Dataset Information

The Use of Different Sepsis Risk Stratification Tools on the Wards and in Emergency Departments Uncovers Different Mortality Risks: Results of the Three Welsh National Multicenter Point-Prevalence Studies

ABSTRACT: Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, Red Flag Sepsis, and National Institute of Clinical Excellence sepsis risk stratification tools in the identification of patients at greatest risk of mortality from sepsis in nonintensive care environments.

DESIGN:

Secondary analysis of three annual 24-hour point-prevalence study periods.

SETTING:

The general wards and emergency departments of 14 acute hospitals across Wales. Studies were conducted on the third Wednesday of October in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

PATIENTS:

We screened all patients presenting to the emergency department and on the general wards.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:

We recruited 1,271 patients, of which 724 (56.9%) had systemic inflammatory response syndrome greater than or equal to 2, 679 (53.4%) had Sequential Organ Failure Assessment greater than or equal to 2, and 977 (76.9%) had Red Flag Sepsis. When stratified according to National Institute of Clinical Excellence guidelines, 450 patients (35.4%) were in the “High risk” category in comparison with 665 (52.3%) in “Moderate to High risk” and 156 (12.3%) in “Low risk” category. In a planned sensitivity analysis, we found that none of the tools accurately predicted mortality at 90 days, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and National Institute of Clinical Excellence tools showed only moderate discriminatory power for mortality at 7 and 14 days. Furthermore, we could not find any significant correlation with any of the tools at any of the mortality time points.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our data suggest that the sepsis risk stratification tools currently utilized in emergency departments and on the general wards do not predict mortality adequately. This is illustrated by the disparity in mortality risk of the populations captured by each instrument, as well as the weak concordance between them. We propose that future studies on the development of sepsis identification tools should focus on identifying predicator values of both the short- and long-term outcomes of sepsis.

SUBMITTER: Unwin H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8542169 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatients with a syncope constitute a challenge for risk stratification in (prehospital) emergency care. Professionals in EMS and ED need to differentiate the high-risk from the low-risk syncope patient, with limited time and resources. Clinical decision rules (CDRs) are designed to support professionals in risk stratification and clinical decision-making. Current CDRs seem unable to meet the standards to be used in the chain of emergency care. However, the need for a structured approach for syncope patients remains. We aimed to generate a broad overview of the available risk stratification tools and identify key elements, scoring systems and measurement properties of these tools.MethodsWe performed a scoping review with a literature search in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science from January 2010 to May 2022. Study selection was done by two researchers independently and was supervised by a third researcher. Data extraction was performed through a data extraction form, and data were summarised through descriptive synthesis. A quality assessment of included studies was performed using a generic quality assessment tool for quantitative research and the AMSTAR-2 for systematic reviews.ResultsThe literature search identified 5385 unique studies; 38 were included in the review. We discovered 19 risk stratification tools, one of which was established in EMS patient care. One-third of risk stratification tools have been validated. Two main approaches for the application of the tools were identified. Elements of the tools were categorised in history taking, physical examination, electrocardiogram, additional examinations and other variables. Evaluation of measurement properties showed that negative and positive predictive value was used in half of the studies to assess the accuracy of tools.ConclusionA total of 19 risk stratification tools for syncope patients were identified. They were primarily established in ED patient care; most are not validated properly. Key elements in the risk stratification related to a potential cardiac problem as cause for the syncope. These insights provide directions for the key elements of a risk stratification tool and for a more advanced process to validate risk stratification tools.

