Sepsis Screening Tool Research Articles

Utilizing Predictive Factors as a Screening Tool for Early-Onset Sepsis in Neonates.

Neonatal early-onset sepsis (EOS) is a severe condition that affects newborns within the first three days of life, with high mortality rates, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In Vietnam, the diagnosis and management of EOS are challenged by ambiguous clinical signs and limited access to blood culture testing facilities. Early identification of at-risk neonates using a predictive risk factor model is crucial for improving neonatal care and reducing mortality. This study aims to identify maternal and neonatal risk factors associated with EOS and develop a predictive screening tool to facilitate the early detection of at-risk neonates in Vietnam. A nested case-control study was conducted on 225 neonates at the central neonatal unit in a principal tertiary hospital in southwestern Vietnam over a two-year period. Risk factors were identified using univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses. A predictive nomogram was developed and evaluated for discrimination, calibration, and decision curve analysis (DCA). The study identified eight significant risk factors for EOS, including maternal genital infections during the third trimester, urinary tract infections (UTIs) during pregnancy, hypertension during pregnancy, insufficient maternal weight gain, rupture of membranes (ROM) ≥18 hours, meconium-stained amniotic fluid, first-minute APGAR score <7, and preterm birth <34 weeks. The predictive model demonstrated excellent discrimination with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.913 (95% CI: 0.876-0.95, p<0.001) and good calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test with χ²(df)=5.496 (5), p=0.358). The model-based nomogram showed high sensitivity (82.7%) and specificity (83.3%) at an optimal cutoff of 0.25. The DCAillustrates the model's good clinical utility, providing a higher net benefit across most threshold probability ranges (0.0-0.96). This study presents a robust predictive model for the early identification of neonates at risk of EOS in Vietnam, based on key maternal and neonatal risk factors. The model, with demonstrated accuracy and reliability, holds significant potential for improving neonatal outcomes through timely interventions. Future research should aim at external validation and inclusion of broader clinical data to enhance the model's applicability and generalizability.

Performance Characteristics of Sepsis Screening Tools During Delivery Admissions.

Performance Characteristics of Sepsis Screening Tools During Delivery Admissions.

Barriers and facilitators to effective electronic health record-based sepsis screening in the pediatric intensive care unit.

The Pediatric Surviving Sepsis Campaign supports the implementation of automated tools for early sepsis recognition. In 2019 the C.S. Mott Children's Hospital Pediatric Intensive Care Unit deployed an electronic medical record (EMR)-based screening for early recognition and treatment of sepsis. We analyzed all automated primary sepsis alerts, secondary screens, and bedside huddles from November 2019 to January 2020 (Cohort 1) and from November 2020 to January 2021 (Cohort 2) to identify barriers and facilitators for the use of this tool. We distributed surveys to frontline providers to gather feedback on end-user experience. In Cohort 1, 895 primary alerts were triggered, yielding 503 completed secondary screens and 40 bedside huddles. In Cohort 2, 925 primary alerts were triggered, yielding 532 completed secondary screens and 12 bedside huddles. Surveys assessing end-user experience identified the following facilitators: (1) 73% of nurses endorsed the bedside huddle as value added; (2) 74% of medical providers agreed the bedside huddle increased the likelihood of interventions. The greatest barriers to successful implementation included the (1) overall large number of primary alerts from the automated tool and (2) rate of false alerts, many due to routine respiratory therapy interventions. Our data suggests that the successful implementation of EMR-based sepsis screening tools requires countermeasures focusing on 3 key drivers for change: education, technology, and patient safety. While both medical providers and bedside nurses found merit in our EMR-based sepsis early recognition system, continued refinement is necessary to avoid sepsis alert fatigue.

Predictive performance of NEWS and qSOFA in immunocompromised sepsis patients at the emergency department

PurposeSepsis has a high incidence and a poor prognosis. Early recognition is important to facilitate timely initiation of adequate care. Sepsis screening tools, such as the (quick) Sequential Organ Failure Assessment ((q)SOFA) and National Early Warning Score (NEWS), could help recognize sepsis. These tools have been validated in a general immunocompetent population, while their performance in immunocompromised patients, who are particularly at risk of sepsis development, remains unknown.MethodsThis study is a post hoc analysis of a prospective observational study performed at the emergency department. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years with a suspected infection, while ≥ two qSOFA and/or SOFA criteria were used to classify patients as having suspected sepsis. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality.Results1516 patients, of which 40.5% used one or more immunosuppressives, were included. NEWS had a higher prognostic accuracy as compared to qSOFA for predicting poor outcome among immunocompromised sepsis patients. Of all tested immunosuppressives, high-dose glucocorticoid therapy was associated with a threefold increased risk of both in-hospital and 28-day mortality.ConclusionIn contrast to NEWS, qSOFA underestimates the risk of adverse outcome in patients using high-dose glucocorticoids. As a clinical consequence, to adequately assess the severity of illness among immunocompromised patients, health care professionals should best use the NEWS.

Neutrophil volume, conductivity, and scatter (VCS) as a screening tool in neonatal sepsis

Background The aim of the study is to establish changes in Neutrophil volume, conductivity, and scatter (VCS) in neonatal sepsis and to determine appropriate cutoff levels to be used as a screening tool for neonatal sepsis. Methods This prospective observational study was conducted at the Neonatal Intensive care Units at Ain Shams University. It included 25 septic neonates diagnosed based on the presence of risk factors of sepsis, clinical or laboratory evidence suggestive of sepsis, and positive blood culture results. A control group of 25 age-matched neonates was also included. Blood counts were processed in the automated hematology analyzer, Beckman coulter LH 750. Neutrophil VCS Parameters were analyzed and correlated with different clinical and laboratory data of the study sample. Results In this study, the value of mean neutrophil volume (MNV) was significantly increased, and the value of mean neutrophil scatter (MNS) was significantly decreased in the septic group compared with the control group, with P value = 0.026 and 0.025, respectively. The MNV showed a sensitivity of 96%, a specificity of 48%, a PPV of 64.9%, an NPV of 92.3%, and a cutoff point of &gt;140.2 with AUC of 0.713. The MNS showed a sensitivity of 68%, a specificity of 92%, a PPV of 89.5%, a NPV of 74.2%, and a cutoff point of ≤129.4 with an AUC of 0.718. Conclusion Although neutrophil VCS parameters cannot be used alone to diagnose or rule out neonatal sepsis, they aid as additional markers for early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis. They can also be used in combination with other hematological screening tests to improve the diagnostic accuracy of the neonatal sepsis screen.

Early warning scores for sepsis identification and prediction of in-hospital mortality in adults with sepsis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The early warning scores (EWS), quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria have been proposed as sepsis screening tools. This review aims to summarise and compare the performance of EWS with the qSOFA and SIRS criteria for predicting sepsis diagnosis and in-hospital mortality in patients with sepsis. A systematic review with meta-analysis. Seven databases were searched from January 1, 2016 until March 10, 2022. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and diagnostic odd ratios were pooled by using the bivariate random effects model. Overall performance was summarised by using the hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristics curve. This paper adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA-DTA) guidelines. Ten studies involving 52,474 subjects were included in the review. For predicting sepsis diagnosis, the pooled sensitivity of EWS (65%, 95% CI: 55, 75) was similar to SIRS ≥2 (70%, 95% CI: 49, 85) and higher than qSOFA ≥2 (37%, 95% CI: 20, 59). The pooled specificity of EWS (77%, 95% CI: 64, 86) was higher than SIRS ≥2 (62%, 95% CI: 41, 80) but lower than qSOFA ≥2 (94%, 95% CI: 86, 98). Results were similar for the secondary outcome of in-hospital mortality. Although no one scoring system had both high sensitivity and specificity, the EWS had at least equivalent values in most measures of diagnostic accuracy compared with SIRS or qSOFA. Healthcare systems in which EWS is already in place should consider whether there is any clinical benefit in adopting qSOFA or SIRS. This systematic review did not directly involve patient or public contribution to the manuscript.

Recognise Sepsis in the Emergency Department

Objective: In the UK alone, 245,000 people are affected by sepsis with at least 48,000 people losing their lives in sepsis-related illnesses every year. This is more than breast, bowel and prostate cancer combined. Globally, sepsis claims 11 million lives a year. Yet, for many patients, with early diagnosis it is easily treatable. The UK sepsis trust developed a sepsis screening and action tool which helps clinicians screen for and identify possible sepsis at all levels and across specialities. In the NHS staffing levels vary from junior doctors and trainee advanced care practitioners to registrars and senior consultants which can lead to sepsis being missed at initial presentation. The screening and action tool enables nursing staff at triage to start the tool, if the patient flags up for possible sepsis a Doctor is asked to review the patient and treat with the sepsis 6 action tool. The Emergency department at Royal Derby hospital guidance is to use the sepsis screening and action tool to ensure patients are being picked up early and treated timely and effectively. We conducted a Quality improvement project as an audit showed compliance with the sepsis screening and action tool was 20%. Our problem statement was many patients presenting to RDH ED with suspected sepsis will not be screened for sepsis via the sepsis screening and action tool. This may lead to delays or noncompliance to the sepsis 6 pathway which effectively will lead to morbidities in this patient population. Our rationale for was improving the recognition of sepsis via the standardised sepsis screening and action tool will help raise the awareness and assure early recognition of septic patients amongst healthcare professionals working in the emergency department. Design: We assembled a QI team ranging from nursing staff, doctors, ACP&amp;apos;s and Helth care workers. We used four separate PDSA cycles over the course of 9 months. These help form a structured method which is commonly used to test changes as part of an improvement initiative or project. It enabled the team to thoroughly and efficiently test and evaluate your ideas for change and involves four steps. We also used a Driver Diagram to help address and map out the process. Results: At the start of the project the compliance to the sepsis screening and action tool was 20 %, we managed through 4 PDSA cycles to improve the compliance to 60%. We further broke the action tool down to further asses which components to focus on. The components we investigated were One hour antibiotics given, blood cultures taken, target oxygen saturation, blood gas/lactate taken, fluid given, monior input/output chart. Antibiotics given in one hour improved from 82% to 100 %, blood cultures taken from 65% to 95%, target sats and blood gas/lactate level was constant 100% and remained 100%. Although documentation of input/output charting was 10% at the start of the project and 30% at the end. Conclusion: We manged to improve the compliance to the sepsis screening and action tool from 20% to 60%, which in turn improved one hour antibiotics, blood cultures taken, fluids prescribed which effectively improved the identification and treatment of patients with suspected sepsis in our emergency department.

Performance Characteristics of Sepsis Screening Tools During Delivery Admissions.

