Dataset Information

Prehospital Care and Emergency Department Door-to-Antibiotic Time in Sepsis.

ABSTRACT:

Rationale

Early antibiotics improve outcomes for patients with sepsis. Factors influencing antibiotic timing in emergency department (ED) sepsis remain unclear.

Objectives

Determine the relationship between prehospital level of care of patients with sepsis and ED door-to-antibiotic time.

Methods

This 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.

Results

Among 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).

Conclusions

Prehospital 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.

SUBMITTER: Peltan ID

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6322022 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Prompt sepsis treatment is associated with improved outcomes but requires a complex series of actions by multiple clinicians. We investigated whether simply reorganizing emergency department (ED) care to expedite patients' initial evaluation was associated with shorter sepsis door-to-antibiotic times. METHODS:Patients eligible for this retrospective study received IV antibiotics and demonstrated acute organ failure after presenting to one of three EDs in Utah. On May 1, 2016, the intervention ED instituted "swarming" as the default model for initial evaluation of all mid- and low-acuity patients. Swarming involved simultaneous patient evaluation by the ED physician, nurse, and technician followed by a team discussion of the initial care plan. Care was unchanged at the two control EDs. A 30-day wash-in period separated the baseline (May 16, 2015 to April 15, 2016) and post-intervention (May 16, 2016 to November 15, 2016) analysis periods. We conducted a quasi-experimental analysis comparing door-to-antibiotic time for sepsis patients at the intervention ED after versus before care reorganization, applying difference-in-differences methods to control for trends in door-to-antibiotic time unrelated to the studied intervention and multivariable regression to adjust for patient characteristics. RESULTS:The analysis included 3,230 ED sepsis patients, including 1,406 from the intervention ED. Adjusted analyses using difference-in-differences methods to control for temporal trends unrelated to the studied intervention revealed no significant change in door-to-antibiotic time after care reorganization (-7 minutes, 95% CI -20 to 6 minutes, p = 0.29). Multivariable pre/post analyses using data only from the intervention ED overestimated the magnitude and statistical significance of outcome changes associated with ED care reorganization. CONCLUSIONS:Implementation of an ED care model involving parallel multidisciplinary assessment and early team discussion of the care plan was not associated with improvements in mid- and low-acuity sepsis patients' door-to-antibiotic time after accounting for changes in the outcome unrelated to the studied intervention.

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.

Project description:BackgroundPrehospital recognition of sepsis may inform case management by ambulance clinicians, as well as inform transport decisions. The objective of this study was to develop a prehospital sepsis screening tool for use by ambulance clinicians.MethodsWe derived and validated a sepsis screening tool, utilising univariable logistic regression models to identify predictors for inclusion, and multivariable logistic regression to generate the SEPSIS score. We utilised a retrospective cohort of adult patients transported by ambulance (n?=?38483) to hospital between 01 July 2013 and 30 June 2014. Records were linked using LinkPlus® software. Successful linkage was achieved in 33289 cases (86%). Eligible patients included adult, non-trauma, non-mental health, non-cardiac arrest cases. Of 33289 linked cases, 22945 cases were eligible. Eligible cases were divided into derivation (n?=?16063, 70%) and validation (n?=?6882, 30%) cohorts. The primary outcome measure was high risk of severe illness or death from sepsis, as defined by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Sepsis guideline.Results'High risk of severe illness or death from sepsis' was present in 3.7% of derivation (n?=?593) and validation (n?=?254) cohorts. The SEPSIS score comprises the following variables: age, respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturations, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, temperature and level of consciousness (p?<?0.001 for all variables). Area under the curve was 0.87 (95%CI 0.85-0.88) for the derivation cohort, and 0.86 (95%CI 0.84-0.88) for the validation cohort. In an undifferentiated adult medical population, for a SEPSIS score???5, sensitivity was 0.37 (0.31-0.44), specificity was 0.96 (0.96-0.97), positive predictive value was 0.27 (0.23-0.32), negative predictive value was 0.97 (0.96-0.97), positive likelihood value was 13.5 (9.7-18.73) and the negative likelihood value was 0.83 (0.78-0.88).ConclusionThis is the first screening tool developed to identify NICE high risk of severe illness or death from sepsis. The SEPSIS score is significantly associated with high risk of severe illness or death from sepsis on arrival at the Emergency Department. It may assist ambulance clinicians to identify those patients with sepsis in need of antibiotic therapy. However, it requires external validation, in clinical practice by ambulance clinicians, in an independent population.

Project description:ImportanceStroke treatment is exquisitely time sensitive. The door-in-door-out (DIDO) time, defined as the total time spent in the emergency department (ED) at a transferring hospital, is an important quality metric for the care of acute stroke. However, little is known about the contributions of specific process steps to delays and disparities in DIDO time.ObjectiveTo quantify process steps and their association with DIDO times at transferring hospitals among patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS).Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study analyzed patients in the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines-Stroke registry with AIS presenting between January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2021, and transferred from the presenting hospital ED to another acute care hospital for evaluation of thrombolytics, endovascular therapy, or postthrombolytic care. Data were analyzed from July 8 to October 13, 2023.ExposuresIntervals of ED care of ischemic stroke: door-to-imaging and imaging-to-door times.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was DIDO time. Multivariate generalized estimating equations regression models were performed to compare contributions of interval process times to explain variation in DIDO time, controlling for patient- and hospital-level characteristics.ResultsAmong 28 887 patients (50.5% male; mean [SD] age, 68.3 [14.8] years; 5.5% Hispanic, 14.7% non-Hispanic Black, and 73.2% non-Hispanic White), mean (SD) DIDO time was 171.4 (149.5) minutes, mean (SD) door-to-imaging time was 18.3 (34.1) minutes, and mean (SD) imaging-to-door time was 153.1 (141.5) minutes. In the model adjusting for door-to-imaging time, the following were associated with longer DIDO time: age 80 years or older (compared with 18-59 years; 5.97 [95% CI, 1.02-10.92] minutes), female sex (5.21 [95% CI, 1.55-8.87] minutes), and non-Hispanic Black race (compared with non-Hispanic White 10.09 [95% CI, 4.21-15.96] minutes). In the model including imaging-to-door time as a covariate, disparities in DIDO by age and female sex became nonsignificant, and the disparity by Black race was attenuated (2.32 [95% CI, 1.09-3.56] minutes).Conclusions and relevanceIn this national cohort study of interhospital transfer of patients with AIS, delays in DIDO time by Black race, older age (≥80 years), and female sex were largely explained by the imaging-to-door period, suggesting that future systems interventions should target this interval to reduce these disparities. While existing guidelines and care resources heavily focus on reducing door-to-imaging times, further attention is warranted to reduce imaging-to-door times in the management of patients with AIS who require interhospital transfer.