Prehospital early warning scores for adults with suspected sepsis: retrospective diagnostic cohort study

Sepsis incidence, suspicion, prediction and mortality in emergency medical services: a cohort study related to the current international sepsis guideline

PURPOSE

Sepsis suspicion by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) is associated with improved patient outcomes. This study assessed sepsis incidence and recognition by EMS and analyzed which of the screening tools recommended by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign best facilitates sepsis prediction.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of claims data from health insurances (n = 221,429 EMS cases), and paramedics' and emergency physicians' EMS documentation (n = 110,419); analyzed outcomes were: sepsis incidence and case fatality compared to stroke and myocardial infarction, the extent of documentation for screening-relevant variables and sepsis suspicion, tools' intersections for screening positive in identical EMS cases and their predictive ability for an inpatient sepsis diagnosis.

RESULTS

Incidence of sepsis (1.6%) was similar to myocardial infarction (2.6%) and stroke (2.7%); however, 30-day case fatality rate was almost threefold higher (31.7% vs. 13.4%; 11.8%). Complete vital sign documentation was achieved in 8.2% of all cases. Paramedics never, emergency physicians rarely (0.1%) documented a sepsis suspicion, respectively septic shock. NEWS2 had the highest sensitivity (73.1%; Specificity:81.6%) compared to qSOFA (23.1%; Sp:96.6%), SIRS (28.2%; Sp:94.3%) and MEWS (48.7%; Sp:88.1%). Depending on the tool, 3.7% to 19.4% of all cases screened positive; only 0.8% in all tools simultaneously.

CONCLUSION

Incidence and mortality underline the need for better sepsis awareness, documentation of vital signs and use of screening tools. Guidelines may omit MEWS and SIRS as recommendations for prehospital providers since they were inferior in all accuracy measures. Though no tool performed ideally, NEWS2 qualifies as the best tool to predict the highest proportion of septic patients and to rule out cases that are likely non-septic.

'Knowledge exchange' workshops to optimise development of a risk prediction tool to assist conveyance decisions for suspected seizures - Part of the Risk of ADverse Outcomes after a Suspected Seizure (RADOSS) project

PURPOSE

Suspected seizures present challenges for ambulance services, with paramedics reporting uncertainty over whether or not to convey individuals to emergency departments. The Risk of ADverse Outcomes after a Suspected Seizure (RADOSS) project aims to address this by developing a risk assessment tool utilizing structured patient care record and dispatch data. It proposes a tool that would provide estimates of an individual's likelihood of death and/or recontact with emergency care within 3 days if conveyed compared to not conveyed, and the likelihood of an 'avoidable attendance' occurring if conveyed. Knowledge Exchange workshops engaged stakeholders to resolve key design uncertainties before model derivation.

METHOD

Six workshops involved 26 service users and their significant others (epilepsy or nonepileptic attack disorder), and 25 urgent and emergency care clinicians from different English ambulance regions. Utilizing Nominal Group Techniques, participants shared views of the proposed tool, benefits and concerns, suggested predictors, critiqued outcome measures, and expressed functionality preferences. Data were analysed using Hamilton's Rapid Analysis.

RESULTS

Stakeholders supported tool development, proposing 10 structured variables for predictive testing. Emphasis was placed on the tool supporting, not dictating, care decisions. Participants highlighted some reasons why RADOSS might struggle to derive a predictive model based on structured data alone and suggested some non-structured variables for future testing. Feedback on prediction timeframes for service recontact was received, along with advice on amending the 'avoidable attendance' definition to prevent the tool's predictions being undermined by potential overuse of certain investigations in hospital.

CONCLUSION

Collaborative stakeholder engagement provided crucial insights that can guide RADOSS to develop a user-aligned, optimized tool.