Screening tools for sepsis identification in paramedicine and other emergency contexts: a rapid systematic review

Abstract

BackgroundSepsis is a life-threatening condition that contributes significantly to protracted hospitalisations globally. The unique positioning of paramedics and other emergency care cadres in emergency contexts enable the prospect of early identification and management of sepsis, however, a standardised screening tool still does not exist in the emergency setting. The objective of this review was to identify and recommend the most clinically ideal sepsis screening tool for emergency contexts such as emergency departments and out-of-hospital emergency contexts.MethodsA rapid review of five databases (Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and ProQuest Central) was undertaken, with searches performed on February 10, 2022. Covidence software was used by two authors for initial screening, and full text review was undertaken independently by each reviewer, with conflicts resolved by consensus-finding and a mediator. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials, and prospective observational studies were eligible for inclusion. Data extraction used an a priori template and focused on sensitivity and specificity, with ROBINS-I and ROBIS bias assessment tools employed to assess risk of bias in included studies. Study details and key findings were summarised in tables. The a priori review protocol was registered on Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3XQ5T).ResultsThe literature search identified 362 results. After review, 18 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. There were five systematic reviews, with three including meta-analysis, eleven prospective observational studies, one randomised controlled trial, and one validation study.ConclusionsThe review recognised that a paucity of evidence exists surrounding standardised sepsis screening tools in the emergency context. The use of a sepsis screening tool in the emergency environment may be prudent, however there is currently insufficient evidence to recommend a single screening tool for this context. A combination of the qSOFA and SIRS may be employed to avoid ‘practice paralysis’ in the interim. The authors acknowledge the inherent potential for publication and selection bias within the review due to the inclusion criteria.