Dataset Information

Sepsis Presenting in Hospitals versus Emergency Departments: Demographic, Resuscitation, and Outcome Patterns in a Multicenter Retrospective Cohort.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Differences between hospital-presenting sepsis (HPS) and emergency department-presenting sepsis (EDPS) are not well described.

Objectives

We aimed to (1) quantify the prevalence of HPS versus EDPS cases and outcomes; (2) compare HPS versus EDPS characteristics at presentation; (3) compare HPS versus EDPS in process and patient outcomes; and (4) estimate risk differences in patient outcomes attributable to initial resuscitation disparities.

Design

Retrospective consecutive-sample cohort.

Setting

Nine hospitals from October 1, 2014, to March 31, 2016.

Patients

All hospitalized patients with sepsis or septic shock, as defined by simultaneous (1) infection, (2) ?2 Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria, and (3) ?1 acute organ dysfunction criterion. EDPS met inclusion criteria while physically in the emergency department (ED). HPS met the criteria after leaving the ED.

Measurements

We assessed overall HPS versus EDPS contributions to case prevalence and outcomes, and then compared group differences. Process outcomes included 3-hour bundle compliance and discrete bundle elements (eg, time to antibiotics). The primary patient outcome was hospital mortality.

Results

Of 11,182 sepsis hospitalizations, 2,509 (22.4%) were hospital-presenting. HPS contributed 785 (35%) sepsis mortalities. HPS had more frequent heart failure (OR: 1.31, CI: 1.18-1.47), renal failure (OR: 1.62, CI: 1.38-1.91), gastrointestinal source of infection (OR: 1.84, CI: 1.48-2.29), euthermia (OR: 1.45, CI: 1.10-1.92), hypotension (OR: 1.85, CI: 1.65-2.08), or impaired gas exchange (OR: 2.46, CI: 1.43-4.24). HPS were admitted less often from skilled nursing facilities (OR: 0.44, CI: 0.32-0.60), had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR: 0.53, CI: 0.36-0.78), tachypnea (OR: 0.76, CI: 0.58-0.98), or acute kidney injury (OR: 0.82, CI: 0.68-0.97). In a propensity-matched cohort (n = 3,844), HPS patients had less than half the odds of 3-hour bundle compliant care (17.0% vs 30.3%, OR: 0.47, CI: 0.40-0.57) or antibiotics within three hours (66.2% vs 83.8%, OR: 0.38, CI: 0.32-0.44) vs EDPS. HPS was associated with higher mortality (31.2% vs 19.3%, OR: 1.90, CI: 1.64-2.20); 23.3% of this association was attributable to differences in initial resuscitation (resuscitation-adjusted OR: 1.69, CI: 1.43-2.00).

Conclusions

HPS differed from EDPS by admission source, comorbidities, and clinical presentation. These patients received markedly less timely initial resuscitation; this disparity explained a moderate proportion of mortality differences.

SUBMITTER: Leisman DE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6625440 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sepsis Presenting in Hospitals versus Emergency Departments: Demographic, Resuscitation, and Outcome Patterns in a Multicenter Retrospective Cohort.

Leisman Daniel E DE Angel Catalina C Schneider Sandra M SM D'Amore Jason A JA D'Angelo John K JK Doerfler Martin E ME

Journal of hospital medicine 20190408 6

<h4>Background</h4>Differences between hospital-presenting sepsis (HPS) and emergency department-presenting sepsis (EDPS) are not well described.<h4>Objectives</h4>We aimed to (1) quantify the prevalence of HPS versus EDPS cases and outcomes; (2) compare HPS versus EDPS characteristics at presentation; (3) compare HPS versus EDPS in process and patient outcomes; and (4) estimate risk differences in patient outcomes attributable to initial resuscitation disparities.<h4>Design</h4>Retrospective co ...[more]

PMID: 30986182

Similar Datasets

Project description:Clinical manifestations of sepsis differ between patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM), and these differences could influence the clinical behaviors of medical staff. Therefore, we aimed to investigate whether pre-existing DM was associated with the time to antibiotics or sepsis care protocols.This was a retrospective cohort study.It conducted at 53 intensive care units (ICUs) in Japan.Consecutive adult patients with severe sepsis admitted directly to ICUs form emergency departments from January 2016 to March 2017 were included.The primary outcome was time to antibiotics.Of the 619 eligible patients, 142 had DM and 477 did not have DM. The median times (interquartile ranges) to antibiotics in patients with and without DM were 103 minutes (60-180 minutes) and 86 minutes (45-155 minutes), respectively (P = .05). There were no significant differences in the rates of compliance with sepsis protocols or with patient-centred outcomes such as in-hospital mortality. The mortality rates of patients with and without DM were 23.9% and 21.6%, respectively (P = .55). Comparing patients with and without DM, the gamma generalized linear model-adjusted relative difference indicated that patients with DM had a delay to starting antibiotics of 26.5% (95% confidence intervals (95%CI): 4.6-52.8, P = .02). The gamma generalized linear model-adjusted relative difference with multiple imputation for missing data of sequential organ failure assessment was 19.9% (95%CI: 1.0-42.3, P = .04). The linear regression model-adjusted beta coefficient indicated that patients with DM had a delay to starting antibiotics of 29.2 minutes (95%CI: 6.8-51.7, P = .01). Logistic regression modelling showed that pre-existing DM was not associated with in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.26; 95%CI: 0.72-2.19, P = .42).Pre-existing DM was associated with delayed antibiotic administration among patients with severe sepsis or septic shock; however, patient-centred outcomes and compliance with sepsis care protocols were comparable.

Project description:ImportanceThe sequelae of palate trauma vary from minimal discomfort to major neurovascular injury. Infrequency of palate trauma and clinician unfamiliarity with the disease process may lead to variation in evaluation, treatment, and disposition in the emergency department (ED).ObjectivesTo measure the incidence of primary palate trauma visits to US emergency departments with analysis of demographics, disposition, and repair and to determine frequency and factors associated with head and neck imaging.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective analysis using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Emergency Department Sample was performed of 22 094 patients presenting to US emergency departments from 2006 to 2010 with a primary diagnosis of palate trauma. Data analysis was conducted from March 29, 2016, to November 18, 2017.Main outcomes and measuresNational estimates of palate trauma were calculated from weights available within the database. Palate repair was identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification procedure codes. Imaging was calculated from reliable Current Procedural Terminology coding facilities identified using a previously published method. Logistic models were calculated to identify clinical associations for admission, imaging, and palate repair.ResultsA total of 22 094 patients (13 967 male and 8121 female patients, 6 missing data on sex; median age, 2.8 years [interquartile range, 1.1-6.1 years]) with primary palate trauma presented to US emergency departments during the study period. Total hospital visits decreased from 4715 (1.58 per 100 000 people) to 3915 (1.26 per 100 000 people) during the 5-year study period. A total of 19 819 patients (89.7%) had routine discharge from the hospital, while palate repair (965 [4.4%]) and mortality (34 [0.2%]) were rare. Complicated palate trauma (odds ratio [OR], 5.32; 95% CI, 3.10-9.15), male sex (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.11-2.21), codiagnosis status (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.84-4.12), and residence in the Northeast vs South (OR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.11-6.71) increased the likelihood of admission, which was infrequent (1027 patients [4.6%]). After restriction to reliable Current Procedural Terminology coding facilities, head and neck imaging occurred in 823 of 6897 patients (11.9%). Factors associated with head and neck imaging included living in a medium vs large metropolitan area (OR 1.62; 95% CI, 1.04-2.55), while living in the Midwest vs South region (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.25-0.74) had a negative association with imaging.Conclusions and relevanceAlthough it is often suggested in the otolaryngology literature to perform imaging, primary palate trauma usually results in a routine discharge home without imaging or repair. Imaging frequency should be noted since palate trauma could have life-threatening neurovascular sequelae, which presents an opportunity to define and promote optimal management for potential neurologic sequelae in the patients who were not imaged.

Project description:Several triage systems have been developed, but little is known about their performance in low-resource settings. Evaluating and comparing novel triage systems to existing triage scales provides essential information about their added value, reliability, safety, and effectiveness before adoption. This study included children aged < 15 years who presented to the emergency departments of two public hospitals in Kenya between February and December 2021. We compared the performance of Emergency Triage Assessment and Treatment (ETAT) guidelines and Smart Triage (ST) models (ST model with independent triggers, and recalibrated ST model with independent triggers) in categorizing children into emergency, priority, and non-urgent triage categories. Sankey diagrams were used to visualize the distribution of children into similar or different triage categories by ETAT and ST models. Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values for mortality and admission were calculated. 5618 children were enrolled, and the majority (3113, 55.4%) were aged between one and five years of age. Overall admission and mortality rates were 7% and 0.9%, respectively. ETAT classified 513 (9.2%) children into the emergency category compared to 1163 (20.8%) and 1161 (20.7%) by the ST model with independent triggers and recalibrated model with independent triggers, respectively. ETAT categorized 3089 (55.1%) children as non-urgent compared to 2097 (37.4%) and 2617 (46.7%) for the respective ST models. ETAT classified 191/395 (48.4%) admitted patients as emergencies compared to more than half by all the ST models. ETAT and ST models classified 25/49 (51%) and 39/49 (79.6%) deceased children as emergencies. Sensitivity for admission and mortality was 48.4% and 51% for ETAT and 74.9% and 79.6% for the ST models, respectively. Smart Triage shows potential for identifying critically ill children in low-resource settings, particularly when combined with independent triggers and performs comparably to ETAT. Evaluation of Smart Triage in other contexts and comparison to other triage systems is required.

Dataset Information

Sepsis Presenting in Hospitals versus Emergency Departments: Demographic, Resuscitation, and Outcome Patterns in a Multicenter Retrospective Cohort.

Background

Objectives

Design

Setting

Patients

Measurements

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Sepsis Presenting in Hospitals versus Emergency Departments: Demographic, Resuscitation, and Outcome Patterns in a Multicenter Retrospective Cohort.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets