The impact of a sepsis performance improvement program in the emergency department: a before-after intervention study.

PURPOSE: The latest Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines advocate that all hospitals use sepsis performance improvement programs. However, there is a limited evidence about how to structure such programs and what their potential impact is on sepsis management and outcomes in the emergency department (ED). In this study, we evaluated the implementation of a sepsis performance improvement program in the ED including a dedicated sepsis response team and analyzed the management and outcomes of sepsis patients before and after. METHODS: We conducted a before-after interventional study in the ED of the Amsterdam University Medical Centers, the Netherlands. The sepsis performance improvement program included regular educational meetings, daily audits and weekly feedback, a screening tool, and a dedicated multidisciplinary sepsis response team. We studied all adult patients who presented to the ED with a suspected infection and a Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) ≥ 3 during their stay. In the postintervention phase, these patients were seen by the sepsis team. Process-related and patient-related outcomes were measured between November 2019 and February 2020 (preintervention) and December 2021-May 2022 (postintervention). RESULTS: A total of 265 patients were included in the primary study, 132 patients preintervention and 133 patients postintervention. The postintervention phase was associated with improvements in nearly all process-related outcomes, such as a shorter time to antibiotics (66 vs. 143 min; p < 0.001), increased number of lactate measurements (72.9 vs. 46.2%; p < 0.001), and improved completeness of documented MEWS scores (85.0 vs. 62.9%; p < 0.001). Except for an improvement in the number of immediate versus delayed ICU admissions (100% immediate vs. 64.3% immediate; p = 0.012), there was no improvement in the other patient-related outcomes such as 28 days mortality (14.3 vs. 9.1%; p = 0.261), during the postintervention phase. CONCLUSION: Our program stimulated physicians to make timely decisions regarding diagnostics and treatment of sepsis in the ED. Implementing the sepsis performance improvement program was associated with significant improvements in most process-related outcomes but with minimal improvements in patient-related outcomes in our cohort.

Improved hospital mortality rates after the implementation of emergency department sepsis teams.

INTRODUCTION: Sepsis is a leading cause of mortality with more than 700,000 hospitalizations and 200,000 deaths annually in the United States. Early recognition of sepsis is critical for timely initiation of treatment and improved outcomes. We sought to evaluate. in-hospital mortality rates of patients diagnosed with sepsis before and after implementation of emergency department (ED) sepsis teams. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of adult patients seen at a tertiary care ED diagnosed with sepsis and severe sepsis. Pre-implementation study time frame was 5/1/2018-4/30/2019 and post-implementation was 11/1/2019-9/30/2020. A six-month washout period was utilized after implementation of ED-based sepsis teams. Indications for sepsis team activation were: two systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria with suspected infection or two SIRS with confirmed infection during workup. Categorical variables are presented as frequencies and percentages. Continuous variables are presented as mean and standard deviation or median and quartiles depending on distribution. Multiple logistic regression compared mortality rates pre- and post-implementation while controlling for Charlson comorbidity index. Secondary objectives included comparing time metrics pre- and post-implementation. Student t-tests compared normally distributed variables and Wilcoxon rank sum tests compared non-normally distributed variables. RESULTS: There were 1188 participants included in the study; 553 before implementation of sepsis teams and 635 after implementation. Mean age of participants was 64 years. Patients were 74.7% white and 22.6% black. Medicare was the most common health insurance (59%). Mortality rates were significantly lower post-implementation of sepsis teams compared to pre-implementation with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.472, (95%CI, 0.352-0.632). ED LOS (95%CI (-67.2--11.3), hospital LOS (95%CI, -1.0--0.002) and time to lactic acid (95%CI, -10.0- -3.0) and antibiotics (95%CI, -29.0--11.0) were all significantly lower after implementation. CONCLUSION: Implementation of ED sepsis teams decreased inpatient hospital mortality rates, ED length of stay and hospital length of stay.

Sepsis Team Organizational Model to Decrease Mortality for Intra-Abdominal Infections: Is Antibiotic Stewardship Enough?

Introduction. Sepsis is an overwhelming reaction to infection with significant morbidity, requiring urgent interventions in order to improve outcomes. The 2016 Sepsis-3 guidelines modified the previous definitions of sepsis and septic shock, and proposed some specific diagnostic and therapeutic measures to define the use of fluid resuscitation and antibiotics. However, some open issues still exist. Methods. A literature research was performed on PubMed and Cochrane using the terms "sepsis" AND "intra-abdominal infections" AND ("antibiotic therapy" OR "antibiotic treatment"). The inclusion criteria were management of intra-abdominal infection (IAI) and effects of antibiotic stewardships programs (ASP) on the outcome of the patients. Discussion. Sepsis-3 definitions represent an added value in the understanding of sepsis mechanisms and in the management of the disease. However, some questions are still open, such as the need for an early identification of sepsis. Sepsis management in the context of IAI is particularly challenging and a prompt diagnosis is essential in order to perform a quick treatment (source control and antibiotic treatment). Antibiotic empirical therapy should be based on the kind of infection (community or hospital acquired), local resistances, and patient's characteristic and comorbidities, and should be adjusted or de-escalated as soon as microbiological information is available. Antibiotic Stewardship Programs (ASP) have demonstrated to improve antimicrobial utilization with reduction of infections, emergence of multi-drug resistant bacteria, and costs. Surgeons should not be alone in the management of IAI but ideally inserted in a sepsis team together with anaesthesiologists, medical physicians, pharmacists, and infectious diseases specialists, meeting periodically to reassess the response to the treatment. Conclusion. The cornerstones of sepsis management are accurate diagnosis, early resuscitation, effective source control, and timely initiation of appropriate antimicrobial therapy. Current evidence shows that optimizing antibiotic use across surgical specialities is imperative to improve outcomes. Ideally every hospital and every emergency surgery department should aim to provide a sepsis team in order to manage IAI.

Computerised sepsis protocol management. Description of an early warning system. / Protocolo informático de manejo integral de la sepsis. Descripción de un sistema de identificación precoz.

INTRODUCTION: New strategies need to be developed for the early recognition and rapid response for the management of sepsis. To achieve this purpose, the Multidisciplinary Sepsis Team (MST) developed the Computerised Sepsis Protocol Management (PIMIS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the convenience of using PIMIS, as well as the activity of the MST. METHODS: An analysis was performed on the data collected from solicited MST consultations (direct activation of PIMIS by attending physician or telephone request) and unsolicited ones (by referral from the microbiology laboratory or an automatic referral via the hospital vital signs recording software [SIDCV]), as well as the hospital department, source of infection, treatment recommendation, and acceptance of this. RESULTS: Of the 1,581 first consultations, 65.1% were solicited consultations (84.1% activation of PIMIS and 15.9% by telephone). The majority of unsolicited consultations were generated by the microbiology laboratory (95.2%), and 4.8% from the SIDCV. Referral from solicited consultations were generated sooner (5.63days vs 8.47days; P<.001) and came from clinical specialties rather than from the surgical ward (73.0% vs 39.1%; P<.001). A recommendation was made for antimicrobial prescription change in 32% of first consultations. The treating physician accepted 78.1% of recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: The high rate of solicited consultations and acceptance of recommended prescription changes suggest that a MST is seen as a helpful resource, and that PIMIS software is perceived to be useful and convenient to use, as it is the main source of referral.