To evaluate the screening performance characteristics of existing tools for the diagnosis of sepsis during delivery admissions. This was a case-control study using electronic health record data, including vital signs and laboratory results, for all delivery admissions of patients with sepsis from 59 nationally distributed hospitals. Patients with sepsis were matched by gestational age at delivery in a 1:4 ratio with patients without sepsis to create a comparison group. Patients with chorioamnionitis and sepsis were compared with a complete cohort of patients with chorioamnionitis without sepsis. Multiple screening criteria for sepsis were evaluated: the CMQCC (California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative), SIRS (Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome), the MEWC (the Maternal Early Warning Criteria), UKOSS (United Kingdom Obstetric Surveillance System), and the MEWT (Maternal Early Warning Trigger Tool). Sensitivity, false-positive rates, and C-statistics were reported for each screening tool. Analyses were stratified into cohort 1, which excluded patients with chorioamnionitis-endometritis, and cohort 2, which included those patients. Delivery admissions at 59 hospitals were extracted for patients with sepsis. Cohort 1 comprised 647 patients with sepsis, including 228 with end-organ injury, matched with a control group of 2,588 patients without sepsis. Cohort 2 comprised 14,591 patients with chorioamnionitis-endometritis, of whom 1,049 had sepsis and 238 had end-organ injury. In cohort 1, the CMQCC and the UKOSS pregnancy-adjusted criteria had the lowest false-positive rates (6.9% and 9.6%, respectively) and the highest C-statistics (0.92 and 0.91, respectively). Although other screening criteria, such as SIRS and the MEWC, had similar sensitivities, it was at the cost of much higher false-positive rates (21.3% and 38.3%, respectively). In cohort 2, including all patients with chorioamnionitis-endometritis, the highest C-statistics were again for the CMQCC (0.67) and UKOSS (0.64). All screening tools had high false-positive rates, but the false-positive rates for the CMQCC and UKOSS were substantially lower than those for SIRS and the MEWC. During delivery admissions, the CMQCC and UKOSS pregnancy-adjusted screening criteria have the lowest false-positive results while maintaining greater than 90% sensitivity rates. Performance of all screening tools was degraded in the setting of chorioamnionitis-endometritis.

Performance Characteristics of Sepsis Screening Tools During Antepartum and Postpartum Admissions.

To evaluate the performance characteristics of existing screening tools for the prediction of sepsis during antepartum and postpartum readmissions. This was a case-control study using electronic health record data obtained between 2016 and 2021 from 67 hospitals for antepartum sepsis admissions and 71 hospitals for postpartum readmissions up to 42 days. Patients in the sepsis case group were matched in a 1:4 ratio to a comparison cohort of patients without sepsis admitted antepartum or postpartum. The following screening criteria were evaluated: the CMQCC (California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative) initial sepsis screen, the non-pregnancy-adjusted SIRS (Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome), the MEWC (Maternal Early Warning Criteria), UKOSS (United Kingdom Obstetric Surveillance System) obstetric SIRS, and the MEWT (Maternal Early Warning Trigger Tool). Time periods were divided into early pregnancy (less than 20 weeks of gestation), more than 20 weeks of gestation, early postpartum (less than 3 days postpartum), and late postpartum through 42 days. False-positive screening rates, C-statistics, sensitivity, and specificity were reported for each overall screening tool and each individual criterion. We identified 525 patients with sepsis during an antepartum hospitalization and 728 patients with sepsis during a postpartum readmission. For early pregnancy and more than 3 days postpartum, non-pregnancy-adjusted SIRS had the highest C-statistics (0.78 and 0.83, respectively). For more than 20 weeks of gestation and less than 3 days postpartum, the pregnancy-adjusted sepsis screening tools (CMQCC and UKOSS) had the highest C-statistics (0.87-0.94). The MEWC maintained the highest sensitivity rates during all time periods (81.9-94.4%) but also had the highest false-positive rates (30.4-63.9%). The pregnancy-adjusted sepsis screening tools (CMQCC, UKOSS) had the lowest false-positive rates in all time periods (3.9-10.1%). All tools had the lowest C-statistics in the periods of less than 20 weeks of gestation and more than 3 days postpartum. For admissions early in pregnancy and more than 3 days postpartum, non-pregnancy-adjusted sepsis screening tools performed better than pregnancy-adjusted tools. From 20 weeks of gestation through up to 3 days postpartum, using a pregnancy-adjusted sepsis screening tool increased sensitivity and minimized false-positive rates. The overall false-positive rate remained high.

Preventable deaths involving sepsis in England and Wales, 2013-2022: a systematic case series of coroners' reports.

