Richard R Watkins1,2, Nairmeen Haller3, Melinda Wayde4, Keith B Armitage5. 1. Department of Medicine, Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown, OH, USA. 2. Division of Infectious Diseases, Cleveland Clinic Akron General, Akron, OH, USA. 3. Department of Research, Cleveland Clinic Akron General, Akron, OH, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Boonshoft School of Medicine, Wright State University, Dayton, OH, USA. 5. University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of resident physicians regarding sepsis in general and the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines in particular. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, we surveyed internal medicine (IM) and emergency medicine (EM) house staff from 3 separate institutions. House staff were notified of the survey via e-mail from their residency director or chief resident. The survey was Internet-based (using http://www.surveymonkey.com ), voluntary, and anonymous. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines were used to develop the survey. The survey was open between December 2015 and April 2016. No incentives for participation were given. Reminder e-mails were sent approximately every 3 to 4 weeks to all eligible participants. Comparisons of responses were evaluated using the N-1 2-proportion test. RESULTS: A total of 133 responses were received. These included 84 from IM house staff, 27 from EM house staff, and 22 who selected "other." Eighty (101/126) percent reported managing at least 1 patient with sepsis in the preceding 30 days, 85% (97/114) rated their knowledge of the Surviving Sepsis Guidelines as "very familiar" or at least "somewhat familiar," and 84% (91/108) believed their training in the diagnosis and management of sepsis was "excellent" or at least "good." However, 43% (47/108) reported not receiving any feedback on their treatment of patients with sepsis in the last 30 days, while 24% (26/108) received feedback once. Both IM and EM house staff received comparable rates of feedback (62% vs 48%, respectively; P = .21). For the 3 questions that directly tested knowledge of the guidelines, the scores of the IM and EM house staff were similar. Notably, <20% of both groups correctly identified diagnostic criteria for sepsis. CONCLUSION: Additional education of IM and EM house staff on the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines is warranted, along with more consistent feedback regarding their diagnosis and management of sepsis.
BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of resident physicians regarding sepsis in general and the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines in particular. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, we surveyed internal medicine (IM) and emergency medicine (EM) house staff from 3 separate institutions. House staff were notified of the survey via e-mail from their residency director or chief resident. The survey was Internet-based (using http://www.surveymonkey.com ), voluntary, and anonymous. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines were used to develop the survey. The survey was open between December 2015 and April 2016. No incentives for participation were given. Reminder e-mails were sent approximately every 3 to 4 weeks to all eligible participants. Comparisons of responses were evaluated using the N-1 2-proportion test. RESULTS: A total of 133 responses were received. These included 84 from IM house staff, 27 from EM house staff, and 22 who selected "other." Eighty (101/126) percent reported managing at least 1 patient with sepsis in the preceding 30 days, 85% (97/114) rated their knowledge of the Surviving Sepsis Guidelines as "very familiar" or at least "somewhat familiar," and 84% (91/108) believed their training in the diagnosis and management of sepsis was "excellent" or at least "good." However, 43% (47/108) reported not receiving any feedback on their treatment of patients with sepsis in the last 30 days, while 24% (26/108) received feedback once. Both IM and EM house staff received comparable rates of feedback (62% vs 48%, respectively; P = .21). For the 3 questions that directly tested knowledge of the guidelines, the scores of the IM and EM house staff were similar. Notably, <20% of both groups correctly identified diagnostic criteria for sepsis. CONCLUSION: Additional education of IM and EM house staff on the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines is warranted, along with more consistent feedback regarding their diagnosis and management of sepsis.