The importance of a hospital-dedicated sepsis response team

A nursing-led sepsis response team guiding resuscitation with point-of-care ultrasound: A review and model for improving bundle compliance while individualizing sepsis care

A dysregulated host response to infection resulting in life-threatening organ dysfunction defines the onset of sepsis. Unfortunately, sepsis is common, costly, and deadly. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign publishes regularly updated, evidence-informed, detection, and treatment guidelines culminating in time-sensitive care "bundles." The goal of these bundles is to expedite sepsis recognition because it is widely held that early treatment is life-saving. Hospitals are mandated to publicly report their bundle compliance, and this will soon be tied to hospital reimbursement. For these reasons, hospitals are creating sepsis emergency response teams which are a form of a rapid response team consisting of dedicated medical professionals who evaluate patients with suspected sepsis and initiate therapy when appropriate. Evidence to date support sepsis emergency response teams as a mechanism to improve bundle compliance, and potentially, patient outcome. Nevertheless, some elements of bundled sepsis care are controversial (e.g., intravenous fluid administration) as some argue that mandated treatment precludes personalized care. Herein, we briefly describe general sepsis emergency response team structure, review evidence supporting sepsis emergency response teams to improve bundle compliance and patient outcome and report our unique experience incorporating point of care ultrasound-to guide intravenous fluid-into a nursing-led sepsis team. We propose that our sepsis emergency response team approach allays concern that sepsis care is either bundled or personalized. Instead, incorporating point of care ultrasound into a nursing-led sepsis emergency response team increases bundle compliance and individualizes care.

Source Control and Antibiotics in Intra-Abdominal Infections

Intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) account for a major cause of morbidity and mortality, representing the second most common sepsis-related death with a hospital mortality of 23-38%. Prompt identification of sepsis source, appropriate resuscitation, and early treatment with the shortest delay possible are the cornerstones of management of IAIs and are associated with a more favorable clinical outcome. The aim of source control is to reduce microbial load by removing the infection source and it is achievable by using a wide range of procedures, such as definitive surgical removal of anatomic infectious foci, percutaneous drainage and toilette of infected collections, decompression, and debridement of infected and necrotic tissue or device removal, providing for the restoration of anatomy and function. Damage control surgery may be an option in selected septic patients. Intra-abdominal infections can be classified as uncomplicated or complicated causing localized or diffuse peritonitis. Early clinical evaluation is mandatory in order to optimize diagnostic testing and establish a therapeutic plan. Prognostic scores could serve as helpful tools in medical settings for evaluating both the seriousness and future outlook of a condition. The patient's conditions and the potential progression of the disease determine when to initiate source control. Patients can be classified into three groups based on disease severity, the origin of infection, and the patient's overall physical health, as well as any existing comorbidities. In recent decades, antibiotic resistance has become a global health threat caused by inappropriate antibiotic regimens, inadequate control measures, and infection prevention. The sepsis prevention and infection control protocols combined with optimizing antibiotic administration are crucial to improve outcome and should be encouraged in surgical departments. Antibiotic and antifungal regimens in patients with IAIs should be based on the resistance epidemiology, clinical conditions, and risk for multidrug resistance (MDR) and Candida spp. infections. Several challenges still exist regarding the effectiveness, timing, and patient stratification, as well as the procedures for source control. Antibiotic choice, optimal dosing, and duration of therapy are essential to achieve the best treatment. Promoting standard of care in the management of IAIs improves clinical outcomes worldwide. Further trials and stronger evidence are required to achieve optimal management with the least morbidity in the clinical care of critically ill patients with intra-abdominal sepsis.

Association of medical care capacity and the patient mortality of septic shock: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Hospitals with higher septic shock case volume demonstrated lower hospital mortality. We conducted this study to investigate whether this phenomenon was only caused by the increase in the number of admissions or the need to improve the medical care capacity in septic shock at the same time.

METHODS

Seven-hundred and eighty-seven hospitals from China collected in a survey from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021. Medical care capacity for septic shock was explored by patients with septic shock in intensive care units (ICU) divided into beds, intensivists, and nurses respectively.

MAIN RESULTS

The proportion of ICU patients with septic shock was negatively associated with the patient mortality of septic shock (Estimate [95%CI], -0.2532 [-0.5038, -0.0026]) (p-value 0.048). The ratios of patients with septic shock to beds, intensivists, and nurses were negatively associated with mortality of septic shock (Estimate [95%CI], -0.370 [-0.591, -0.150], -0.136 [-0.241, -0.031], and -0.774 [-1.158, -0.389]) (p-value 0.001, 0.011 and < 0.001). Severe pneumonia, the most common infection that caused a septic shock, correlated positively with its mortality (Estimate [95%CI], 0.1002 [0.0617, 0.1387]) (p-value < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitals with higher medical care capacity for septic shock were associated with lower hospital mortality.

Quality of care, resource use and patient outcome by use of emergency response team compared with standard care for critically ill medical patients in the emergency department: a retrospective single-centre cohort study from Norway

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to investigate quality of care, resource use and patient outcome in management by an emergency response team versus standard care for critically ill medical patients in the emergency department (ED). The emergency response team was multidisciplinary and had eight members, with a registrar in internal medicine as team leader.

DESIGN

Register-based retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary hospital in Norway.

PARTICIPANTS

The study included 1120 patients with National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) 5-10 points from 2015 and 2016. Patients missing ≥3 NEWS2 part scores, <18 years and with orders 'Not for ICU' or 'Not for resuscitation' were excluded.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Quality of care: pain assessment documented, analgesics given within 20 min, complete set of vital signs documented and antibiotics within 60 min if sepsis. Resource use: >3 diagnostic interventions, critical care in the ED and ED length of stay (LOS) <180 min. Patient outcome: intensive care unit (ICU) admission, ICU LOS <66 hours, hospital LOS <194 hours and mortality.

RESULTS

The median age was 66 years, 53.5% were male, 44.3% were admitted to the ICU and the mortality rate was 10.6%. Altogether 691 patients received team management and 429 standard care. Team management had a positive association with 'complete set of vital signs documented' (OR 1.720, CI 1.254 to 2.360), 'analgesics given within 20 minutes' (OR 3.268, CI 1.375 to 7.767) and 'antibiotics within 60 minutes if sepsis' (OR 7.880, CI 3.322 to 18.691), but a negative association with ' pain assessment documented' (OR 0.068, CI 0.037 to 0.128). Team management was also associated with 'critical care in the ED' (OR 9.900, CI 7.127 to 13.751), 'ED LOS <180 min' (OR 2.944, CI 2.070 to 4.187), 'ICU admission' (OR 2.763, CI 1.962 to 3.891) and 'mortality' (OR 1.882, CI 1.142 to 3.102).

CONCLUSIONS

Team management showed positive results for quality of care and resource use. The results for later outcomes such as mortality, ICU LOS and hospital LOS were more ambiguous.