Early detection and treatment of severe sepsis in the emergency department: identifying barriers to implementation of a protocol-based approach.

INTRODUCTION: Despite evidence to support efficacy of early goal-directed therapy for resuscitation of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock in the emergency department, implementation remains incomplete. To identify and address specific barriers at our institution and maximize benefits of a planned sepsis treatment initiative, a baseline assessment of knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding detection and treatment of severe sepsis was performed. METHODS: An online survey was offered to nurses and physicians in the emergency department of a major urban academic medical center. The questionnaire was designed to assess (1) baseline knowledge and self-reported confidence in identification of systemic inflammatory response syndrome and sepsis; (2) current practices in treatment; (3) difficulties encountered in managing sepsis cases; (4) perceived barriers to implementation of a clinical pathway based on early quantitative resuscitation goals; and (5) to elicit suggestions for improvement of sepsis treatment within the department. RESULTS: Respondents (n = 101) identified barriers to a quantitative resuscitation protocol for sepsis. These barriers included the inability to perform central venous pressure/central venous oxygen saturation monitoring, limited physical space in the emergency department, and lack of sufficient nursing staff. Among nurses, the greatest perceived contributor to delays in treatment was a delay in diagnosis by physicians; among physicians, a delay in availability of ICU beds and nursing delays were the greatest barriers. Despite these issues, respondents indicated that a written protocol would be helpful to them. DISCUSSION: Knowledge gaps and procedural hurdles identified by the survey will inform both educational and process components of an initiative to improve sepsis care in the emergency department.

Incomplete follow-up of hemoglobinopathy carriers identified by newborn screening despite reporting in electronic medical records.

OBJECTIVE: Has the recent availability of newborn hemoglobinopathy screening results within patient electronic medical records (EMR) of birth hospitals facilitated follow-up by primary care pediatric providers? METHODS: An online survey of all 137 primary care pediatric providers at a New York City academic medical center was conducted in 2008-2009 to assess practices for hemoglobin-apathy trait follow-up. Physicians were resurveyed 1 year later, following educational outreach and a letter of instruction underscoring the availability of screening results in the EMR. All 62 primary care pediatricians were surveyed at a nearby city hospital for comparison. RESULTS: Overall response rate for the initial survey at the teaching hospital was 58% for pediatricians (N = 57) and family physicians (N = 23), and 50% for pediatricians at the city hospital (N = 31). Despite high prevalence of hemoglobinopathies in the population served and screening results in EMRs, only 46.2% of providers surveyed at the academic center reported routinely checking results of their infant patients: 38.6% of pediatricians and 66.7% of family practitioners. Some respondents were unaware that results are available in the EMR. The proportion of providers checking screening results was not significantly affected by educational intervention (N = 40). Provision of recommended follow-up for a positive trait result was modestly improved, especially in referring families for genetic counseling (25% to 50%, p<.01). In contrast, most pediatricians (83%) at the city hospital routinely check and perform follow-up. CONCLUSION: Despite access to results in the EMR and targeted educational outreach, follow-up of hemoglobinopathy screening by primary care varies widely across clinical sites.