Dataset Information

Impact of Prehospital Care on Outcomes in Sepsis: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: Sepsis is a common and potentially life-threatening response to an infection. International treatment guidelines for sepsis advocate that treatment be initiated at the earliest possible opportunity. It is not yet clear if very early intervention by ambulance clinicians prior to arrival at hospital leads to improved clinical outcomes among sepsis patients.We systematically searched the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library and PubMed up to June 2015. In addition, subject experts were contacted. We adopted the GRADE (grading recommendations assessment, development and evaluation) methodology to conduct the review and follow PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) recommendations to report findings.Nine studies met the eligibility criteria - one study was a randomized controlled trial while the remaining studies were observational in nature. There was considerable variation in the methodological approaches adopted and outcome measures reported across the studies. Because of these differences, the studies did not answer a unique research question and meta-analysis was not appropriate. A narrative approach to data synthesis was adopted.There is little robust evidence addressing the impact of prehospital interventions on outcomes in sepsis. That which is available is of low quality and indicates that prehospital interventions have limited impact on outcomes in sepsis beyond improving process outcomes and expediting the patient's passage through the emergency care pathway. Evidence indicating that prehospital antibiotic therapy and fluid resuscitation improve patient outcomes is currently lacking.

SUBMITTER: Smyth MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4944799 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of Prehospital Care on Outcomes in Sepsis: A Systematic Review.

Smyth Michael A MA Brace-McDonnell Samantha J SJ Perkins Gavin D GD

The western journal of emergency medicine 20160705 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>Sepsis is a common and potentially life-threatening response to an infection. International treatment guidelines for sepsis advocate that treatment be initiated at the earliest possible opportunity. It is not yet clear if very early intervention by ambulance clinicians prior to arrival at hospital leads to improved clinical outcomes among sepsis patients.<h4>Methoda</h4>We systematically searched the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library and PubM ...[more]

PMID: 27429693

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTelemedicine offers a unique opportunity to improve coordination and administration for urgent patient care remotely. In an emergency setting, it has been used to support first responders by providing telephone or video consultation with specialists at hospitals and through the exchange of prehospital patient information. This technological solution is evolving rapidly, yet there is a concern that it is being implemented without a demonstrated clinical need and effectiveness as well as without a thorough economic evaluation.ObjectiveOur objective is to systematically review whether the clinical outcomes achieved, as reported in the literature, favor telemedicine decision support for medical interventions during prehospital care.MethodsThis systematic review included peer-reviewed journal articles. Searches of 7 databases and relevant reviews were conducted. Eligibility criteria consisted of studies that covered telemedicine as data- and information-sharing and two-way teleconsultation platforms, with the objective of supporting medical decisions (eg, diagnosis, treatment, and receiving hospital decision) in a prehospital emergency setting. Simulation studies and studies that included pediatric populations were excluded. The procedures in this review followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. The Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool was used for the assessment of risk of bias. The results were synthesized based on predefined aspects of medical decisions that are made in a prehospital setting, which include diagnostic decision support, receiving facility decisions, and medical directions for treatment. All data extractions were done by at least two reviewers independently.ResultsOut of 42 full-text reviews, 7 were found eligible. Diagnostic support and medical direction and decision for treatments were often reported. A key finding of this review was the high agreement between prehospital diagnoses via telemedicine and final in-hospital diagnoses, as supported by quantitative evidence. However, a majority of the articles described the clinical value of having access to remote experts without robust quantitative data. Most telemedicine solutions were evaluated within a feasibility or short-term preliminary study. In general, the results were positive for telemedicine use; however, biases, due to preintervention confounding factors and a lack of documentation on quality assurance and protocol for telemedicine activation, make it difficult to determine the direct effect on patient outcomes.ConclusionsThe information-sharing capacity of telemedicine enables access to remote experts to support medical decision making on scene or in prolonged field care. The influence of human and technology factors on patient care is poorly understood and documented.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In 2011, the role of Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS) was defined as one of the top five research priorities in physician-provided prehospital critical care and future research topics were proposed; the feasibility of prehospital POCUS, changes in patient management induced by POCUS and education of providers. This systematic review aimed to assess these three topics by including studies examining all kinds of prehospital patients undergoing all kinds of prehospital POCUS examinations and studies examining any kind of POCUS education in prehospital critical care providers. METHODS AND RESULTS:By a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, we identified and screened titles and abstracts of 3264 studies published from 2012 to 2017. Of these, 65 studies were read in full-text for assessment of eligibility and 27 studies were ultimately included and assessed for quality by SIGN-50 checklists. No studies compared patient outcome with and without prehospital POCUS. Four studies of acceptable quality demonstrated feasibility and changes in patient management in trauma. Two studies of acceptable quality demonstrated feasibility and changes in patient management in breathing difficulties. Four studies of acceptable quality demonstrated feasibility, outcome prediction and changes in patient management in cardiac arrest, but also that POCUS may prolong pauses in compressions. Two studies of acceptable quality demonstrated that short (few hours) teaching sessions are sufficient for obtaining simple interpretation skills, but not image acquisition skills. Three studies of acceptable quality demonstrated that longer one- or two-day courses including hands-on training are sufficient for learning simple, but not advanced, image acquisition skills. Three studies of acceptable quality demonstrated that systematic educational programs including supervised examinations are sufficient for learning advanced image acquisition skills in healthy volunteers, but that more than 50 clinical examinations are required for expertise in a clinical setting. CONCLUSION:Prehospital POCUS is feasible and changes patient management in trauma, breathing difficulties and cardiac arrest, but it is unknown if this improves outcome. Expertise in POCUS requires extensive training by a combination of theory, hands-on training and a substantial amount of clinical examinations - a large part of these needs to be supervised.

