Characteristics, clinical care, and outcomes of sepsis among patients boarding in the emergency department.

Jessica A Blank, Jessie E King, Julieann F Grant, Shuo Tian, Sachita Shrestha, Peter England, David Paje, Stephanie P Taylor
{"title":"Characteristics, clinical care, and outcomes of sepsis among patients boarding in the emergency department.","authors":"Jessica A Blank, Jessie E King, Julieann F Grant, Shuo Tian, Sachita Shrestha, Peter England, David Paje, Stephanie P Taylor","doi":"10.1002/jhm.13536","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients who first meet clinical criteria for sepsis while boarding in the emergency department (ED) may not receive optimal sepsis care.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Assess the association between ED boarding status and sepsis quality of care and outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients admitted to a large academic hospital from July 2021 to October 2023 who had clinical features consistent with sepsis present while physically in the ED. We compared outcomes for patients who experienced time zero (T-0; the time clinical features of sepsis were first present) while boarding in the ED (physically in the ED but admitted to a different service) to those experiencing T-0 while still under the care of the ED provider team. We used logistic regression to estimate the association between ED boarding status at T-0 and compliance with the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: Management Bundle (SEP-1) core measure, individual bundle element compliance, and hospital mortality adjusting for prespecified covariates. In a subgroup analysis among patients who had not already received antibiotics before T-0, we conducted a Cox proportional hazards model to estimate the association between boarding status on time-to-antibiotics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 4795 patients meeting a clinical definition of sepsis in the ED, 422 (8.8%) experienced T-0 as ED boarders. These patients were similar in age, sex, and comorbidities compared with patients experiencing T-0 while still under ED care. Fewer patients with T-0 as an ED boarder received SEP-1 compliant care (25% vs. 38%, p < .001), including a lower proportion of fluid resuscitation (15% vs. 26%, p = .004) and lactate assessment (62% vs. 94%, p < .001). Overall, more patients in the ED boarder group received antibiotics within 3 hours, but one-third of patients had already received antibiotics prior to T-0. Among patients who had not already received antibiotics prior to T-0, experiencing T-0 as an ED boarder was associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving antibiotics (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.67 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.84]) and longer time to antibiotics from T-0 (142 min vs. 100 min, p = .007).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Sepsis patients experiencing T-0 as a boarder in the ED have a lower likelihood of receiving SEP-1 compliant care compared to patients who experience T-0 while still under ED care.</p>","PeriodicalId":94084,"journal":{"name":"Journal of hospital medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of hospital medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.13536","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patients who first meet clinical criteria for sepsis while boarding in the emergency department (ED) may not receive optimal sepsis care.

Objective: Assess the association between ED boarding status and sepsis quality of care and outcomes.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients admitted to a large academic hospital from July 2021 to October 2023 who had clinical features consistent with sepsis present while physically in the ED. We compared outcomes for patients who experienced time zero (T-0; the time clinical features of sepsis were first present) while boarding in the ED (physically in the ED but admitted to a different service) to those experiencing T-0 while still under the care of the ED provider team. We used logistic regression to estimate the association between ED boarding status at T-0 and compliance with the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: Management Bundle (SEP-1) core measure, individual bundle element compliance, and hospital mortality adjusting for prespecified covariates. In a subgroup analysis among patients who had not already received antibiotics before T-0, we conducted a Cox proportional hazards model to estimate the association between boarding status on time-to-antibiotics.

Results: Among 4795 patients meeting a clinical definition of sepsis in the ED, 422 (8.8%) experienced T-0 as ED boarders. These patients were similar in age, sex, and comorbidities compared with patients experiencing T-0 while still under ED care. Fewer patients with T-0 as an ED boarder received SEP-1 compliant care (25% vs. 38%, p < .001), including a lower proportion of fluid resuscitation (15% vs. 26%, p = .004) and lactate assessment (62% vs. 94%, p < .001). Overall, more patients in the ED boarder group received antibiotics within 3 hours, but one-third of patients had already received antibiotics prior to T-0. Among patients who had not already received antibiotics prior to T-0, experiencing T-0 as an ED boarder was associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving antibiotics (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.67 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.84]) and longer time to antibiotics from T-0 (142 min vs. 100 min, p = .007).

Conclusions: Sepsis patients experiencing T-0 as a boarder in the ED have a lower likelihood of receiving SEP-1 compliant care compared to patients who experience T-0 while still under ED care.

急诊科住院病人败血症的特征、临床护理和治疗效果。
背景:在急诊科(ED)寄宿期间首次达到败血症临床标准的患者可能无法获得最佳的败血症护理:评估急诊科寄宿状态与脓毒症护理质量和结果之间的关联:我们对一家大型学术医院在 2021 年 7 月至 2023 年 10 月期间收治的成人患者进行了一项回顾性队列研究,这些患者在急诊科就诊时具有符合脓毒症的临床特征。我们比较了在急诊室寄宿(实际在急诊室,但被不同的服务机构收治)时经历时间零点(T-0,脓毒症临床特征首次出现的时间)的患者与在急诊室医疗团队护理下经历时间零点的患者的治疗效果。我们使用逻辑回归法估算了T-0时的急诊室寄宿状态与美国医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心(CMS)《严重败血症和脓毒性休克:管理捆绑方案》(SEP-1)核心措施依从性、单个捆绑方案要素依从性和医院死亡率之间的关系,并对预先指定的协变量进行了调整。在对 T-0 前尚未接受抗生素治疗的患者进行的亚组分析中,我们采用了 Cox 比例危险模型来估计寄宿状态与抗生素治疗时间之间的关系:在急诊室符合脓毒症临床定义的 4795 名患者中,有 422 人(8.8%)经历了急诊室 T-0 登船。这些患者的年龄、性别和合并症与仍在急诊室接受治疗的 T-0 患者相似。在急诊室寄宿时出现 T-0 的患者接受符合 SEP-1 标准的护理的人数较少(25% 对 38%,P 结论:T-0 患者接受符合 SEP-1 标准的护理的人数较少:与仍在接受急诊室护理时出现 T-0 的患者相比,在急诊室寄宿时出现 T-0 的败血症患者接受符合 SEP-1 标准的护理的可能性较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信