 25, 2012-March 03, 2013) and intervention phase II when SRT was added (March 04, 2013-October 30, 2013) in a 900-bed tertiary-care academic hospital. We recorded baseline characteristics and processes of care in adult patients presenting with sepsis or septic shock. The primary outcome measures were hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were the need for mechanical ventilation and length of stay in the intensive unit and in the hospital. RESULTS: After implementing the multifaceted intervention including e-alert and SRT, cases were identified with less severe clinical and laboratory abnormalities and the processes of care improved. When adjusted to propensity score, the interventions were associated with reduction in hospital mortality [for intervention phase II compared to pre-intervention: adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.85, p = 0.003], reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation (aOR 0.45, 95% CI 0.37-0.55, p < 0.0001) and reduction in ICU LOS and hospital LOS for all patients as well as ICU LOS for survivors. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a multifaceted intervention including sepsis e-alert with SRT was associated with earlier identification of sepsis, increase in compliance with sepsis resuscitation bundle and reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation and reduction in hospital mortality and LOS.

Application of Failure Mode Effect Analysis to Improve the Care of Septic Patients Admitted Through the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Failure mode effect analysis (FMEA) is a proactive multistep tool used to analyze risks, identify failures before they occur, and prioritize preventive measures. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team trained on FMEA methodology analyzed the process of treatment of septic patients and recorded processes under 3 major phases (recognition of severe sepsis, referral, and resuscitation). The team identified potential failure modes in each process; assigned severity, occurrence, and detection scores for each; and calculated the risk priority numbers (RPNs). Finally, higher-priority failure modes (RPN of ≥300) were analyzed to redesign the care process. RESULTS: We identified 27 processes and 48 failure modes with a mean RPN of 270. Twenty-two high-risk failures were identified by RPN of 300 or higher. All identified critical processes were related to phase 1 (recognition of sepsis) and phase 3 (resuscitation). The most critical process seemed to be related to the initial workup and treatment of septic patients, with 4 potential failure modes and a total RPN of 1485. CONCLUSIONS: Patient safety and care reliability issues are a major concern in health care. This study suggests that tools such as FMEA can enable a detailed analysis of the care process of septic patients by outlining potential failure modes and guiding improvement efforts.

The impact of implementing multifaceted interventions on the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a frequent hospital acquired infections among intensive care unit patients. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement has suggested a "care bundle" approach for the prevention of VAP. This report describes the effects of implementing this strategy on VAP rates. METHODS: All mechanically ventilated patients admitted to the intensive care unit between 2008 and 2013 were prospectively followed for VAP development according to the National Healthcare Safety Network criteria. In 2011, a 7-element care bundle was implemented, including head-of-bed elevation 30°-45°, daily sedation vacation and assessment for extubation, peptic ulcer disease prophylaxis, deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis, oral care with chlorhexidine, endotracheal intubation with in-line suction and subglottic suctioning, and maintenance of endotracheal tube cuff pressure at 20-30 mmHg. The bundle compliance and VAP rates were then followed. RESULTS: A total of 3665 patients received mechanical ventilation, and there were 9445 monitored observations for bundle compliance. The total bundle compliance before and after initiation of the VAP team was 90.7% and 94.2%, respectively (P < .001). The number of VAP episodes decreased from 144 during 2008-2010 to only 14 during 2011-2013 (P < .0001). The rate of VAP decreased from 8.6 per 1000 ventilator-days to 2.0 per 1000 ventilator-days (P < .0001) after implementation of the care bundle. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that systematic implementation of a multidisciplinary team approach can reduce the incidence of VAP. Further sustained improvement requires persistent vigilant inspections.

Diagnostic accuracy of a screening electronic alert tool for severe sepsis and septic shock in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Early recognition of severe sepsis and septic shock is challenging. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of an electronic alert system in detecting severe sepsis or septic shock among emergency department (ED) patients. METHODS: An electronic sepsis alert system was developed as a part of a quality-improvement project for severe sepsis and septic shock. The system screened all adult ED patients for a combination of systemic inflammatory response syndrome and organ dysfunction criteria (hypotension, hypoxemia or lactic acidosis). This study included all patients older than 14 years who presented to the ED of a tertiary care academic medical center from Oct. 1, 2012 to Jan. 31, 2013. As a comparator, emergency medicine physicians or the critical care physician identified the patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. In the ED, vital signs were manually entered into the hospital electronic heath record every hour in the critical care area and every two hours in other areas. We also calculated the time from the alert to the intensive care unit (ICU) referral. RESULTS: Of the 49,838 patients who presented to the ED, 222 (0.4%) were identified to have severe sepsis or septic shock. The electronic sepsis alert had a sensitivity of 93.18% (95% CI, 88.78% - 96.00%), specificity of 98.44 (95% CI, 98.33% - 98.55%), positive predictive value of 20.98% (95% CI, 18.50% - 23.70%) and negative predictive value of 99.97% (95% CI, 99.95% - 99.98%) for severe sepsis and septic shock. The alert preceded ICU referral by a median of 4.02 hours (Q1 - Q3: 1.25-8.55). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that electronic sepsis alert tool has high sensitivity and specificity in recognizing severe sepsis and septic shock, which may improve early recognition and management.

Improving the care of sepsis: Between system redesign and professional responsibility: A roundtable discussion in the world sepsis day, September 25, 2013, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

This paper summarizes the roundtable discussion in September 25, 2013, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia as part of the World Sepsis Day held in King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh. The objectives of the roundtable discussion were to (1) review the chasm between the current management of sepsis and best practice, (2) discuss system redesign and role of the microsystem in sepsis management, (3) emphasize the multidisciplinary nature of the care of sepsis and that improvement of the care of sepsis is the responsibility of all, (4) discuss the bundle concept in sepsis management, and (5) reflect on the individual responsibility of the health care team toward sepsis with a focus on accountability and the moral agent.

Building capacity for quality and safety in critical care: A roundtable discussion from the second international patient safety conference in April 9-11, 2013, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

This paper summarizes the roundtable discussion from the Second International Patient Safety Conference held in April 9-11, 2013, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The objectives of the roundtable discussion were to: (1) review the conceptual framework for building capacity in quality and safety in critical care. (2) examine examples of leading international experiences in building capacity. (3) review the experience in Saudi Arabia in this area. (4) discuss the role of building capacity in simulation for patient safety in critical care and (5) review the experience in building capacity in an ongoing improvement project for severe sepsis and septic shock.