Abstract
Objectives
To evaluate the effects of this EMR surveillance on sepsis, severe sepsis or septic
shock outcomes in patients admitted to a medical telemetry unit, including length
of hospital stay, patient discharge and mortality.
Methods
A retrospective review of pre- and post-implementation of a pilot electronic medical
record (EMR) sepsis surveillance.
Results
Implementing EMR sepsis surveillance significantly improved home discharge (49.0%
versus 25.3%, p < .05) and reduced hospital mortality (1.0% versus 9.3%, p < .05). Although there was no difference in the length of hospital stay for the whole
group, patients in the surveillance group who triggered an alert on the EMR surveillance
had a decreased length of hospital stay compared to those without an alert (7.2 ± 4.2
versus 11.6 ± 9.4 days, p < .05).
Conclusion
These results offer promising evidence that the use of an EMR sepsis surveillance
alert could decrease the ravishing effects of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock
by early identification and treatment.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Heart & Lung: The Journal of Cardiopulmonary and Acute CareAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Developments in the management of patients with sepsis.Nursing Standard. 2009; 23: 48-55
- Sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock: changes in incidence, pathogens and outcomes.Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2012 June; 10: 701-706
- Results from the national sepsis practice survey: predictions about mortality and recommendations for limitation of care orders.Crit Care. 2009; 13: 1-11
- The future is predetermined in severe sepsis, so what are the implications?.Crit Care Med. 2010; 38: 512-517
- Novel potential therapies for septic shock.Shock. 2008; 30: 60-66
- National estimates of severe sepsis in the United States emergency departments.Crit Care Med. 2007; 35: 1928
- Advances in management of sepsis: the randomized controlled trials behind the surviving sepsis campaign recommendations.Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2006; 27: 97-101
- Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock.Crit Care Med. 2008; 36: 296-327
- Sepsis bundles and compliance with clinical guidelines.J Intensive Care Med. 2011; 26: 172-182
- Improving outcomes for severe sepsis and septic shock: tools for early identification of at risk patients and treatment protocol implementation.Crit Care Clin. 2008; 23: 1-47
- A systems approach to the early recognition and rapid administration of best practice therapy in sepsis and septic shock.Curr Opin Crit Care. 2009; 15: 301-307
- Surviving sepsis campaign: a critical reappraisal.Shock. 2008; 3: 70-72
- An educational course including medical simulation for early goal directed therapy and the severe sepsis resuscitation bundle: an evaluation for medical student training.Resuscitation. 2008; 80: 674-679
- Sepsis bundles: time for a nursing initiative? British Association of Critical Care Nurses.Nurs Crit Care. 2009; 14: 161-165
- Effectiveness of treatments for severe sepsis.Am J Respir Care Med. 2009; 180: 861-866
- One year mortality of patients treated with an emergency department based early goal directed therapy protocol for severe sepsis and septic shock: a before and after study.Crit Care. 2009; 13: 167-173
- Using the EMR to perform continuous real-time surveillance to identify hospitalized patients at risk for sepsis.Chest. 2011; : 426
Campion, M. Hospital charges surge for treating severe sepsis, but reasons unclear. Anesthesiology News. 36:7.
Article info
Publication history
Published online: June 21, 2014
Accepted:
May 13,
2014
Received in revised form:
May 12,
2014
Received:
February 3,
2014
Identification
Copyright
© 2014 Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
