J W Uffen1, J J Oosterheert2, V A Schweitzer3, K Thursky4, H A H Kaasjager5, M B Ekkelenkamp3. 1. Division of Acute Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: j.w.uffen@umcutrecht.nl. 2. Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Microbiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Infectious Disease, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. 5. Division of Acute Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Early recognition and treatment of sepsis is associated with improved outcome. The emergency department (ED) is the department where patients with sepsis seek care. However, recognition of sepsis in the ED remains difficult. Different alert and triage systems, screening scores and intervention strategies have been developed to assist clinicians in early recognition of sepsis and to optimize management. OBJECTIVES: This narrative review describes currently applied interventions or interventions we can start using today, such as screening scores, (automated) triage systems, sepsis teams and clinical pathways in sepsis care; and it summarizes evidence for the effect of implementation of these interventions in the ED on patient management and outcomes. SOURCES: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, resulting in 39 eligible studies. CONTENT: The main sepsis interventions in the ED are (automated) triage systems, sepsis teams and clinical pathways, the most integrative being a clinical pathway. Implementation of any of these interventions in sepsis care will generally lead to increased protocol adherence. Presumably increased adherence to sepsis guidelines and bundles will lead to better patient outcomes, but the level of evidence to support this improvement is low, whereas implementation of interventions is often complex and costly. No studies comparing different interventions were identified. Two essential factors for success of interventions in the ED are obtaining the support from all professionals and providing ongoing education. The vulnerability of these interventions lies in the lack of accurate tools to identify sepsis; diagnosing sepsis ultimately still relies on clinical assessments. A lack of specificity or sepsis alerts may lead to alert fatigue and/or overtreatment. IMPLICATIONS: The severity and poor outcome of sepsis as well as the frequency of its presentation in EDs make a structured, protocol-based approach towards these patients essential, preferably as part of a clinical pathway.
BACKGROUND:Sepsis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Early recognition and treatment of sepsis is associated with improved outcome. The emergency department (ED) is the department where patients with sepsis seek care. However, recognition of sepsis in the ED remains difficult. Different alert and triage systems, screening scores and intervention strategies have been developed to assist clinicians in early recognition of sepsis and to optimize management. OBJECTIVES: This narrative review describes currently applied interventions or interventions we can start using today, such as screening scores, (automated) triage systems, sepsis teams and clinical pathways in sepsis care; and it summarizes evidence for the effect of implementation of these interventions in the ED on patient management and outcomes. SOURCES: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, resulting in 39 eligible studies. CONTENT: The main sepsis interventions in the ED are (automated) triage systems, sepsis teams and clinical pathways, the most integrative being a clinical pathway. Implementation of any of these interventions in sepsis care will generally lead to increased protocol adherence. Presumably increased adherence to sepsis guidelines and bundles will lead to better patient outcomes, but the level of evidence to support this improvement is low, whereas implementation of interventions is often complex and costly. No studies comparing different interventions were identified. Two essential factors for success of interventions in the ED are obtaining the support from all professionals and providing ongoing education. The vulnerability of these interventions lies in the lack of accurate tools to identify sepsis; diagnosing sepsis ultimately still relies on clinical assessments. A lack of specificity or sepsis alerts may lead to alert fatigue and/or overtreatment. IMPLICATIONS: The severity and poor outcome of sepsis as well as the frequency of its presentation in EDs make a structured, protocol-based approach towards these patients essential, preferably as part of a clinical pathway.
Authors: James Ducharme; Wesley H Self; Tiffany M Osborn; Nathan A Ledeboer; Jonathan Romanowsky; Timothy E Sweeney; Oliver Liesenfeld; Richard E Rothman Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2020-12-07
Authors: Khalia Ackermann; Jannah Baker; Malcolm Green; Mary Fullick; Hilal Varinli; Johanna Westbrook; Ling Li Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-02-23 Impact factor: 7.076