Dataset Information

The Presentation, Pace, and Profile of Infection and Sepsis Patients Hospitalized Through the Emergency Department: An Exploratory Analysis.

ABSTRACT: To characterize the signs and symptoms of sepsis, compare them with those from simple infection and other emergent conditions and evaluate their association with hospital outcomes.

Design setting participants and intervention

A multicenter, retrospective cohort study of 408,377 patients hospitalized through the emergency department from 2012 to 2017 with sepsis, suspected infection, heart failure, or stroke. Infected patients were identified based on Sepsis-3 criteria, whereas noninfected patients were identified through diagnosis codes.

Measurements and main results

Signs and symptoms were identified within physician clinical documentation in the first 24 hours of hospitalization using natural language processing. The time of sign and symptom onset prior to presentation was quantified, and sign and symptom prevalence was assessed. Using multivariable logistic regression, the association of each sign and symptom with four outcomes was evaluated: sepsis versus suspected infection diagnosis, hospital mortality, ICU admission, and time of first antibiotics (> 3 vs ≤ 3 hr from presentation). A total of 10,825 signs and symptoms were identified in 6,148,348 clinical documentation fragments. The most common symptoms overall were as follows: dyspnea (35.2%), weakness (27.2%), altered mental status (24.3%), pain (23.9%), cough (19.7%), edema (17.8%), nausea (16.9%), hypertension (15.6%), fever (13.9%), and chest pain (12.1%). Compared with predominant signs and symptoms in heart failure and stroke, those present in infection were heterogeneous. Signs and symptoms indicative of neurologic dysfunction, significant respiratory conditions, and hypotension were strongly associated with sepsis diagnosis, hospital mortality, and intensive care. Fever, present in only a minority of patients, was associated with improved mortality (odds ratio, 0.67, 95% CI, 0.64-0.70; p < 0.001). For common symptoms, the peak time of symptom onset before sepsis was 2 days, except for altered mental status, which peaked at 1 day prior to presentation.

Conclusions

The clinical presentation of sepsis was heterogeneous and occurred with rapid onset prior to hospital presentation. These findings have important implications for improving public education, clinical treatment, and quality measures of sepsis care.

SUBMITTER: Liu VX

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7909460 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:Importance:Emergency departments (EDs) have the potential to play a pivotal role in suicide risk detection and prevention, yet little is known about the profile of risk of suicide after ED visits in the United States. Objectives:To examine 1-year incidence of suicide and other mortality among ED patients who presented with nonfatal deliberate self-harm, suicidal ideation, or any other chief concern, and to examine sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with suicide mortality risk. Design, Setting, and Participants:This retrospective cohort study included statewide, all-payer, longitudinally linked ED patient records and mortality data from all California residents who presented to a California-licensed ED at least 1 time from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2011, with deliberate self-harm, suicidal ideation but not self-harm, or neither (a 5% random sample). Age-, sex-, and race/ethnicity-adjusted standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) for suicide and other manners or causes of death were determined for each patient group using statewide mortality data. Data were analyzed from January 10 to July 18, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures:Suicide and other manners or causes of death were ascertained using International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision codes. Suicide rate and all mortality rates were measured per 100?000 person-years. Results:Among 648?646 individuals (mean [SD] age, 43.8 [20.6] years; 350?687 [54.1%] women) who visited an ED in California from 2009 to 2011, the rates of suicide deaths per 100?000 person-years in the year after index ED presentation were 693.4 deaths among 83?507 individuals presenting with deliberate self-harm (SMR, 56.8; 95% CI, 52.1-61.4), 384.5 deaths among 67?379 individuals presenting with suicidal ideation but not self-harm (SMR, 31.4; 95% CI, 27.5-35.2), and 23.4 deaths among 497?760 reference patients (SMR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.6-2.3). Compared with the demographically matched general population, the rates of nonsuicide external-cause mortality were also increased among patients with self-harm (SMR, 14.2; 95% CI, 12.9-15.5), patients with suicidal ideation (SMR, 11.8; 95% CI, 10.6-13.0), and reference patients (SMR, 2.2; 95% CI, 2.0-2.3). In all 3 groups, the rates of suicide mortality per 100?000 person-years were higher among men (deliberate self-harm: 1011.1 deaths; suicidal ideation: 539.8 deaths; reference: 36.6 deaths), people 65 years or older (deliberate self-harm: 1919.5 deaths; suicidal ideation: 691.2 deaths; reference: 28.6 deaths), and non-Hispanic white patients (deliberate self-harm: 914.1 deaths; suicidal ideation: 511.6 deaths; reference: 33.8 deaths) than among their respective referent groups. Other sociodemographic factors and clinical diagnoses were associated with striking differences in suicide rates, but these patterns were heterogeneous across patient groups. Conclusions and Relevance:These findings suggest that ED patients with deliberate self-harm or suicidal ideation are associated with substantially increased risk of suicide and other mortality during the year after ED presentation. The process of planning for ED discharge may present opportunities to help ensure safe transitions to continuing outpatient mental health care and to consider broader risk for unintentional injury and other causes of premature mortality.

Project description:Background. While often first treated in the emergency department (ED), identification of sepsis is difficult. Electronic medical record (EMR) clinical decision tools offer a novel strategy for identifying patients with sepsis. The objective of this study was to test the accuracy of an EMR-based, automated sepsis identification system. Methods. We tested an EMR-based sepsis identification tool at a major academic, urban ED with 64,000 annual visits. The EMR system collected vital sign and laboratory test information on all ED patients, triggering a "sepsis alert" for those with ?2 SIRS (systemic inflammatory response syndrome) criteria (fever, tachycardia, tachypnea, leukocytosis) plus ?1 major organ dysfunction (SBP ? 90 mm Hg, lactic acid ?2.0 mg/dL). We confirmed the presence of sepsis through manual review of physician, nursing, and laboratory records. We also reviewed a random selection of ED cases that did not trigger a sepsis alert. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the sepsis identification tool. Results. From January 1 through March 31, 2012, there were 795 automated sepsis alerts. We randomly selected 300 cases without a sepsis alert from the same period. The true prevalence of sepsis was 355/795 (44.7%) among alerts and 0/300 (0%) among non-alerts. The positive predictive value of the sepsis alert was 44.7% (95% CI [41.2-48.2%]). Pneumonia and respiratory infections (38%) and urinary tract infection (32.7%) were the most common infections among the 355 patients with true sepsis (true positives). Among false-positive sepsis alerts, the most common medical conditions were gastrointestinal (26.1%), traumatic (25.7%), and cardiovascular (20.0%) conditions. Rates of hospital admission were: true-positive sepsis alert 91.0%, false-positive alert 83.0%, no sepsis alert 5.7%. Conclusions. This ED EMR-based automated sepsis identification system was able to detect cases with sepsis. Automated EMR-based detection may provide a viable strategy for identifying sepsis in the ED.

Project description:ObjectivesThe 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).MethodsThis 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionsThe 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.