Matthew W Semler1, Liza Weavind, Michael H Hooper, Todd W Rice, Supriya Srinivasa Gowda, Andras Nadas, Yanna Song, Jason B Martin, Gordon R Bernard, Arthur P Wheeler. 1. 1Division of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care Medicine, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN. 2Division of Anesthesiology Critical Care Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. 3Department of Internal Medicine, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA. 4Division of Critical Care, Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India. 5Institute for Software Integrated Systems, Vanderbilt University School of Engineering, Nashville, TN. 6Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN. 7Department of Internal Medicine, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, TN.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether addition of an electronic sepsis evaluation and management tool to electronic sepsis alerting improves compliance with treatment guidelines and clinical outcomes in septic ICU patients. DESIGN: A pragmatic randomized trial. SETTING: Medical and surgical ICUs of an academic, tertiary care medical center. PATIENTS: Four hundred and seven patients admitted during a 4-month period to the medical or surgical ICU with a diagnosis of sepsis established at the time of admission or in response to an electronic sepsis alert. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to usual care or the availability of an electronic tool capable of importing, synthesizing, and displaying sepsis-related data from the medical record, using logic rules to offer individualized evaluations of sepsis severity and response to therapy, informing users about evidence-based guidelines, and facilitating rapid order entry. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There was no difference between the electronic tool (218 patients) and usual care (189 patients) with regard to the primary outcome of time to completion of all indicated Surviving Sepsis Campaign 6-hour Sepsis Resuscitation Bundle elements (hazard ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 0.75-5.20; p = 0.159) or time to completion of each element individually. ICU mortality, ICU-free days, and ventilator-free days did not differ between intervention and control. Providers used the tool to enter orders in only 28% of available cases. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive electronic sepsis evaluation and management tool is feasible and safe but did not influence guideline compliance or clinical outcomes, perhaps due to low utilization.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether addition of an electronic sepsis evaluation and management tool to electronic sepsis alerting improves compliance with treatment guidelines and clinical outcomes in septic ICUpatients. DESIGN: A pragmatic randomized trial. SETTING: Medical and surgical ICUs of an academic, tertiary care medical center. PATIENTS: Four hundred and seven patients admitted during a 4-month period to the medical or surgical ICU with a diagnosis of sepsis established at the time of admission or in response to an electronic sepsis alert. INTERVENTIONS:Patients were randomized to usual care or the availability of an electronic tool capable of importing, synthesizing, and displaying sepsis-related data from the medical record, using logic rules to offer individualized evaluations of sepsis severity and response to therapy, informing users about evidence-based guidelines, and facilitating rapid order entry. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There was no difference between the electronic tool (218 patients) and usual care (189 patients) with regard to the primary outcome of time to completion of all indicated Surviving Sepsis Campaign 6-hour Sepsis Resuscitation Bundle elements (hazard ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 0.75-5.20; p = 0.159) or time to completion of each element individually. ICU mortality, ICU-free days, and ventilator-free days did not differ between intervention and control. Providers used the tool to enter orders in only 28% of available cases. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive electronic sepsis evaluation and management tool is feasible and safe but did not influence guideline compliance or clinical outcomes, perhaps due to low utilization.
Authors: Bruce A McKinley; Laura J Moore; Joseph F Sucher; S Rob Todd; Krista L Turner; Alicia Valdivia; R Matthew Sailors; Frederick A Moore Journal: J Trauma Date: 2011-05
Authors: Donald M Yealy; John A Kellum; David T Huang; Amber E Barnato; Lisa A Weissfeld; Francis Pike; Thomas Terndrup; Henry E Wang; Peter C Hou; Frank LoVecchio; Michael R Filbin; Nathan I Shapiro; Derek C Angus Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-03-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sandra L Peake; Anthony Delaney; Michael Bailey; Rinaldo Bellomo; Peter A Cameron; D James Cooper; Alisa M Higgins; Anna Holdgate; Belinda D Howe; Steven A R Webb; Patricia Williams Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-10-01 Impact factor: 91.245
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: R Phillip Dellinger; Mitchell M Levy; Andrew Rhodes; Djillali Annane; Herwig Gerlach; Steven M Opal; Jonathan E Sevransky; Charles L Sprung; Ivor S Douglas; Roman Jaeschke; Tiffany M Osborn; Mark E Nunnally; Sean R Townsend; Konrad Reinhart; Ruth M Kleinpell; Derek C Angus; Clifford S Deutschman; Flavia R Machado; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Steven A Webb; Richard J Beale; Jean-Louis Vincent; Rui Moreno Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Andrés Esteban; Fernando Frutos-Vivar; Alfonso Muriel; Niall D Ferguson; Oscar Peñuelas; Victor Abraira; Konstantinos Raymondos; Fernando Rios; Nicolas Nin; Carlos Apezteguía; Damian A Violi; Arnaud W Thille; Laurent Brochard; Marco González; Asisclo J Villagomez; Javier Hurtado; Andrew R Davies; Bin Du; Salvatore M Maggiore; Paolo Pelosi; Luis Soto; Vinko Tomicic; Gabriel D'Empaire; Dimitrios Matamis; Fekri Abroug; Rui P Moreno; Marco Antonio Soares; Yaseen Arabi; Freddy Sandi; Manuel Jibaja; Pravin Amin; Younsuck Koh; Michael A Kuiper; Hans-Henrik Bülow; Amine Ali Zeggwagh; Antonio Anzueto Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2013-07-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Michael H Hooper; Lisa Weavind; Arthur P Wheeler; Jason B Martin; Supriya Srinivasa Gowda; Matthew W Semler; Rachel M Hayes; Daniel W Albert; Norment B Deane; Hui Nian; Janos L Mathe; Andras Nadas; Janos Sztipanovits; Anne Miller; Gordon R Bernard; Todd W Rice Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Rosalie G Waller; Melanie C Wright; Noa Segall; Paige Nesbitt; Thomas Reese; Damian Borbolla; Guilherme Del Fiol Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Curtis H Weiss; David W Baker; Katrina Tulas; Shayna Weiner; Meagan Bechel; Alfred Rademaker; Angela Fought; Richard G Wunderink; Stephen D Persell Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2017-11
Authors: Matthew W Semler; Jonathan P Wanderer; Jesse M Ehrenfeld; Joanna L Stollings; Wesley H Self; Edward D Siew; Li Wang; Daniel W Byrne; Andrew D Shaw; Gordon R Bernard; Todd W Rice Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2017-05-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Zhongheng Zhang; Yucai Hong; Nathan J Smischney; Han-Pin Kuo; Panagiotis Tsirigotis; Jordi Rello; Win Sen Kuan; Christian Jung; Chiara Robba; Fabio Silvio Taccone; Marc Leone; Herbert Spapen; David Grimaldi; Sven Van Poucke; Steven Q Simpson; Patrick M Honore; Stefan Hofer; Pietro Caironi Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Eugene M Tan; Avish Nagpal; Daniel C DeSimone; Brenda Anderson; Jane Linderbaum; Thomas De Ziel; Zhuo Li; Muhammad R Sohail; Yong-Mei Cha; Erica Loomis; Raul Espinosa; Paul A Friedman; Kevin Greason; Henry Schiller; Abinash Virk; Walter R Wilson; James M Steckelberg; Larry M Baddour Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2017-08-26 Impact factor: 1.900