Sepsis-coded hospitalisations and associated costs in Australia: a retrospective analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To report trends in Australian hospitalisations coded for sepsis and their associated costs. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of Australian national hospitalisation data from 2002 to 2021. METHODS: Sepsis-coded hospitalisations were identified using the Global Burden of Disease study sepsis-specific ICD-10 codes modified for Australia. Costs were calculated using Australian-Refined Diagnosis Related Group codes and National Hospital Cost Data Collection. RESULTS: Sepsis-coded hospitalisations increased from 36,628 in 2002-03 to 131,826 in 2020-21, an annual rate of 7.8%. Principal admission diagnosis codes contributed 13,843 (37.8%) in 2002-03 and 44,186 (33.5%) in 2020-21; secondary diagnosis codes contributed 22,785 (62.2%) in 2002-03 and 87,640 (66.5%) in 2020-21. Unspecified sepsis was the most common sepsis code, increasing from 15,178 hospitalisations in 2002-03 to 68,910 in 2020-21. The population-based incidence of sepsis-coded hospitalisations increased from 18.6 to 10,000 population (2002-03) to 51.3 per 10,000 (2021-21); representing an increase from 55.1 to 10,000 hospitalisations in 2002-03 to 111.4 in 2020-21. Sepsis-coded hospitalisations occurred more commonly in the elderly; those aged 65 years or above accounting for 20,573 (55.6%) sepsis-coded hospitalisations in 2002-03 and 86,135 (65.3%) in 2020-21. The cost of sepsis-coded hospitalisations increased at an annual rate of 20.6%, from AUD199M (€127 M) in financial year 2012 to AUD711M (€455 M) in 2019. CONCLUSION: Hospitalisations coded for sepsis and associated costs increased significantly from 2002 to 2021 and from 2012 to 2019, respectively.

Sepsis triggers and tools to support early identification in healthcare settings: An integrative review.

BACKGROUND: There is no universal trigger or tool to aid sepsis diagnosis. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to identify triggers and tools to assist the early detection of sepsis that can be readily implemented across various health care settings. METHODS: A systematic integrative review was conducted using MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Relevant grey literature and subject-matter expert consultation also informed the review. Study types included systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials, and cohort studies. All patient populations across prehospital, emergency department, and acute hospital inpatient settings, excluding the intensive care unit, were included. Sepsis triggers and tools were evaluated for efficacy in detecting sepsis and association with process measures and patient outcomes. Methodological quality was appraised using Joanna Briggs Institute tools. RESULTS: Of the 124 included studies, most were retrospective cohort (49.2%) in adults (83.9%) within the emergency department (44.4%). The most commonly evaluated sepsis tools were qSOFA (12 studies) and SIRS (11 studies) with a median sensitivity of 28.0% versus 51.0% and a specificity of 98.0% versus 82.0%, respectively, for sepsis diagnosis. Lactate plus qSOFA (two studies) had a sensitivity between 57.0 and 65.5%, whereas the National Early Warning Score (four studies) demonstrated median sensitivity and specificity >80%, but the latter was considered difficult to implement. Amongst triggers, lactate (18 studies) at the threshold of ≥2.0 mmol/L showed higher sensitivity for predicting sepsis-related clinical deterioration than <2.0 mmol/L. Automated sepsis alerts and algorithms (35 studies) showed median sensitivity between 58.0 and 80.0% and specificity between 60.0 and 93.1%. There were limited data for other sepsis tools and maternal, paediatric, and neonatal populations. Overall methodological quality was high. CONCLUSION: No single sepsis tool or trigger is applicable across various settings and populations, but considering efficacy and ease of implementation, there is evidence to use lactate plus qSOFA for adult patients. More research is needed in maternal, paediatric, and neonatal populations.

Critical care health professionals' self-reported needs for wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic: A thematic analysis of survey responses.

BACKGROUND: Critical care healthcare professionals are a key part of any pandemic response and are at an increased risk for physical and psychological harm, yet their self-reported suggestions to ameliorate the negative effects of pandemics on their wellbeing have rarely been sought. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to explore and interpret themes of critical care healthcare professionals' responses to the question 'What do you think could assist your wellbeing during the COVID-19 crisis?' METHODS: A descriptive study using an online survey, performed in April 2020, investigating pandemic preparedness and psychological burden during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic among critical care professionals was carried out. Informal snowball sampling was used. Thematic analysis of qualitative data from an open-ended survey item was informed by Braun and Clark. FINDINGS: Eighty percent (2387/3770) of respondents completed the open-ended survey. Three themes were generated from the synthesis: adequate resourcing for the role; consistent, clear information, and prioritised communications; and the need for genuine kindness and provision of support for healthcare professional wellbeing. CONCLUSIONS: There is merit for considering the perceptions, concerns, and suggestions of critical care clinicians during a pandemic. Suggestions included simple measures to maintain physical and mental health, clear messaging, consistent information, trust in health and political leaders, supportive working environments, specific training, and allowances for personal circumstances. This information is important for health and political leaders and policy makers to implement strategies to reduce the burden associated with delivering care in the context of a pandemic.

Impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on critical care healthcare workers' depression, anxiety, and stress levels.

AIM: The aim of the study was to determine levels of depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms and factors associated with psychological burden amongst critical care healthcare workers in the early stages of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. METHODS: An anonymous Web-based survey distributed in April 2020. All healthcare workers employed in a critical care setting were eligible to participate. Invitations to the survey were distributed through Australian and New Zealand critical care societies and social media platforms. The primary outcome was the proportion of healthcare workers who reported moderate to extremely severe scores on the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21). RESULTS: Of the 3770 complete responses, 3039 (80.6%) were from Australia. A total of 2871 respondents (76.2%) were women; the median age was 41 years. Nurses made up 2269 (60.2%) of respondents, with most (2029 [53.8%]) working in intensive care units. Overall, 813 (21.6%) respondents reported moderate to extremely severe depression, 1078 (28.6%) reported moderate to extremely severe anxiety, and 1057 (28.0%) reported moderate to extremely severe stress scores. Mean ± standard deviation values of DASS-21 depression, anxiety, and stress scores amongst woman vs men was as follows: 8.0 ± 8.2 vs 7.1 ± 8.2 (p = 0.003), 7.2 ± 7.5 vs 5.0 ± 6.7 (p < 0.001), and 14.4 ± 9.6 vs 12.5 ± 9.4 (p < 0.001), respectively. After adjusting for significant confounders, clinical concerns associated with higher DASS-21 scores included not being clinically prepared (ß = 4.2, p < 0.001), an inadequate workforce (ß = 2.4, p = 0.001), having to triage patients owing to lack of beds and/or equipment (ß = 2.6, p = 0.001), virus transmission to friends and family (ß = 2.1, p = 0.009), contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (ß = 2.8, p = 0.011), being responsible for other staff members (ß = 3.1, p < 0.001), and being asked to work in an area that was not in the respondents' expertise (ß = 5.7, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this survey of critical care healthcare workers, between 22 and 29% of respondents reported moderate to extremely severe depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms, with women reporting higher scores than men. Although female gender appears to play a role, modifiable factors also contribute to psychological burden and should be studied further.

Towards public health surveillance of intensive care services in NSW, Australia.

OBJECTIVES: Outbreaks of known and novel pathogens causing very severe illness increase the risk to public health in a globalised community and alarm the public. Intensive care units (ICUs) may be an underused setting for public health surveillance. This study investigates the electronic Record for Intensive Care (eRIC), an electronic clinical information and management system being developed for New South Wales ICUs, and its surveillance opportunity offerings. METHODS: The surveillance benefits being introduced by the eRIC were evaluated through consultation with stakeholders and the eRIC program team. The consultation process involved providing stakeholders with background information about the eRIC system. Based on the consultation, a draft data and information model for surveillance was developed. The model was evaluated using guidelines from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. RESULTS: Population health stakeholders confirmed that the eRIC offers an appealing surveillance data source for pathogens and other hazards causing severe illness. Suggested application of the surveillance included, for known hazards, seasonal and pandemic influenza, enterovirus 71, Murray Valley encephalitis virus, enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli 0104:H4 and parechovirus. The proposed surveillance model uses syndromic rather than specific-cause surveillance. It may offer greater timeliness and sensitivity than relying on reporting of diagnoses of specific pathogens. Five syndromes derived from clinical pathways in the eRIC are proposed: severe acute respiratory disease, severe acute neurological disease, sepsis or septicaemia, jaundice or hepatitis, and acute renal failure. CONCLUSION: New intensive care clinical information systems offer a largely untapped resource for continuous, mainstream, rapid ICU surveillance of severe illness. A continuous, mainstream, rapid ICU surveillance facility that will readily adapt to emergency situations would be a valuable resource for protecting population health. This study establishes a firm basis on which ICU surveillance can be developed.

The intensive care unit volume-mortality relationship, is bigger better? An integrative literature review.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between patient volume in intensive care units (ICUs) and risk-adjusted mortality. BACKGROUND: Large multi-speciality ICUs are emerging in response to increasing demand for critical care. Consolidation of resources through regionalisation of services aims to contain costs and optimise demand management and operational synergies. Higher patient volumes in ICU have been associated with improved outcomes. Limited evidence exists, however, to suggest an optimal volume of patients in terms of risk-adjusted mortality. REVIEW METHOD: Retrospective integrative literature review. DATA SOURCES: EMBASE, PubMed and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature electronic databases. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Primary studies of risk adjusted mortality in adult ICU patients published between 1995 and 2012. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies of admissions following elective procedures. RESULTS: Twenty quantitative observational studies were included in this review. Studies were primarily retrospective with three conducted prospectively. Nine studied mechanically ventilated patients, six included all admissions to ICU, three reported on patients with sepsis and one study each on patients post cardiac arrest and those receiving renal replacement therapy. A significant association was evident in sixteen studies suggesting a lower risk of adjusted mortality in higher-volume units. The association was not consistent across all diagnosis. A non-linear relationship observed in two studies noted no mortality benefit occurring above a volume threshold of 450 cases annually per diagnostic category and above 711 cases not specific to a diagnostic group. CONCLUSION: Patient mortality may be improved in large capacity ICUs. However, the association is not consistent across all diagnostic groups. Risk adjusted mortality is increased in low volume ICUs. There appears to be a high volume threshold at which point the risk adjusted mortality benefit is also lost suggesting a window of optimal ICU organisational performance exists between low and high volumes. Further prospective research is recommended into clinical outcomes in high volume ICUs to explore association between organisational efficiency and quality of care.