Four consecutive yearly point-prevalence studies in Wales indicate lack of improvement in sepsis care on the wards.

The 'Sepsis Six' bundle was promoted as a deliverable tool outside of the critical care settings, but there is very little data available on the progress and change of sepsis care outside the critical care environment in the UK. Our aim was to compare the yearly prevalence, outcome and the Sepsis Six bundle compliance in patients at risk of mortality from sepsis in non-intensive care environments. Patients with a National Early Warning Score (NEWS) of 3 or above and suspected or proven infection were enrolled into four yearly 24-h point prevalence studies, carried out in fourteen hospitals across Wales from 2016 to 2019. We followed up patients to 30 days between 2016-2019 and to 90 days between 2017 and 2019. Out of the 26,947 patients screened 1651 fulfilled inclusion criteria and were recruited. The full 'Sepsis Six' care bundle was completed on 223 (14.0%) occasions, with no significant difference between the years. On 190 (11.5%) occasions none of the bundle elements were completed. There was no significant correlation between bundle element compliance, NEWS or year of study. One hundred and seventy (10.7%) patients were seen by critical care outreach; the 'Sepsis Six' bundle was completed significantly more often in this group (54/170, 32.0%) than for patients who were not reviewed by critical care outreach (168/1385, 11.6%; p < 0.0001). Overall survival to 30 days was 81.7% (1349/1651), with a mean survival time of 26.5 days (95% CI 26.1-26.9) with no difference between each year of study. 90-day survival for years 2017-2019 was 74.7% (949/1271), with no difference between the years. In multivariate regression we identified older age, heart failure, recent chemotherapy, higher frailty score and do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation orders as significantly associated with increased 30-day mortality. Our data suggests that despite efforts to increase sepsis awareness within the NHS, there is poor compliance with the sepsis care bundles and no change in the high mortality over the study period. Further research is needed to determine which time-sensitive ward-based interventions can reduce mortality in patients with sepsis and how can these results be embedded to routine clinical practice.Trial registration Defining Sepsis on the Wards ISRCTN 86502304 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN86502304 prospectively registered 09/05/2016.

Understanding and responding to COVID-19 in Wales: protocol for a privacy-protecting data platform for enhanced epidemiology and evaluation of interventions.

INTRODUCTION: The emergence of the novel respiratory SARS-CoV-2 and subsequent COVID-19 pandemic have required rapid assimilation of population-level data to understand and control the spread of infection in the general and vulnerable populations. Rapid analyses are needed to inform policy development and target interventions to at-risk groups to prevent serious health outcomes. We aim to provide an accessible research platform to determine demographic, socioeconomic and clinical risk factors for infection, morbidity and mortality of COVID-19, to measure the impact of COVID-19 on healthcare utilisation and long-term health, and to enable the evaluation of natural experiments of policy interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two privacy-protecting population-level cohorts have been created and derived from multisourced demographic and healthcare data. The C20 cohort consists of 3.2 million people in Wales on the 1 January 2020 with follow-up until 31 May 2020. The complete cohort dataset will be updated monthly with some individual datasets available daily. The C16 cohort consists of 3 million people in Wales on the 1 January 2016 with follow-up to 31 December 2019. C16 is designed as a counterfactual cohort to provide contextual comparative population data on disease, health service utilisation and mortality. Study outcomes will: (a) characterise the epidemiology of COVID-19, (b) assess socioeconomic and demographic influences on infection and outcomes, (c) measure the impact of COVID-19 on short -term and longer-term population outcomes and (d) undertake studies on the transmission and spatial spread of infection. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Secure Anonymised Information Linkage-independent Information Governance Review Panel has approved this study. The study findings will be presented to policy groups, public meetings, national and international conferences, and published in peer-reviewed journals.

Feasibility and reliability of frailty assessment in the critically ill: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: For healthcare systems, an ageing population poses challenges in the delivery of equitable and effective care. Frailty assessment has the potential to improve care in the intensive care setting, but applying assessment tools in critical illness may be problematic. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate evidence for the feasibility and reliability of frailty assessment in critical care. METHODS: Our primary search was conducted in Medline, Medline In-process, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science (January 2001 to October 2017). We included observational studies reporting data on feasibility and reliability of frailty assessment in the critical care setting in patients 16 years and older. Feasibility was assessed in terms of timing of evaluation, the background, training and expertise required for assessors, and reliance upon proxy input. Reliability was assessed in terms of inter-rater reliability. RESULTS: Data from 11 study publications are included, representing 8 study cohorts and 7761 patients. Proxy involvement in frailty assessment ranged from 58 to 100%. Feasibility data were not well-reported overall, but the exclusion rate due to lack of proxy availability ranged from 0 to 45%, the highest rate observed where family involvement was mandatory and the assessment tool relatively complex (frailty index, FI). Conventional elements of frailty phenotype (FP) assessment required modification prior to use in two studies. Clinical staff tended to use a simple judgement-based tool, the clinical frailty scale (CFS). Inter-rater reliability was reported in one study using the CFS and although a good level of agreement was observed between clinician assessments, this was a small and single-centre study. CONCLUSION: Though of unproven reliability in the critically ill, CFS was the tool used most widely by critical care clinical staff. Conventional FP assessment required modification for general application in critical care, and an FI-based assessment may be difficult to deliver by the critical care team on a routine basis. There is a high reliance on proxies for frailty assessment, and the reliability of frailty assessment tools in critical care needs further evaluation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016052073 .