BACKGROUND: Use of a screening tool as a decision support mechanism for early detection of sepsis has been widely advocated, yet studies validating tool performance are scarce, especially in non-intensive care unit settings. METHODS: For this pilot study we prospectively screened consecutive patients admitted to a medical/surgical intermediate care unit at an academic medical center over a 1-month period and retrospectively analyzed their clinical data. Patients were screened with a 3-tiered, paper-based, nurse-driven sepsis assessment tool every 8 hours. For patients screening positive for sepsis or severe sepsis, the primary treatment team was notified and the team's clinical actions were recorded. Results of the screening test were then compared to patient International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes for sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock identified during the study time period, and performance of the screening test was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 2143 screening tests were completed in 245 patients (169 surgical, 76 medical). ICD-9 codes confirmed sepsis incidence was 9%. Of the 39 patients who screened positive, 51% were positive for sepsis, and 49% screened positive for severe sepsis. Screening tool sensitivity and specificity were 95% and 92%, respectively. Negative predictive value was 99% and positive predictive value was 54%. Overall test accuracy was 92%. There was no statistically significant difference in tool performance between medical and surgical patients. CONCLUSIONS: A simple screening tool for sepsis utilized as part of nursing assessment may be a useful way of identifying early sepsis in both medical and surgical patients in an intermediate care unit setting.
BACKGROUND: Use of a screening tool as a decision support mechanism for early detection of sepsis has been widely advocated, yet studies validating tool performance are scarce, especially in non-intensive care unit settings. METHODS: For this pilot study we prospectively screened consecutive patients admitted to a medical/surgical intermediate care unit at an academic medical center over a 1-month period and retrospectively analyzed their clinical data. Patients were screened with a 3-tiered, paper-based, nurse-driven sepsis assessment tool every 8 hours. For patients screening positive for sepsis or severe sepsis, the primary treatment team was notified and the team's clinical actions were recorded. Results of the screening test were then compared to patient International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes for sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock identified during the study time period, and performance of the screening test was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 2143 screening tests were completed in 245 patients (169 surgical, 76 medical). ICD-9 codes confirmed sepsis incidence was 9%. Of the 39 patients who screened positive, 51% were positive for sepsis, and 49% screened positive for severe sepsis. Screening tool sensitivity and specificity were 95% and 92%, respectively. Negative predictive value was 99% and positive predictive value was 54%. Overall test accuracy was 92%. There was no statistically significant difference in tool performance between medical and surgical patients. CONCLUSIONS: A simple screening tool for sepsis utilized as part of nursing assessment may be a useful way of identifying early sepsis in both medical and surgical patients in an intermediate care unit setting.
Authors: Álvaro Castellanos-Ortega; Borja Suberviola; Luis A García-Astudillo; Fernando Ortiz; Javier Llorca; Miguel Delgado-Rodríguez Journal: Shock Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Amber M Sawyer; Eli N Deal; Andrew J Labelle; Chad Witt; Steven W Thiel; Kevin Heard; Richard M Reichley; Scott T Micek; Marin H Kollef Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Alvaro Castellanos-Ortega; Borja Suberviola; Luis A García-Astudillo; María S Holanda; Fernando Ortiz; Javier Llorca; Miguel Delgado-Rodríguez Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: J-Y Lefrant; L Muller; A Raillard; B Jung; L Beaudroit; L Favier; B Masson; G Dingemans; F Thévenot; D Selcer; O Jonquet; X Capdevila; P Fabbro-Peray; S Jaber Journal: Ann Fr Anesth Reanim Date: 2010-07-14
Authors: Hannah R Stinson; Shirley Viteri; Paige Koetter; Erica Stevens; Kristin Remillard; Rebecca Parlow; Jennifer Setlik; Meg Frizzola Journal: Pediatr Qual Saf Date: 2019-07-22
Authors: Yekanth Ram Chalumuri; Jacob P Kimball; Azin Mousavi; Jonathan S Zia; Christopher Rolfes; Jesse D Parreira; Omer T Inan; Jin-Oh Hahn Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2022-02-10 Impact factor: 3.576
Authors: Daisuke Furukawa; Thomas D Dieringer; Mitchell D Wong; Julia T Tong; Isa A Cader; Lauren E Wisk; Maria A Han; Summer M Gupta; Russell B Kerbel; Daniel Z Uslan; Christopher J Graber Journal: Antimicrob Steward Healthc Epidemiol Date: 2021-12-03