Dataset Information

Retrospective study on the possible existence of a treatment paradox in sepsis scores in the emergency department.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) is developed as a tool to identify patients with infection with increased risk of dying from sepsis in non-intensive care unit settings, like the emergency department (ED). An abnormal score may trigger the initiation of appropriate therapy to reduce that risk. This study assesses the risk of a treatment paradox: the effect of a strong predictor for mortality will be reduced if that predictor also acts as a trigger for initiating treatment to prevent mortality.

Design

Retrospective analysis on data from a large observational cohort.

Setting

ED of a tertiary medical centre in the Netherlands.

Participants

3178 consecutive patients with suspected infection.

Primary outcome

To evaluate the existence of a treatment paradox by determining the influence of baseline qSOFA on treatment decisions within the first 24 hours after admission.

Results

226 (7.1%) had a qSOFA ≥2, of which 51 (22.6%) died within 30 days. Area under receiver operating characteristics of qSOFA for 30-day mortality was 0.68 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.75). Patients with a qSOFA ≥2 had higher odds of receiving any form of intensive therapy (OR 11.4 (95% CI 7.5 to 17.1)), such as aggressive fluid resuscitation (OR 8.8 95% CI 6.6 to 11.8), fast antibiotic administration (OR 8.5, 95% CI 5.7 to 12.3) or vasopressic therapy (OR 17.3, 95% CI 11.2 to 26.8), compared with patients with qSOFA <2.

Conclusion

In ED patients with suspected infection, a qSOFA ≥2 was associated with more intensive treatment. This could lead to inadequate prediction of 30-day mortality due to the presence of a treatment paradox.

Trial registration number

6916.

SUBMITTER: Uffen JW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7957128 | 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:BACKGROUND:Acute appendicitis is a global disease and a very common indication for emergency surgery worldwide. The need for hospital resources is therefore constantly high. The administration in Kanta-Häme Central Hospital, Southern Finland, called for an urgent reorganisation due to shortage of hospital beds at the department of general surgery. Postoperative treatment pathway of patients with nonperforated acute appendicitis was ordered to take place in the Emergency Department (ED). The aim of this study was to assess, whether this reorganisation was feasible and safe, i.e. did it affect the length of in-hospital stay (LOS) and the 30-day complication rate. METHODS:This is a retrospective pre- and post-intervention analysis. After the reorganisation, most patients with nonperforated appendicitis were followed postoperatively at the 24-h observation unit of the ED instead of surgical ward. Patients operated during the first 3 months after the reorganisation were compared to those operated during the 3 months before it. A case met inclusion criteria if there were no signs of appendiceal perforation during surgery. Exclusion criteria comprised age?<?18?years and perforated disease. RESULTS:Appendicectomy was performed on 112 patients, of whom 62 were adults with nonperforated appendicitis. Twenty-seven of the included patients were treated before the reorganisation, and 35 after it. Twenty of the latter were followed only at the ED. Postoperative LOS decreased significantly after the reorganisation. Median postoperative time till discharge was 15.7?h for all patients after the reorganisation compared to 24.4?h before the reorganisation (standard error 6.2?h, 95% confidence interval 2.3-15.2?h, p <?0.01). There were no more complications in the group treated postoperatively in the ED. CONCLUSIONS:Early discharge of patients with nonperforated appendicitis after enforced urgent reorganisation of the treatment pathway in the ED observation unit is safe and feasible. Shifting the postoperative monitoring and the discharge policy of such patients to the ED - instead of the surgical ward - occurred in the majority of the cases after the reorganisation. This change may spare resources as in our series it resulted in a significantly shorter LOS without any increase in the 30-day complication rate.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The goal of these analyses was to determine whether there were systematic differences in Emergency Severity Index (ESI) scores, which are intended to determine priority of treatment and anticipate resource needs, across categories of race and ethnicity, after accounting for patient-presenting vital signs and examiner characteristics, and whether these differences varied among male and female Veterans Affairs (VA) ED patients. METHODS AND FINDINGS:We used a large national database of electronic medical records of ED patients from twenty-two U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs ED stations to determine whether ESI assignments differ systematically by race or ethnicity. Multi-level, random effects linear modeling was used to control for demographic characteristics and patient's vital signs (heart rate, respiratory rate, and pain level), as well as age, gender, and experience of triage nurses. The dataset included 129,991 VA patients presenting for emergency care between 2008 and 2012 (91% males; 61% non-Hispanic White, 28% Black, 7% Hispanic, 2% Asian, <1% American Indian/Alaska Native, 1% mixed ethnicity) and 774 nurses for a total of 359,642 patient/examiner encounters. Approximately 13% of the variance in ESI scores was due to patient characteristics and 21% was due to the nurse characteristics. After controlling for characteristics of nurses and patients, Black patients were assigned less urgent ESI scores than White patients, and this effect was more prominent for Black males compared with Black females. A similar interaction was found for Hispanic males. It remains unclear how these results may generalize to EDs and patient populations outside of the U.S. VA Health Care system. CONCLUSIONS:The findings suggest the possibility that subgroups of VA patients receive different ESI ratings in triage, which may have cascading, downstream consequences for patient treatment quality, satisfaction with care, and trust in the health equity of emergency care.

Project description:Many studies have shown the tendency for people without a regular care provider or primary physician to make greater use of emergency departments. We sought to determine the effects of three aspects of care provided by primary physicians (physician specialty, continuity of care and comprehensiveness of care) on their patients' use of the emergency department.Using provincial administrative databases, we created a cohort of 367,315 adults aged 18 years and older. Participants were residents of urban areas of Quebec. Affiliation with a primary physician, the specialty of this physician (i.e., family physician v. specialist), continuity of care (as measured using the Usual Provider Continuity index) and comprehensiveness of care (i.e., number of complete annual examinations) were measured among participants (n = 311,701) who had visited a physician three or more times during a two-year baseline period. We used multivariable negative binomial regression to investigate the relationships between measures of care and the number of visits to emergency departments during a 12-month follow-up period.Among participants under 65 years of age, emergency department use was higher for those not affiliated than for those affiliated with a family physician (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.16) or a specialist (IRR 1.10, 95% CI 1.04-1.17). Among patients aged 65 years and older, having a specialist primary physician, as opposed to a family physician, predicted increased use of the emergency department (IRR 1.13, 95% CI 1.09-1.17). Greater continuity of care with a family physician predicted less use of the emergency department only among participants who made 25 or more visits to a physician during the baseline period. Greater continuity of care with a specialist predicted less use of the emergency department overall, particularly among participants with intermediate numbers of multimorbidities and admissions to hospital. Greater comprehensiveness of care by family physicians predicted less use of the emergency department.Efforts to increase the proportion of adults affiliated with a family physician should target older adults, people who visit physicians more frequently and people with multiple comorbidities and admissions to hospital.

Project description:BackgroundEmergency departments (EDs) see a rising number of patients, but only a small fraction of ED patients need immediate intensive care. The characteristics of these patients are mostly unknown and there is reason to believe that there are large inter-hospital differences in thresholds for intensive care admissions from the ED. The purpose of this study was to give a nationwide overview of ED admissions directly to intensive care units.MethodsWe used the Swedish Intensive care Registry to identify all patients admitted to intensive care from the ED (January 1, 2013 until June 7, 2018). The primary outcome was discharge diagnosis after intensive care (primary ICU diagnosis code). ICU mortality and" ICU admission due to only observation" were analyzed as secondary outcomes.Results110,072 ICU admissions were included, representing 94,546 unique patients. Intoxication, trauma and neurological conditions were the most common causes for intensive care, but large variations according to age, sex and hospital type were seen. Intoxication was the most prevalent diagnosis in young adults (46.8% of admissions in 18-29 years old), whereas infectious diseases predominated in the elderly (17.0% in 65-79 years old). Overall, ICU mortality was 7.2%, but varied substantially with age, sex, type of hospital and medical condition. Cardiac conditions had the highest mortality rates, reaching 32.9%. The mortality was higher in academic centers compared to rural hospitals (9.3% vs 5.0%). It was more common to be admitted to ICU for only observation in rural hospitals than in academic centers (20.1% vs 7.8%). Being admitted to ICU only for observation was most common in patients with intoxication (30.6%).ConclusionsOverall, intoxication was the most common cause for ICU admission from the ED. However, causes of ED ICU admissions differ substantially according to age, sex and hospital type. Being admitted to the ICU only for observation was most common in intoxicated patients.Trial registrationNot applicable (no interventions).