Project description:RationaleEarly antibiotics improve outcomes for patients with sepsis. Factors influencing antibiotic timing in emergency department (ED) sepsis remain unclear.ObjectivesDetermine the relationship between prehospital level of care of patients with sepsis and ED door-to-antibiotic time.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study comprised patients admitted from the community to an academic ED June 2009 to February 2015 with fluid-refractory sepsis or septic shock. Transfer patients and those whose antibiotics began before ED arrival or after ED discharge were excluded. We used multivariable regression to evaluate the association between the time from ED arrival to antibiotic initiation and prehospital level of care, defined as the highest level of emergency medical services received: none, basic life support (BLS) ambulance, or advanced life support (ALS) ambulance. We measured variation in this association when hypotension was or was not present by ED arrival.ResultsAmong 361 community-dwelling patients with sepsis, the level of prehospital care correlated with illness severity. ALS-treated patients received antibiotics faster than patients who did not receive prehospital care (median, 103 [interquartile range, 75 to 135] vs. 144 [98 to 251] minutes, respectively) or BLS-only patients (168 [100-250] minutes; P < 0.001 for each pairwise comparison with ALS). This pattern persisted after multivariable adjustment, where ALS care (-43 min; 95% confidence interval [CI], -84 to -2; P = 0.033) but not BLS-only care (-4 min; 95% CI, -41 to +34; P = 0.97) was associated with less antibiotic delay compared with no prehospital care. ALS-treated patients more frequently received antibiotics within 3 hours of ED arrival (91%) compared with walk-in patients (62%; adjusted odds ratio, 3.11; 95% CI, 1.20 to 8.03; P = 0.015) or BLS-treated patients (56%; adjusted odds ratio, 4.51; 95% CI, 1.89 to 11.35; P < 0.001). ALS-treated patients started antibiotics faster than walk-in patients in the absence of hypotension by ED arrival (-41 min; 95% CI, -110 to -13; P = 0.009) but not when hypotension was present (+25 min; 95% CI, -43 to +92; P = 0.66).ConclusionsPrehospital ALS but not BLS-only care was associated with faster antibiotic initiation for patients with sepsis without hypotension. Process redesign for non-ALS patients may improve antibiotic timeliness for ED sepsis.

Dataset Information

Impact of Prehospital Care on Outcomes in Sepsis: A Systematic Review.

Publications

Impact of Prehospital Care on Outcomes in Sepsis: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets