Automated electronic medical record sepsis detection in the emergency department.

Su Q Nguyen,John P Donnelly,Jordan Morgan,Henry E Wang,James S Booth,Edwin Mwakalindile,Charles T Prickett,Vicki Hogan

doi:10.7717/peerj.343

Su Q Nguyen, John P Donnelly + Show 6 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.343

Copy DOI

Abstract

Background. While often first treated in the emergency department (ED), identification of sepsis is difficult. Electronic medical record (EMR) clinical decision tools offer a novel strategy for identifying patients with sepsis. The objective of this study was to test the accuracy of an EMR-based, automated sepsis identification system.Methods. We tested an EMR-based sepsis identification tool at a major academic, urban ED with 64,000 annual visits. The EMR system collected vital sign and laboratory test information on all ED patients, triggering a “sepsis alert” for those with ≥2 SIRS (systemic inflammatory response syndrome) criteria (fever, tachycardia, tachypnea, leukocytosis) plus ≥1 major organ dysfunction (SBP ≤ 90 mm Hg, lactic acid ≥2.0 mg/dL). We confirmed the presence of sepsis through manual review of physician, nursing, and laboratory records. We also reviewed a random selection of ED cases that did not trigger a sepsis alert. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the sepsis identification tool.Results. From January 1 through March 31, 2012, there were 795 automated sepsis alerts. We randomly selected 300 cases without a sepsis alert from the same period. The true prevalence of sepsis was 355/795 (44.7%) among alerts and 0/300 (0%) among non-alerts. The positive predictive value of the sepsis alert was 44.7% (95% CI [41.2–48.2%]). Pneumonia and respiratory infections (38%) and urinary tract infection (32.7%) were the most common infections among the 355 patients with true sepsis (true positives). Among false-positive sepsis alerts, the most common medical conditions were gastrointestinal (26.1%), traumatic (25.7%), and cardiovascular (20.0%) conditions. Rates of hospital admission were: true-positive sepsis alert 91.0%, false-positive alert 83.0%, no sepsis alert 5.7%.Conclusions. This ED EMR-based automated sepsis identification system was able to detect cases with sepsis. Automated EMR-based detection may provide a viable strategy for identifying sepsis in the ED.

Highlights

Sepsis is the syndrome of microbial infection complicated by systematic inflammation which may subsequently lead to organ dysfunction, shock, and death (Levy et al, 2003)
Of the 795 Electronic medical record (EMR) sepsis alerts, manual record review confirmed the presence of sepsis in 355 cases (Table 1)
This study examined the accuracy of automated sepsis detection but not its clinical implementation

Summary

Introduction

Sepsis is the syndrome of microbial infection complicated by systematic inflammation which may subsequently lead to organ dysfunction, shock, and death (Levy et al, 2003). Electronic medical record (EMR) clinical decision tools offer a novel strategy for identifying patients with sepsis. The objective of this study was to test the accuracy of an EMR-based, automated sepsis identification system. We tested an EMR-based sepsis identification tool at a major academic, urban ED with 64,000 annual visits. The EMR system collected vital sign and laboratory test information on all ED patients, triggering a “sepsis alert” for those with ≥2 SIRS (systemic inflammatory response syndrome) criteria (fever, tachycardia, tachypnea, leukocytosis) plus ≥1 major organ dysfunction (SBP ≤ 90 mm Hg, lactic acid ≥2.0 mg/dL). This ED EMR-based automated sepsis identification system was able to detect cases with sepsis. Automated EMR-based detection may provide a viable strategy for identifying sepsis in the ED

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion