Emma Rezel-Potts1,2, Martin C Gulliford1,2. 1. School of Population Health and Environmental Sciences, Guy's Campus, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. 2. National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals London, Great Maze Pond, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a growing concern for health systems, but the epidemiology of sepsis is poorly characterised. We evaluated sepsis recording across primary care electronic records, hospital episodes and mortality registrations. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Cohort study including 378 general practices in England from Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD database from 2002-2017 with 36,209,676 patient-years of follow-up with linked Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and Office for National Statistics (ONS) mortality registrations. Incident sepsis episodes were identified for each source. Concurrent records from different sources were identified and age-standardised and age-specific incidence rates compared. Logistic regression analysis evaluated associations of gender, age-group, fifth of deprivation and period of diagnosis with concurrent sepsis recording. There were 20,206 first episodes of sepsis from primary care, 20,278 from HES and 13,972 from ONS. There were 4,117 (20%) first HES sepsis events and 2,438 (17%) mortality records concurrent with incident primary care sepsis records within 30 days. Concurrent HES and primary care records of sepsis within 30 days before or after first diagnosis were higher at younger or older ages and for patients with the most recent period of diagnosis. Those diagnosed during 2007:2011 were less likely to have a concurrent HES record given CPRD compared to those diagnosed during 2012-2017 (odd ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.60-0.70). At age 85 and older, primary care incidence was 5.22 per 1,000 patient years (95% CI 1.75-11.97) in men and 3.55 (0.87-9.58) in women which increased to 10.09 (4.86-18.51) for men and 7.22 (2.96-14.72) for women after inclusion of all three sources. CONCLUSION: Explicit recording of 'sepsis' is inconsistent across healthcare sectors with a high proportion of non-concurrent records. Incidence estimates are higher when linked data are analysed.
BACKGROUND:Sepsis is a growing concern for health systems, but the epidemiology of sepsis is poorly characterised. We evaluated sepsis recording across primary care electronic records, hospital episodes and mortality registrations. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Cohort study including 378 general practices in England from Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD database from 2002-2017 with 36,209,676 patient-years of follow-up with linked Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and Office for National Statistics (ONS) mortality registrations. Incident sepsis episodes were identified for each source. Concurrent records from different sources were identified and age-standardised and age-specific incidence rates compared. Logistic regression analysis evaluated associations of gender, age-group, fifth of deprivation and period of diagnosis with concurrent sepsis recording. There were 20,206 first episodes of sepsis from primary care, 20,278 from HES and 13,972 from ONS. There were 4,117 (20%) first HES sepsis events and 2,438 (17%) mortality records concurrent with incident primary care sepsis records within 30 days. Concurrent HES and primary care records of sepsis within 30 days before or after first diagnosis were higher at younger or older ages and for patients with the most recent period of diagnosis. Those diagnosed during 2007:2011 were less likely to have a concurrent HES record given CPRD compared to those diagnosed during 2012-2017 (odd ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.60-0.70). At age 85 and older, primary care incidence was 5.22 per 1,000 patient years (95% CI 1.75-11.97) in men and 3.55 (0.87-9.58) in women which increased to 10.09 (4.86-18.51) for men and 7.22 (2.96-14.72) for women after inclusion of all three sources. CONCLUSION: Explicit recording of 'sepsis' is inconsistent across healthcare sectors with a high proportion of non-concurrent records. Incidence estimates are higher when linked data are analysed.
Authors: Arlene M Gallagher; Daniel Dedman; Shivani Padmanabhan; Hubert G M Leufkens; Frank de Vries Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2019-03-25 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Elizabeth R C Millett; Jennifer K Quint; Bianca L De Stavola; Liam Smeeth; Sara L Thomas Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2016-01-09 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Martin C Gulliford; Xiaohui Sun; Judith Charlton; Joanne R Winter; Catey Bunce; Olga Boiko; Robin Fox; Paul Little; Michael Moore; Alastair D Hay; Mark Ashworth Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-02-28 Impact factor: 2.692