Coroners' Prevention of Future Death (PFDs) reports are an under-utilized resource to learn about preventable deaths in England and Wales. We aimed to identify sepsis-related PFDs and explore the causes and concerns in this subset of preventable sepsis deaths. Four thousand three hundred five reports were acquired from the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website between July 2013 and November 2022, which were screened for sepsis. Demographic information, coroners concerns and responses to these reports were extracted and analyzed, including a detailed paediatric subgroup analysis. Two hundred sixty-five reports (6% of total PFDs) involved sepsis-related deaths. The most common cause of death in these reports was "sepsis without septic shock" (42%) and the most common site of infection was the respiratory system (18%) followed by gastrointestinal (16%) and skin (13%) infections. Specific pathogens were named in few reports (27%). Many deaths involved multimorbid patients (49%) or those with recent surgery (26%). Coroners named 773 individual concerns, the most frequent were: a failure to keep accurate records or notes (28%), failure in communication or handover (27%) or failure to recognize risk factors or comorbidities (20%). Paediatric cases frequently reported issues with sepsis screening tools (26%). Sepsis PFDs resulted in 421 individual reports being sent, of which 45% received no response. Most organisations who did respond acknowledged concerns and initiated a new change (74%). Sepsis-related PFDs provide valuable insights into preventable causes of sepsis and identify important sources of improvement in sepsis care. Wider dissemination of findings is vital to learn from these reports.

Promoting Antibiotic Stewardship and Implementation of Sepsis Pathway in the Emergency Department: A Quality Improvement Initiative.

Introduction Sepsis is a preventable cause of mortality and presents challenges in triage and management. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign care bundles improve patient outcomes; however, non-compliance with guidelines, understaffing, and scarcity of training opportunities undermine care quality in resource-limited countries. We aimed to implement the sepsis hour-1 care bundle in the emergency department of a tertiary-care hospital in Pakistan and develop hospital antimicrobial guidelines. Methods The baseline assessment included a survey of knowledge and confidence in sepsis management and a retrospective audit of inpatient medical records. The inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years with a systemic inflammatory response score ≥ 2 or a National Early Warning Score ≥ 3. Improvement strategies included(a) educational intervention, (b) adult sepsis screening tool and sepsis 1-hour bundle checklist, and (c) recommendations for empirical antibiotics. These were implemented and assessed via Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles: (a) multi-tiered educational campaigns, (b) implementation of hospital protocols/guidelines, and (c) antimicrobial policy and sustainability. The process measures were hour-1 bundle components and the outcome measures were in-hospital mortality, ICU admission, length of hospital stay, and ICU stay. Results The baseline survey revealed that the majority of participants had formal training and felt confident in managing septic patients but none of the respondents had used a sepsis scoring system, and only 29.4% had used an hour-1 bundle previously. There was a sustained improvement in bundle compliance from 0% at baseline to 57.7% at PDSA-3. Inappreciable variation (p > 0.05) was reflected in the length of hospital and ICU stay and in-hospital mortality, whereas ICU admission decreased insignificantly (p > 0.05). The antimicrobial therapy practice, as per the guidelines, increased remarkably (p < 0.05). Conclusion Regular training and feedback are pivotal for practice change, yet integrating structured screening tools and bundled checklists into current workflows can significantly improve compliance.

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

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.

Sepsis screening tools for predicting infection triggers and outcomes in diabetic ketoacidosis.

Background: An early prediction of infection is challenging in diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Methods: This prospective cohort study aimed to assess effectiveness of various sepsis screening tools in predicting infections and prognosis in DKA. Results: Among 141 cases, infection (44.0%) was the commonest precipitating factor. A Sequential Organ Failure Assessmentscore ≥4 showed high specificity (82.28%) and high positive likelihood ratio (2.64) but limited sensitivity (46.77%). Conversely, Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome ≥2exhibited good sensitivity (95.16%) but a high false-positive rate (84.28%). National Early Warning Score ≥7 and QuickSequential Organ Failure Assessment ≥2 had low sensitivity and specificity. These sepsis tools also demonstrated low prognostic accuracy for mortality. Conclusion: Sepsis screening tools have limited predictive accuracy for infections and mortality in DKA.

Validating the performance of 3 sepsis screening tools in patients with clinical chorioamnionitis

Maternal sepsis is a leading cause of maternal death in the United States. Approximately two-thirds of maternal deaths because of sepsis are related to delayed recognition or treatment. New early warning systems using a 2-step approach have been developed for the early recognition of sepsis in obstetrics; however, their performance has not been validated. This study aimed to assess the performance of 3 primary screening tools introduced by the Society of Obstetric Medicine Australia and New Zealand and the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative for use in the first step of their 2-step early warning systems. The obstetrically modified quick Sequential (sepsis-related) Organ Failure Assessment score tool, the obstetrically modified Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome tool, and the obstetrically modified Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome 1 tool were evaluated for the early detection of sepsis in patients with clinically diagnosed chorioamnionitis. This was a retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected clinical data at a tertiary care center and an affiliated healthcare system. The electronic health records were searched to identify and verify cases with clinically diagnosed chorioamnionitis between November 2017 and September 2022. The flow sheet for every patient was reviewed to determine when criteria were met for any of the 3 tools. The performance of these tools was analyzed using their sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and receiver operating characteristic curve for the identification of sepsis. There were 545 cases that had the requisite data for inclusion in the analysis. Of note, 11 patients met the criteria for sepsis. Both the obstetrically modified Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome and obstetrically modified Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome 1 tools had overall similar test characteristics, which were notably different from the obstetrically modified quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment tool. The screen-positive rate of the obstetrically modified quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment tool (1.5%; 95% confidence interval, 0.6%-2.9%) was lower than that of the obstetrically modified Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome tool (60.0%; 95% confidence interval, 55.7%-64.1%) and the obstetrically modified Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome 1 tool (50.0%; 95% confidence interval, 45.8%-54.3%). The sensitivities of the obstetrically modified Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome tool (100.0%; 95% confidence interval, 71.5%-100.0%) and the obstetrically modified Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome 1 tool (100.0%; 95% confidence interval, 71.5%-100.0%) were higher than that of the obstetrically modified quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment tool (18.0%; 95% confidence interval, 2.3%-51.8%). All 3 tools had high negative predictive values; however, their positive predictive values were poor. This study demonstrated that all 3 tools had limitations in screening for sepsis among patients with a clinical diagnosis of chorioamnionitis. The obstetrically modified quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment tool missed more than half of the sepsis cases and, thus, had poor performance as a primary screening tool for sepsis. Both the obstetrically modified Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome and obstetrically modified Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome 1 tools captured all sepsis cases; however, they tended to overdetect sepsis.

A-155 Unlocking the Complete Blood Count: Derivation of a Single-Panel Laboratory Test That Includes Monocyte Distribution Width to Create a Universal Sepsis Screening Tool

Abstract Background Sepsis is the leading cause of in-hospital death. Outcome improvement requires rapid detection and early antimicrobial therapy. The complete blood count (CBC) is ordered for more than two-thirds of all patients in the emergency department (ED). Individual CBC components have limited utility for sepsis screening due to low specificity and sensitivity. We sought to create a reliable sepsis screening tool by combining components of the CBC differential. Methods In this single-center retrospective cohort study, all adult patients who had a CBC with differential performed within 6 h of ED arrival during a 20-month period were eligible for inclusion. Repeat ED visits by the same patient were excluded. Our primary outcome was manifestation of sepsis within 72 h of ED arrival, detected from timestamped electronic health records using a previously validated electronic phenotype based on Sepsis-3 consensus criteria. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify individual components of the CBC differential that were independently associated with our outcome and to identify optimal cutoffs for discretization. Odds ratios were used to assign weights to each component and to derive a 10-point system for scoring likelihood of sepsis. Results 34 864 patients were included; 1306 (3.7%) met sepsis outcome criteria within 72 h of ED arrival and 181 (0.5%) had septic shock. White blood cell (WBC) count, monocyte distribution width (MDW), and the neutrophil to lymphocyte count ratio were found to predict sepsis. As shown in the figure, there was a linear relationship between our CBC infection severity index and likelihood of developing sepsis and septic shock. Patients with a high risk score (8 or above) had a greater than one in four chance of developing sepsis within 72 h. Conclusion A simple ten-point index derived from the most commonly used laboratory panel in medicine reliably estimated likelihood of developing sepsis.

Impact of 1-hour and 3-hour sepsis time bundles on antibiotic use in emergency departments in Queensland, Australia: a before-and-after cohort study

ObjectiveTo determine if the introduction of an emergency department (ED) sepsis screening tool and management bundle affects antibiotic prescribing and use.DesignMulticentre, cohort, before-and-after study design.SettingThree tertiary hospitals in Queensland, Australia...

613 The Use of an Online Sepsis Screening Tool to Improve the Initial Management of Sepsis

Abstract Aim The aim of the project was to improve the adherence to sepsis management guidelines in Trauma and Orthopaedic patients through the use of an online Sepsis Screening Tool (SST). This was created to increase recognition of the early signs of sepsis to guide time critical interventions thus improving patient care. Method A retrospective audit of adult Trauma and Orthopaedic inpatients with a NEWS2 score of over 5, or 3 in one parameter, or a new suspected infection within a seven-day period was conducted in July 2020, March 2021 and August 2021 for each audit cycle respectively. We then assessed whether the SST and time critical interventions had been completed. Results After the initial audit in July 2020 showed the use of the SST and achievement of time critical interventions was poor, we introduced several interventions including information posters, and sepsis teaching for junior doctors. Further interventions were implemented after repeat audit cycles, including the incorporation of the SST within daily nursing safety huddles. By August 2021 the use of the SST had increased from 10% to 54%. This was associated with improved adherence to the sepsis management guidelines including correct observation frequency and medical review within 1 hour. Communication of a sepsis diagnosis to patients and family members also improved. Conclusions The completion of the SST increased adherence to sepsis management guidelines in our patients. We therefore recommend the use of Sepsis Screening Tools to identify patients at risk of sepsis and to improve their initial management.

Sepsis Prediction Model for Determining Sepsis vs SIRS, qSOFA, and SOFA

The Sepsis Prediction Model (SPM) is a proprietary decision support tool created by Epic Systems; it generates a predicting sepsis score (PSS). The model has not undergone validation against existing sepsis prediction tools, such as Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), or quick Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Asessement (qSOFA). To assess the validity and timeliness of the SPM compared with SIRS, qSOFA, and SOFA. This retrospective cohort study included all adults admitted to 5 acute care hospitals in a single US health system between June 5, 2019, and December 31, 2020. Data analysis was conducted from March 2021 to February 2023. A sepsis event was defined as receipt of 4 or more days of antimicrobials, blood cultures collected within ±48 hours of initial antimicrobial, and at least 1 organ dysfunction as defined by the organ dysfunction criteria optimized for the electronic health record (eSOFA). Time zero was defined as 15 minutes prior to qualifying antimicrobial or blood culture order. Of 60 507 total admissions, 1663 (2.7%) met sepsis criteria, with 1324 electronic health record-confirmed sepsis (699 [52.8%] male patients; 298 [22.5%] Black patients; 46 [3.5%] Hispanic/Latinx patients; 945 [71.4%] White patients), 339 COVID-19 sepsis (183 [54.0%] male patients; 98 [28.9%] Black patients; 36 [10.6%] Hispanic/Latinx patients; and 189 [55.8%] White patients), and 58 844 (97.3%; 26 632 [45.2%] male patients; 12 698 [21.6%] Black patients; 3367 [5.7%] Hispanic/Latinx patients; 40 491 White patients) did not meet sepsis criteria. The median (IQR) age was 63 (51 to 73) years for electronic health record-confirmed sepsis, 69 (60 to 77) years for COVID-19 sepsis, and 60 (42 to 72) years for nonsepsis admissions. Within the vendor recommended threshold PSS range of 5 to 8, PSS of 8 or greater had the highest balanced accuracy for classifying a sepsis admission at 0.79 (95% CI, 0.78 to 0.80). Change in SOFA score of 2 or more had the highest sensitivity, at 0.97 (95% CI, 0.97 to 0.98). At a PSS of 8 or greater, median (IQR) time to score positivity from time zero was 68.00 (6.75 to 605.75) minutes. For SIRS, qSOFA, and SOFA, median (IQR) time to score positivity was 7.00 (-105.00 to 08.00) minutes, 74.00 (-22.25 to 599.25) minutes, and 28.00 (-108.50 to 134.00) minutes, respectively. In this cohort study of hospital admissions, balanced accuracy of the SPM outperformed other models at higher threshold PSS; however, application of the SPM in a clinical setting was limited by poor timeliness as a sepsis screening tool as compared to SIRS and SOFA.

