Dataset Information

Comparison of Two Sepsis Recognition Methods in a Pediatric Emergency Department.

ABSTRACT: The objective was to compare the effectiveness of physician judgment and an electronic algorithmic alert to identify pediatric patients with severe sepsis/septic shock in a pediatric emergency department (ED).This was an observational cohort study of patients older than 56 days with fever or hypothermia. All patients were evaluated for potential sepsis in real time by the ED clinical team. An electronic algorithmic alert was retrospectively applied to identify patients with potential sepsis independent of physician judgment. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients correctly identified with severe sepsis/septic shock defined by consensus criteria. Test characteristics were determined and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were compared.Of 19,524 eligible patient visits, 88 patients developed consensus-confirmed severe sepsis or septic shock. Physician judgment identified 159 and the algorithmic alert identified 3,301 patients with potential sepsis. Physician judgment had sensitivity of 72.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 72.1% to 73.4%) and specificity of 99.5% (95% CI = 99.4% to 99.6%); the algorithmic alert had sensitivity of 92.1% (95% CI = 91.7% to 92.4%) and specificity of 83.4% (95% CI = 82.9% to 83.9%) for severe sepsis/septic shock. There was no significant difference in the area under the ROC curve for physician judgment (0.86, 95% CI = 0.81 to 0.91) or the algorithm (0.88, 95% CI = 0.85 to 0.91; p = 0.54). A combination method using either positive physician judgment or an algorithmic alert improved sensitivity to 96.6% and specificity to 83.3%. A sequential approach, in which positive identification by the algorithmic alert was then confirmed by physician judgment, achieved 68.2% sensitivity and 99.6% specificity. Positive and negative predictive values for physician judgment versus algorithmic alert were 40.3% versus 2.5% and 99.88% versus 99.96%, respectively.The electronic algorithmic alert was more sensitive but less specific than physician judgment for recognition of pediatric severe sepsis and septic shock. These findings can help to guide institutions in selecting pediatric sepsis recognition methods based on institutional needs and priorities.

SUBMITTER: Balamuth F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4639443 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of Two Sepsis Recognition Methods in a Pediatric Emergency Department.

Balamuth Fran F Alpern Elizabeth R ER Grundmeier Robert W RW Chilutti Marianne M Weiss Scott L SL Fitzgerald Julie C JC Hayes Katie K Bilker Warren W Lautenbach Ebbing E

Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine 20151016 11

<h4>Objectives</h4>The objective was to compare the effectiveness of physician judgment and an electronic algorithmic alert to identify pediatric patients with severe sepsis/septic shock in a pediatric emergency department (ED).<h4>Methods</h4>This was an observational cohort study of patients older than 56 days with fever or hypothermia. All patients were evaluated for potential sepsis in real time by the ED clinical team. An electronic algorithmic alert was retrospectively applied to identify ...[more]

PMID: 26474032

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study objectiveRecognition of pediatric sepsis is a key clinical challenge. We evaluate the performance of a sepsis recognition process including an electronic sepsis alert and bedside assessment in a pediatric emergency department (ED).MethodsThis was a cohort study with quality improvement intervention in a pediatric ED. Exposure was a positive electronic sepsis alert, defined as elevated pulse rate or hypotension, concern for infection, and at least one of the following: abnormal capillary refill, abnormal mental status, or high-risk condition. A positive electronic sepsis alert prompted team assessment or huddle to determine need for sepsis protocol. Clinicians could initiate team assessment or huddle according to clinical concern without positive electronic sepsis alert. Severe sepsis outcome defined as activation of the sepsis protocol in the ED or development of severe sepsis requiring ICU admission within 24 hours.ResultsThere were 182,509 ED visits during the study period, with 86,037 before electronic sepsis alert implementation and 96,472 afterward, and 1,112 (1.2%) positive electronic sepsis alerts. Overall, 326 patients (0.3%) were treated for severe sepsis within 24 hours. Test characteristics of the electronic sepsis alert alone to detect severe sepsis were sensitivity 86.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 82.0% to 89.5%), specificity 99.1% (95% CI 99.0% to 99.2%), positive predictive value 25.4% (95% CI 22.8% to 28.0%), and negative predictive value 100% (95% CI 99.9% to 100%). Inclusion of the clinician screen identified 43 additional electronic sepsis alert-negative children, with severe sepsis sensitivity 99.4% (95% CI 97.8% to 99.8%) and specificity 99.1% (95% CI 99.1% to 99.2%). Electronic sepsis alert implementation increased ED sepsis detection from 83% to 96%.ConclusionElectronic sepsis alert for severe sepsis demonstrated good sensitivity and high specificity. Addition of clinician identification of electronic sepsis alert-negative patients further improved sensitivity. Implementation of the electronic sepsis alert was associated with improved recognition of severe sepsis.

Project description:PURPOSE:Sepsis is a common acute life-threatening condition that emergency physicians routinely face. Diagnostic options within the Emergency Department (ED) are limited due to lack of infrastructure, consequently limiting the use of invasive hemodynamic monitoring or imaging tests. The mortality rate due to sepsis can be assessed via multiple scoring systems, for example, mortality in emergency department sepsis (MEDS) score and sepsis patient evaluation in the emergency department (SPEED) score, both of which quantify the variation of mortality rates according to clinical findings, laboratory data, or therapeutic interventions. This study aims to improve the management processes of sepsis patients by comparing SPEED score and MEDS score for predicting the 28-day mortality in cases of emergency sepsis. METHODS:The study is a cross-sectional, prospective study including 61 sepsis patients in ED in Suez Canal University Hospital, Egypt, from August 2017 to June 2018. Patients were selected by two steps: (1) suspected septic patients presenting with at least one of the following abnormal clinical findings: (a) body temperature higher than 38 °C or lower than 36 °C, (b) heart rate higher than 90 beats/min, (c) hyperventilation evidenced by respiratory rate higher than 20 breaths/min or PaCO2 lower than 32 mmHg, and (d) white blood cell count higher than 12,000/?L or lower than 4000/?L; (2) confirmed septic patients with at least a 2-point increase from the baseline total sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score following infection. Other inclusion criteria included adult patients with an age ?18 years regardless of gender and those who had either systemic inflammatory response syndrome or suspected/confirmed infection. Patients were shortly follow-up for the 28-day mortality. Each patient was subject to SPEED score and MEDS score and then the results were compared to detect which of them was more effective in predicting outcome. The receiver operating characteristic curves were also done for MEDS and SPEED scores. RESULTS:Among the 61 patients, 41 died with the mortality rate of 67.2%. The mortality rate increased with a higher SPEED and MEDS scores. Both SPEED and MEDS scores revealed significant difference between the survivors and nonsurvivors (p = 0.004 and p < 0.001, respectively), indicating that both the two systems are effective in predicting the 28-day mortality of sepsis patients. Thereafter, the receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted, which showed that SPEED was better than the MEDS score when applied to the complete study population with an area under the curve being 0.87 (0.788-0.963) as compared with 0.75 (0.634-0.876) for MEDS. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the best fitting predictor of 28-day mortality for sepsis patients was the SPEED scoring system. For every one unit increase in SPEED score, the odds of 28-day mortality increased by 37%. CONCLUSION:SPEED score is more useful and accurate than MEDS score in predicting the 28-day mortality among sepsis patients. Therefore SPEED rather than MEDS should be more widely used in the ED for sepsis patients.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Two Sepsis Recognition Methods in a Pediatric Emergency Department.

Publications

Comparison of Two Sepsis Recognition Methods in a Pediatric Emergency Department.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets