Improvement of sepsis identification through multi-year comparison of sepsis and early warning scores

Pro-Con Debate: Universal Versus Selective Continuous Monitoring of Postoperative Patients

In this Pro-Con commentary article, we discuss use of continuous physiologic monitoring for clinical deterioration, specifically respiratory depression in the postoperative population. The Pro position advocates for 24/7 continuous surveillance monitoring of all patients starting in the postanesthesia care unit until discharge from the hospital. The strongest arguments for universal monitoring relate to inadequate assessment and algorithms for patient risk. We argue that the need for hospitalization in and of itself is a sufficient predictor of an individual's risk for unexpected respiratory deterioration. In addition, general care units carry the added risk that even the most severe respiratory events will not be recognized in a timely fashion, largely due to higher patient to nurse staffing ratios and limited intermittent vital signs assessments (e.g., every 4 hours). Continuous monitoring configured properly using a "surveillance model" can adequately detect patients' respiratory deterioration while minimizing alarm fatigue and the costs of the surveillance systems. The Con position advocates for a mixed approach of time-limited continuous pulse oximetry monitoring for all patients receiving opioids, with additional remote pulse oximetry monitoring for patients identified as having a high risk of respiratory depression. Alarm fatigue, clinical resource limitations, and cost are the strongest arguments for selective monitoring, which is a more targeted approach. The proponents of the con position acknowledge that postoperative respiratory monitoring is certainly indicated for all patients, but not all patients need the same level of monitoring. The analysis and discussion of each point of view describes who, when, where, and how continuous monitoring should be implemented. Consideration of various system-level factors are addressed, including clinical resource availability, alarm design, system costs, patient and staff acceptance, risk-assessment algorithms, and respiratory event detection. Literature is reviewed, findings are described, and recommendations for design of monitoring systems and implementation of monitoring are described for the pro and con positions.

Clinical decision support tools useful for identifying sepsis risk

PURPOSE

Evaluate the effectiveness of the clinical decision support tools (CDSTs), POC Advisor (POCA), and Modified Early Warning System (MEWS) in identifying sepsis risk and influencing time to treatment for inpatients, comparing their respective alert mechanisms.

METHODS

This study was conducted at two academic university medical center hospitals. Data from adult inpatients in medical-surgical and telemetry units were analyzed from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020. Criteria included sepsis-related ICD-10 codes, antibiotic administration, and ordered sepsis labs. Subsequent statistical analyses utilized Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, focusing on mortality differences by age, sex, and race/ethnicity.

RESULTS

Among 744 patients, 143 sepsis events were identified, with 83% already receiving treatment upon CDST alert. Group 1 (POCA alert) showed reduced response time compared with MEWS, while Group 3 (MEWS) experienced longer time to treatment. Group 4 included sepsis events missed by both systems. Mortality differences were not significant among the groups.

CONCLUSION

While CDSTs play a role, nursing assessment and clinical judgment are crucial. This study recognized the potential for alarm fatigue due to a high number of CDST-driven alerts, while emphasizing the importance of a collaborative approach for prompt sepsis treatment and potential reduction in sepsis-related mortality.

The reverse shock index multiplied by the Glasgow Coma Scale score can predict the need for initial resuscitation in patients suspected of sepsis

For patients suspected of sepsis, early recognition of the need for initial resuscitation is key in management. This study evaluated the ability of a modified shock index - the reverse shock index multiplied by the Glasgow Coma Scale score (rSIG) - to predict the need for initial resuscitation in patients with sepsis. This retrospective study involved adults with infection who were admitted to a Japanese tertiary care hospital from an emergency department between January and November 2020. The rSIG, modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), and original shock index (SI) values were recorded using initial vital signs. The primary outcome was the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for the composite outcome consisting of vasopressor use, mechanical ventilation, and 72-h mortality. Secondary outcomes were the AUROCs for each component of the primary outcome and 28-day mortality. As a result, the primary outcome was met by 67 of the 724 patients (9%). The AUROC was significantly higher for the rSIG than for the other tools (rSIG 0.84 [0.78 - 0.88]; MEWS 0.78 [0.71 - 0.84]; qSOFA 0.72 [0.65 - 0.79]; SI 0.80 [0.74 - 0.85]). Compared with MEWS and qSOFA, the rSIG also had a higher AUROC for vasopressor use and mechanical ventilation, but not for 72-h mortality or in-hospital mortality. The rSIG could be a simple and reliable predictor of the need for initial resuscitation in patients suspected of sepsis.