Project description:The 'Sepsis Six' bundle was promoted as a deliverable tool outside of the critical care settings, but there is very little data available on the progress and change of sepsis care outside the critical care environment in the UK. Our aim was to compare the yearly prevalence, outcome and the Sepsis Six bundle compliance in patients at risk of mortality from sepsis in non-intensive care environments. Patients with a National Early Warning Score (NEWS) of 3 or above and suspected or proven infection were enrolled into four yearly 24-h point prevalence studies, carried out in fourteen hospitals across Wales from 2016 to 2019. We followed up patients to 30 days between 2016-2019 and to 90 days between 2017 and 2019. Out of the 26,947 patients screened 1651 fulfilled inclusion criteria and were recruited. The full 'Sepsis Six' care bundle was completed on 223 (14.0%) occasions, with no significant difference between the years. On 190 (11.5%) occasions none of the bundle elements were completed. There was no significant correlation between bundle element compliance, NEWS or year of study. One hundred and seventy (10.7%) patients were seen by critical care outreach; the 'Sepsis Six' bundle was completed significantly more often in this group (54/170, 32.0%) than for patients who were not reviewed by critical care outreach (168/1385, 11.6%; p < 0.0001). Overall survival to 30 days was 81.7% (1349/1651), with a mean survival time of 26.5 days (95% CI 26.1-26.9) with no difference between each year of study. 90-day survival for years 2017-2019 was 74.7% (949/1271), with no difference between the years. In multivariate regression we identified older age, heart failure, recent chemotherapy, higher frailty score and do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation orders as significantly associated with increased 30-day mortality. Our data suggests that despite efforts to increase sepsis awareness within the NHS, there is poor compliance with the sepsis care bundles and no change in the high mortality over the study period. Further research is needed to determine which time-sensitive ward-based interventions can reduce mortality in patients with sepsis and how can these results be embedded to routine clinical practice.Trial registration Defining Sepsis on the Wards ISRCTN 86502304 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN86502304 prospectively registered 09/05/2016.

Project description:BackgroundElectronic discharge communication tools (EDCTs) are increasingly common in pediatric emergency departments (EDs). These tools have been shown to improve patient-centered communication, support postdischarge care at home, and reduce unnecessary return visits to the ED.ObjectiveThis study aimed to map and assess the evidence base for EDCTs used in pediatric EDs according to their functionalities, intended purpose, implementation context features, and outcomes.MethodsA systematic review was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) procedures for identification, screening, and eligibility. A total of 7 databases (EBSCO, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE Scopus, and Web of Science) were searched for studies published between 1989 and 2021. Studies evaluating discharge communication-related outcomes using electronic tools (eg, text messages, videos, and kiosks) in pediatric EDs were included. In all, 2 researchers independently assessed the eligibility. Extracted data related to study identification, methodology, settings and demographics, intervention features, outcome implementation features, and practice, policy, and research implications. The Mixed Method Appraisal Tool was used to assess methodological quality. The synthesis of results involved structured tabulation, vote counting, recoding into common metrics, inductive thematic analysis, descriptive statistics, and heat mapping.ResultsIn total, 231 full-text articles and abstracts were screened for review inclusion with 49 reports (representing 55 unique tools) included. In all, 70% (26/37) of the studies met at least three of five Mixed Method Appraisal Tool criteria. The most common EDCTs were videos, text messages, kiosks, and phone calls. The time required to use the tools ranged from 120 seconds to 80 minutes. The EDCTs were evaluated for numerous presenting conditions (eg, asthma, fracture, head injury, fever, and otitis media) that required a range of at-home care needs after the ED visit. The most frequently measured outcomes were knowledge acquisition, caregiver and patient beliefs and attitudes, and health service use. Unvalidated self-report measures were typically used for measurement. Health care provider satisfaction or system-level impacts were infrequently measured in studies. The directionality of primary outcomes pointed to positive effects for the primary measure (44/55, 80%) or no significant difference (10/55, 18%). Only one study reported negative findings, with an increase in return visits to the ED after receiving the intervention compared with the control group.ConclusionsThis review is the first to map the broad literature of EDCTs used in pediatric EDs. The findings suggest a promising evidence base, demonstrating that EDCTs have been successfully integrated across clinical contexts and deployed via diverse technological modalities. Although caregiver and patient satisfaction with EDCTs is high, future research should use robust trials using consistent measures of communication quality, clinician experience, cost-effectiveness, and health service use to accumulate evidence regarding these outcomes.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020157500; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=157500.

Project description:BackgroundDopamine transporter single photon-emission computed tomography (DAT-SPECT) is the strongest risk factor for phenoconversion in patients with idiopathic rapid eye movement (REM)-sleep behavior disorder (iRBD). However, it might be used as a second-line stratification tool in clinical trials, because it is expensive and mini-invasive.ObjectiveAim of the study is to investigate whether other cost-effective and non-invasive biomarkers may be proposed as first-line stratification tools.MethodsForty-seven consecutive iRBD patients (68.53 ± 7.16 years, 40 males) underwent baseline clinical and neuropsychological assessment, olfaction test, resting electroencephalogram (EEG), and DAT-SPECT. All patients underwent 6 month-based clinical follow-up to investigate the emergence of parkinsonism and/or dementia. Survival analysis and Cox regression were used to estimate conversion risk.ResultsSeventeen patients developed an overt synucleinopathy (eight Parkinsonism and nine dementia) 32.8 ± 22 months after diagnosis. The strongest risk factors were putamen specific to non-displaceable binding ratio (SBR) (hazard ratio [HR], 7.3), attention/working memory cognitive function (NPS-AT/WM) (HR, 5.9), EEG occipital mean frequency (HR, 2.7) and clinical motor assessment (HR, 2.3). On multivariate Cox-regression analysis, only putamen SBR and NPS-AT/WM significantly contributed to the model (HR, 6.2, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-19.8). At post-hoc analysis, the trail-making test B (TMT-B) was the single most efficient first-line stratification tool that allowed to reduce the number of eligible subjects to 76.6% (sensitivity 1, specificity 0.37). Combining TMT-B and DAT-SPECT further reduced the sample to 66% (sensitivity 0.88, specificity 0.47).ConclusionThe TMT-B seems to be a cost-effective and efficient first-line screening tool, to be used to select patients that deserve DAT-SPECT as second-line screening tool for disease-modifying clinical trials. © 2021 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Project description:Diagnosis of sepsis in burn patients remains difficult for various reasons. One major problem is the definition of sepsis itself. Therefore, previous and current sepsis definitions are a matter of ongoing validation, but a well-defined consensus on which clinical and laboratory parameters to incorporate in such a definition is lacking. The aim of the present study was to compare the incidence and time-related occurrence of septic events according to different definitions as well as their accompanying time course of pro-inflammatory biomarkers. Across the first 14 days after admission, the incidence and time point of sepsis according to three different definitions (Sepsis-3, Sepsis American Burns Association [ABA] 2007, Sepsis Zurich Burn Center) were assessed on a daily basis in adult burn patients with total body surface area (TBSA) ≥15% admitted to the Zurich Burn Center between May 2015 and October 2018. In order to investigate how well daily drawn proinflammatory biomarkers (white blood cells (WBCs), C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), and novel pancreatic stone protein (PSP)) reflect the progression of sepsis depending on its type of definition, a longitudinal mixed model analysis was performed across the first 14 days for septic and non-septic patients. Additionally, the relative increase of biomarker levels 24, 48, and 72 h prior to a septic event was analyzed for each definition used. In our cohort of 90 severely burned patients, Sepsis-3 identified 46 patients (51.1%) as septic, while ABA 2007 and the Zurich Burn Center definition counted 33 patients (36.7%) and 24 patients (26.6%), respectively. Sepsis-3 detected sepsis about 1 day earlier than Sepsis ABA 2007 (p < 0.001) and about 0.5 days earlier than Sepsis Zurich Burn Center (p = 0.04). The course of pro-inflammatory biomarkers was largely unaffected by the type of sepsis definition. Irrespective of the sepsis definition, PSP was the only marker to demonstrate a highly significant interaction between time and group (sepsis versus no sepsis) (p < 0.001) with a 3.3-5.5-fold increase within 72 h before the event of sepsis, whereas CRP, PCT, and WBC showed only mild undulations. Despite the ongoing dilemma of how to define sepsis in burn patients, a continually calculated SOFA score as used in Sepsis-3 is advantageous to early identify a patient's detrimental progression to sepsis. Inclusion of biomarkers, such as PSP, may help support the burn specialist's diagnosis of sepsis and could improve the diagnostic performance of current and future definitions in burn patients.