BACHGROUND: Increasing use of EHRs has generated interest in the potential of computerized clinical decision support to improve treatment of sepsis. Electronic sepsis alerts have had mixed results due to poor test characteristics, the inability to detect sepsis in a timely fashion and the use of outside software limiting widespread adoption. We describe the development, evaluation and validation of an accurate and timely severe sepsis alert with the potential to impact sepsis management. OBJECTIVE: To develop, evaluate, and validate an accurate and timely severe sepsis alert embedded in a commercial EHR. METHODS: The sepsis alert was developed by identifying the most common severe sepsis criteria among a cohort of patients with ICD 9 codes indicating a diagnosis of sepsis. This alert requires criteria in three categories: indicators of a systemic inflammatory response, evidence of suspected infection from physician orders, and markers of organ dysfunction. Chart review was used to evaluate test performance and the ability to detect clinical time zero, the point in time when a patient develops severe sepsis. RESULTS: Two physicians reviewed 100 positive cases and 75 negative cases. Based on this review, sensitivity was 74.5%, specificity was 86.0%, the positive predictive value was 50.3%, and the negative predictive value was 94.7%. The most common source of end-organ dysfunction was MAP less than 70 mm/Hg (59%). The alert was triggered at clinical time zero in 41% of cases and within three hours in 53.6% of cases. 96% of alerts triggered before a manual nurse screen. CONCLUSION: We are the first to report the time between a sepsis alert and physician chart-review clinical time zero. Incorporating physician orders in the alert criteria improves specificity while maintaining sensitivity, which is important to reduce alert fatigue. By leveraging standard EHR functionality, this alert could be implemented by other healthcare systems.
BACHGROUND: Increasing use of EHRs has generated interest in the potential of computerized clinical decision support to improve treatment of sepsis. Electronic sepsis alerts have had mixed results due to poor test characteristics, the inability to detect sepsis in a timely fashion and the use of outside software limiting widespread adoption. We describe the development, evaluation and validation of an accurate and timely severe sepsis alert with the potential to impact sepsis management. OBJECTIVE: To develop, evaluate, and validate an accurate and timely severe sepsis alert embedded in a commercial EHR. METHODS: The sepsis alert was developed by identifying the most common severe sepsis criteria among a cohort of patients with ICD 9 codes indicating a diagnosis of sepsis. This alert requires criteria in three categories: indicators of a systemic inflammatory response, evidence of suspected infection from physician orders, and markers of organ dysfunction. Chart review was used to evaluate test performance and the ability to detect clinical time zero, the point in time when a patient develops severe sepsis. RESULTS: Two physicians reviewed 100 positive cases and 75 negative cases. Based on this review, sensitivity was 74.5%, specificity was 86.0%, the positive predictive value was 50.3%, and the negative predictive value was 94.7%. The most common source of end-organ dysfunction was MAP less than 70 mm/Hg (59%). The alert was triggered at clinical time zero in 41% of cases and within three hours in 53.6% of cases. 96% of alerts triggered before a manual nurse screen. CONCLUSION: We are the first to report the time between a sepsis alert and physician chart-review clinical time zero. Incorporating physician orders in the alert criteria improves specificity while maintaining sensitivity, which is important to reduce alert fatigue. By leveraging standard EHR functionality, this alert could be implemented by other healthcare systems.
Authors: Craig A Umscheid; Joel Betesh; Christine VanZandbergen; Asaf Hanish; Gordon Tait; Mark E Mikkelsen; Benjamin French; Barry D Fuchs Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2014-09-26 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Lisa Stoneking; Kurt Denninghoff; Lawrence Deluca; Samuel M Keim; Benson Munger Journal: J Intensive Care Med Date: 2011 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.510
Authors: William J Meurer; Barbara L Smith; Eve D Losman; Diana Sherman; Joseph D Yaksich; Jeremy D Jared; Preeti N Malani; John G Younger Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Stacey-Ann Whittaker; Mark E Mikkelsen; David F Gaieski; Sherine Koshy; Craig Kean; Barry D Fuchs Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Andrea T Cruz; Eric A Williams; Jeanine M Graf; Andrew M Perry; Devin E Harbin; Elizabeth R Wuestner; Binita Patel Journal: Pediatr Emerg Care Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 1.454
Authors: David F Gaieski; Mark E Mikkelsen; Roger A Band; Jesse M Pines; Richard Massone; Frances F Furia; Frances S Shofer; Munish Goyal Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Su Q Nguyen; Edwin Mwakalindile; James S Booth; Vicki Hogan; Jordan Morgan; Charles T Prickett; John P Donnelly; Henry E Wang Journal: PeerJ Date: 2014-04-10 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Mitchell M Levy; R Phillip Dellinger; Sean R Townsend; Walter T Linde-Zwirble; John C Marshall; Julian Bion; Christa Schorr; Antonio Artigas; Graham Ramsay; Richard Beale; Margaret M Parker; Herwig Gerlach; Konrad Reinhart; Eliezer Silva; Maurene Harvey; Susan Regan; Derek C Angus Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2010-01-13 Impact factor: 17.440