The S-S.M.A.R.T: A New Prognostic Tool for Patients with Suspected Sepsis in the Emergency Department.

The sepsis screening tool is essential because it enables the rapid identification of high-risk patients and facilitates prompt treatment. Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) is a widely used screening tool for sepsis. However, it has limitations in predicting patient prognosis. We developed the S-S.M.A.R.T (sepsis evaluation with shock index, mental status, age, and ROX index on triage) and aimed at evaluating it as a screening tool for patients with suspected sepsis in the emergency department. We conducted a single-center retrospective chart review of patients with suspected sepsis in the emergency department. We compared the prognosis prediction abilities of the S-S.M.A.R.T and qSOFA scores in patients with suspected sepsis. The primary outcome was 7-day mortality, and the secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality and ICU admission. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and the chi-square test were used. In total, 401 patients were enrolled. The mean age of the patients was 72.2 ± 15.6 years, and 213 (53.1%) of them were female. The S-S.M.A.R.T had superior predictive ability for prognosis of patients with suspected sepsis compared to qSOFA (area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.789 vs. 0.699; p=0.02 for 7-day mortality, AUC of 0.786 vs. 0.681; p < 0.001 for 30-day mortality, AUC 0.758 vs 0.717; p=0.05 for ICU admission). The S-S.M.A.R.T can be useful in predicting the prognosis of patients with suspected sepsis in the emergency department.

Derivation and validation of a screening tool for stroke-associated sepsis

BackgroundPost-stroke infections may cause sepsis, which is associated with poor clinical outcome. Sepsis is defined by life-threatening organ dysfunction that can be identified using the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score. The applicability of the SOFA score for patients not treated on an intensive care unit (ICU) is limited. The aim of this study was to develop and validate an easier-to-use modification of the SOFA score for stroke patients.MethodsUsing a registry-based cohort of 212 patients with large vessel occlusion stroke and infection, potential predictors of a poor outcome indicating sepsis were assessed by logistic regression. The derived score was validated on a separate cohort of 391 patients with ischemic stroke and infection admitted to our hospital over a period of 1.5 years.ResultsThe derived Stroke-SOFA (S-SOFA) score included the following predictors: National Institutes of Health stroke scale ≥ 14, peripheral oxygen saturation < 90%, mean arterial pressure < 70 mmHg, thrombocyte count < 150 109/l and creatinine ≥ 1.2 mg/dl. The area under the receiver operating curve for the prediction of a poor outcome indicating sepsis was 0.713 [95% confidence interval: 0.665–0.762] for the S-SOFA score, which was comparable to the standard SOFA score (0.750 [0.703–0.798]), but the prespecified criteria for non-inferiority were not met (p = 0.115). However, the S-SOFA score was non-inferior compared to the SOFA score in non-ICU patients (p = 0.013).ConclusionsThe derived S-SOFA score may be useful to identify non-ICU patients with stroke-associated sepsis who have a high risk of a poor outcome.