Impact of 1-hour and 3-hour sepsis time bundles on patient outcomes and antimicrobial use: A before and after cohort study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Sepsis bundles, promulgated by Surviving Sepsis Campaign have not been widely adopted because of variability in sepsis identification strategies, implementation challenges, concerns about excess antimicrobial use, and limited evidence of benefit.Methods
A 1-hour septic shock and a 3-hour sepsis bundle were implemented using a Breakthrough Series Collaborative in 14 public hospitals in Queensland, Australia. A before (baseline) and after (post-intervention) study evaluated its impact on outcomes and antimicrobial prescription in patients with confirmed bacteremia and sepsis.Findings
Between 01 July 2017 to 31 March 2020, of 6976 adults presenting to the Emergency Departments and had a blood culture taken, 1802 patients (732 baseline, 1070 post-intervention) met inclusion criteria. Time to antibiotics in 1-hour 73.7% vs 85.1% (OR 1.9 [95%CI 1.1-3.6]) and the 3-hour bundle compliance (48.2% to 63.3%, OR 1.7, [95%CI 1.4 to 2.1]) improved post-intervention, accompanied by a significant reduction in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission rates (26.5% vs 17.5% (OR 0.5, [95%CI 0.4 to 0.7]). There were no significant differences in-hospital and 30-day post discharge mortality between the two phases. In a post-hoc analysis of the post-intervention phase, sepsis pathway compliance was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (9.7% vs 14.9%, OR 0.6, 95%CI 0.4 to 0.8). The proportions of appropriate antimicrobial prescription at baseline and post-intervention respectively were 55.4% vs 64.1%, (OR 1.4 [95%CI 0.9 to 2.1]).Interpretation
Implementing 1-hour and 3-hour sepsis bundles for patients presenting with bacteremia resulted in improved bundle compliance and a reduced need for ICU admission without adversely influencing antimicrobial prescription.
SUBMITTER: Venkatesh B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8654968 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundDespite nurses' responsibilities in recognition and treatment of sepsis, little evidence documents whether patient-to-nurse staffing ratios are associated with clinical outcomes for patients with sepsis.MethodsUsing linked data sources from 2017 including MEDPAR patient claims, Hospital Compare, American Hospital Association, and a large survey of nurses, we estimate the effect of hospital patient-to-nurse staffing ratios and adherence to the Early Management Bundle for patients with Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock SEP-1 sepsis bundles on patients' odds of in-hospital and 60-day mortality, readmission, and length of stay. Logistic regression is used to estimate mortality and readmission, while zero-truncated negative binomial models are used for length of stay.ResultsEach additional patient per nurse is associated with 12% higher odds of in-hospital mortality, 7% higher odds of 60-day mortality, 7% higher odds of 60-day readmission, and longer lengths of stay, even after accounting for patient and hospital covariates including hospital adherence to SEP-1 bundles. Adherence to SEP-1 bundles is associated with lower in-hospital mortality and shorter lengths of stay; however, the effects are markedly smaller than those observed for staffing.DiscussionImproving hospital nurse staffing over and above implementing sepsis bundles holds promise for significant improvements in sepsis patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC8190185 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionCompliance with the ventilator care bundle affects the rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia. It was not known, however, whether compliance with sepsis care bundles has an impact on outcome. The aims of the present study were to determine the rate of compliance with 6-hour and 24-hour sepsis bundles and to determine the impact of the compliance on hospital mortality in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock.MethodsWe conducted a prospective observational study on 101 consecutive adult patients with severe sepsis or septic shock on medical or surgical wards, or in accident and emergency areas at two acute National Health Service Trust Teaching hospitals in England. The main outcome measures were: the rate of compliance with 6-hour and 24-hour sepsis care bundles adapted from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines on patients' clinical care; and the difference in hospital mortality between the compliant and the non-compliant groups.ResultsThe median age of the patients was 69 years (interquartile range 51 to 78), and 53% were male. The sources of infection were sought and confirmed in 87 of 101 patients. The chest was the most common source (50%), followed by the abdomen (22%). The rate of compliance with the 6-hour sepsis bundle was 52%. Compared with the compliant group, the non-compliant group had a more than twofold increase in hospital mortality (49% versus 23%, relative risk (RR) 2.12 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 3.76), P = 0.01) despite similar age and severity of sepsis. Compliance with the 24-hour sepsis bundle was achieved in only 30% of eligible candidates (21/69). Hospital mortality was increased in the non-compliant group from 29% to 50%, with a 76% increase in risk for death, although the difference did not reach statistical significance (RR 1.76 (95% CI 0.84 to 3.64), P = 0.16).ConclusionNon-compliance with the 6-hour sepsis bundle was associated with a more than twofold increase in hospital mortality. Non-compliance with the 24-hour sepsis bundle resulted in a 76% increase in risk for hospital death. All medical staff should practise these relatively simple, easy and cheap bundles within a strict timeframe to improve survival rates in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.
| S-EPMC1414020 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIt is unclear what effect the pattern of health-care use before admission to hospital with COVID-19 (index admission) has on the long-term outcomes for patients. We sought to describe mortality and emergency readmission to hospital after discharge following the index admission (index discharge), and to assess associations between these outcomes and patterns of health-care use before such admissions.MethodsWe did a national, retrospective, complete cohort study by extracting data from several national databases and linking the databases for all adult patients admitted to hospital in Scotland with COVID-19. We used latent class trajectory modelling to identify distinct clusters of patients on the basis of their emergency admissions to hospital in the 2 years before the index admission. The primary outcomes were mortality and emergency readmission up to 1 year after index admission. We used multivariable regression models to explore associations between these outcomes and patient demographics, vaccination status, level of care received in hospital, and previous emergency hospital use.FindingsBetween March 1, 2020, and Oct 25, 2021, 33 580 patients were admitted to hospital with COVID-19 in Scotland. Overall, the Kaplan-Meier estimate of mortality within 1 year of index admission was 29·6% (95% CI 29·1-30·2). The cumulative incidence of emergency hospital readmission within 30 days of index discharge was 14·4% (95% CI 14·0-14·8), with the number increasing to 35·6% (34·9-36·3) patients at 1 year. Among the 33 580 patients, we identified four distinct patterns of previous emergency hospital use: no admissions (n=18 772 [55·9%]); minimal admissions (n=12 057 [35·9%]); recently high admissions (n=1931 [5·8%]), and persistently high admissions (n=820 [2·4%]). Patients with recently or persistently high admissions were older, more multimorbid, and more likely to have hospital-acquired COVID-19 than patients with no or minimal admissions. People in the minimal, recently high, and persistently high admissions groups had an increased risk of mortality and hospital readmission compared with those in the no admissions group. Compared with the no admissions group, mortality was highest in the recently high admissions group (post-hospital mortality HR 2·70 [95% CI 2·35-2·81]; p<0·0001) and the risk of readmission was highest in the persistently high admissions group (3·23 [2·89-3·61]; p<0·0001).InterpretationLong-term mortality and readmission rates for patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were high; within 1 year, one in three patients had died and a third had been readmitted as an emergency. Patterns of hospital use before index admission were strongly predictive of mortality and readmission risk, independent of age, pre-existing comorbidities, and COVID-19 vaccination status. This increasingly precise identification of individuals at high risk of poor outcomes from COVID-19 will enable targeted support.FundingChief Scientist Office Scotland, UK National Institute for Health Research, and UK Research and Innovation.
| S-EPMC10306342 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this study was to compare completion of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign 3-hour treatment recommendations and patient-centered outcomes between patients with severe sepsis who received a sepsis-specific diagnosis code with those who did not.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort analysis of adult patients admitted through an academic medical center ED who received an antibiotic and met criteria for severe sepsis. We measured and compared the Surviving Sepsis Campaign 3-hour treatment recommendations along with patient-centered outcomes in patients who were diagnosed with severe sepsis and those who were not.ResultsA total of 5,631 patients were identified (60.6 ± 17.2 years of age; 48.9% women). Less than half (32.8%) received an International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision, diagnosis code of 995.92. Completion of all four bundle components in < 3 hours was low for all patients (8.72%). Therapeutic components (a broad-spectrum antibiotic and IV fluids) were completed more often (31.3%). Those with a diagnosis code received all four bundle components (10.2% vs 7.9%; P < .005), as well as therapeutic components at a higher frequency (36.0% vs 29.0%; P < .001). Patients with a diagnosis code had higher mortality (6.3% vs 2.3%), more frequent ICU admissions (44.7% vs 22.5%), and longer hospitalizations (9.2 ± 6.9 days vs 6.9 ± 6.7 days) than did patients with severe sepsis with no diagnosis code (all P < .001).ConclusionsSevere sepsis continues to be an underdiagnosed and undertreated condition. Patients who were diagnosed had higher treatment rates yet experienced worse outcomes. Continued investigation is needed to identify factors contributing to diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes in patients with severe sepsis.
| S-EPMC6689078 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8328952 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundConcern persists that extended shifts in medical residency programs may adversely affect patient safety.MethodsWe conducted a cluster-randomized noninferiority trial in 63 internal-medicine residency programs during the 2015-2016 academic year. Programs underwent randomization to a group with standard duty hours, as adopted by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) in July 2011, or to a group with more flexible duty-hour rules that did not specify limits on shift length or mandatory time off between shifts. The primary outcome for each program was the change in unadjusted 30-day mortality from the pretrial year to the trial year, as ascertained from Medicare claims. We hypothesized that the change in 30-day mortality in the flexible programs would not be worse than the change in the standard programs (difference-in-difference analysis) by more than 1 percentage point (noninferiority margin). Secondary outcomes were changes in five other patient safety measures and risk-adjusted outcomes for all measures.ResultsThe change in 30-day mortality (primary outcome) among the patients in the flexible programs (12.5% in the trial year vs. 12.6% in the pretrial year) was noninferior to that in the standard programs (12.2% in the trial year vs. 12.7% in the pretrial year). The test for noninferiority was significant (P = 0.03), with an estimate of the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval (0.93%) for a between-group difference in the change in mortality that was less than the prespecified noninferiority margin of 1 percentage point. Differences in changes between the flexible programs and the standard programs in the unadjusted rate of readmission at 7 days, patient safety indicators, and Medicare payments were also below 1 percentage point; the noninferiority criterion was not met for 30-day readmissions or prolonged length of hospital stay. Risk-adjusted measures generally showed similar findings.ConclusionsAllowing program directors flexibility in adjusting duty-hour schedules for trainees did not adversely affect 30-day mortality or several other measured outcomes of patient safety. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education; iCOMPARE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02274818.).
| S-EPMC6476299 | biostudies-literature
Project description:An increasing number of patients survive sepsis; however, we lack valid data on the long-term impact on morbidity from prospective observational studies. Therefore, we designed an observational cohort to quantify mid-term and long-term functional disabilities after intensive care unit (ICU)-treated sepsis. Ultimately, findings for the Mid-German Sepsis Cohort (MSC) will serve as basis for the implementation of follow-up structures for patients with sepsis and help to increase quality of care for sepsis survivors.All patients surviving ICU-treated sepsis are eligible and are recruited from five study centres in Germany (acute care hospital setting in Jena, Halle/Saale, Leipzig, Bad Berka, Erfurt; large long-term acute care hospital and rehabilitation setting in Klinik Bavaria Kreischa). Screening is performed by trained study nurses. Data are collected on ICU management of sepsis. On written informed consent provided by patients or proxies, follow-up is carried out by trained research staff at 3, 6 and 12 months and yearly thereafter. The primary outcome is functional disability as assessed by (instrumental) activities of daily living. Other outcomes cover domains like mortality, cognitive, emotional and physical impairment, and resource use. The estimated sample size of 3000 ICU survivors is calculated to allow detection of relevant changes in the primary outcome in sepsis survivors longitudinally.The study is conducted according to the current version of the Declaration of Helsinki and has been approved by four local/federal responsible institutional ethics committees and by the respective federal data protection commissioners. Results of MSC will be fed back to the patients and published in peer-reviewed journals.German Clinical Trials Registry DRKS00010050.
| S-EPMC5623441 | biostudies-other
Project description:Our study was conducted to assess the sepsis-associated hospitalisations and antimicrobials prescribed for sepsis inpatients in Hong Kong. Demographic, diagnostic and antimicrobial prescription data were analysed for patients admitted to public hospitals with a diagnosis of septicaemia from 2000 to 2015. A total of 223 250 sepsis hospitalisations were recorded in Hong Kong from 2000 to 2015 during which the hospitalisation rate increased by 85.6%. The majority of the sepsis hospitalisations occurred in adults ≥65 years and children aged 0–4 years. Adults with a secondary diagnosis of sepsis were often admitted with a primary diagnosis of urological conditions or pneumonia; whereas diabetes mellitus was the most common secondary diagnosis among those with primary sepsis. Paediatric sepsis patients aged 0–4 years were often diagnosed with disorders relating to short gestation and low birthweight. Antimicrobial prescriptions increased by 51.1% and 34.4% for primary and secondary sepsis patients, respectively. β-Lactam and β-lactamase inhibitor combinations were the most used antibiotics whereas the usage of carbapenems increased more than 10 times over the study period. A substantial burden of hospitalisations was attributable to sepsis in Hong Kong, particularly in the extremes of age. Broad-spectrum and last-resort antibiotics had been increasingly dispensed for sepsis inpatients.
| S-EPMC8569835 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the prevalence of initiating the sepsis 3-h bundle of care and estimate effects of bundle completion on risk-adjusted mortality among emergency department (ED) patients screened-in by electronic surveillance.Materials and methodsThis was a multiple center observational cohort study conducted in 2016. The study population was comprised of patients screened-in by St. John Sepsis Surveillance Agent within 4 h of ED arrival, had a sepsis bundle initiated, and admitted to hospital. We built multivariable logistic regression models to estimate impact of a 3-h bundle completed within 3 h of arrival on mortality outcomes.ResultsApproximately 3% ED patients were screened-in by electronic surveillance within 4 h of arrival and admitted to hospital. Nearly 7 in 10 (69%) patients had a bundle initiated, with most bundles completed within 3 h of arrival. The fully-adjusted risk model achieved good discrimination on mortality outcomes [area under the receiver operating characteristic 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79-0.85] and estimated 34% reduced mortality risk among patients with a bundle completed within 3 h of arrival compared to non-completers.DiscussionThe sepsis bundle is an effective intervention for many vulnerable patients, and likely to be completed within 3 h after arrival when electronic surveillance with reliable alert notifications are integrated into clinical workflow. Beginning at triage, the platform and sepsis program enables identification and management of patients with greater precision, and increases the odds of good outcomes.ConclusionSepsis surveillance and clinical decision support accelerate accurate recognition and stratification of patients, and facilitate timely delivery of health care.
| S-EPMC6951936 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSince the launch of drotrecogin alfa activated (DrotAA), institutions and individual countries have published data on its use in clinical practice, based on audit or registry data. These studies were limited in size and geographic locale and included patients with greater disease severity and higher mortality than those in clinical trials. The purpose of this study was to compare baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes (using appropriate statistical adjustments) of patients treated or not treated with DrotAA from the international PROGRESS (Promoting Global Research Excellence in Severe Sepsis) cohort study of severe sepsis.MethodsPROGRESS was a global, non-interventional, multi-center, prospective, observational study of patients having a diagnosis of severe sepsis treated in intensive care units at a participating institution. All treatment modalities were as per standard of care at the participating institutions. Baseline characteristics and hospital mortality were analyzed and regression techniques used to develop propensity and outcome models adjusted for baseline imbalances between groups.ResultsOverall, 14,543 patients from 37 countries were enrolled and 12,492 had complete data for analysis. Germany was the highest enrolling country (1,810; 14.5%) and the US had the most DrotAA patients (206, 23.3%); 882 (7%) overall received DrotAA therapy. DrotAA-treated patients were younger (median age 58 vs. 61 years), had greater organ dysfunction (cardiovascular: 90% vs. 74%; respiratory: 90% vs. 81%; renal: 60% vs. 45%; metabolic: 63% versus 42%; 3 or more organ dysfunctions: 84% vs. 67%) and had a higher median APACHE II score (26 vs. 23, all with P < 0.001). Although in-hospital mortality was similar for DrotAA and non-DrotAA-treated patients (49.6% vs. 49.7%, respectively), after adjusting for imbalances, patients receiving DrotAA had a 28% (0.60 to 0.86, 95% Confidence Intervals) reduction in the odds of death and a relative risk reduction of 17% (P = 0.0003).ConclusionsIn the PROGRESS registry, DrotAA-treated patients were younger, more severely ill, and had fewer co-morbidities than patients not treated with DrotAA. After adjustment for group differences, a significant reduction in the odds of death was observed for patients that received DrotAA compared with those that did not.
| S-EPMC2717475 | biostudies-literature