Outcomes of Hospitalized Patients With Sepsis Before and After Implementation of a Sepsis Care Improvement Initiative at a Community Hospital.

IF 1.1 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Journal of Pharmacy Technology Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-27 DOI:10.1177/87551225241283193
Kenneth J Richardson, Chanda L Mullen, Gretchen L Sacha, Erik M Wasowski
{"title":"Outcomes of Hospitalized Patients With Sepsis Before and After Implementation of a Sepsis Care Improvement Initiative at a Community Hospital.","authors":"Kenneth J Richardson, Chanda L Mullen, Gretchen L Sacha, Erik M Wasowski","doi":"10.1177/87551225241283193","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose:</b> Prompt treatment of sepsis and septic shock is critical as delays increase mortality risk. Various tools, such as electronic alerts, standardized order sets, and rapid response teams, are used to expedite sepsis bundled care, yet their individual effects on outcomes and antimicrobial timing are unclear. This study evaluated the impact of an Inpatient Code Sepsis protocol, featuring an overhead page and order set, on mortality in hospitalized patients with sepsis and septic shock. <b>Methods:</b> A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a 371-bed hospital from July 1, 2020, to July 31, 2023. Hospitalized adults (≥18 years) diagnosed with sepsis and septic shock before and after the Inpatient Code Sepsis protocol implementation were included. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay, 30-day readmission, and time to antibiotic administration. Patients were excluded if they were identified for sepsis without infection, had sepsis due to non-bacterial causes, lost to follow-up within 30 days of admission, received empiric antibiotics in an emergency department or outside hospital, or were missing antibiotic administration time. <b>Results:</b> A total of 138 patients were included in the analysis. Mortality within 30 days did not significantly differ preprotocol and postprotocol (<i>p</i> = 0.381). However, a significant reduction in time to antibiotic administration was noted postimplementation (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Hospital length of stay and 30-day readmission showed no significant changes. <b>Conclusion:</b> The Inpatient Code Sepsis protocol did not impact 30-day mortality but did improve the time to antibiotic administration.</p>","PeriodicalId":16796,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmacy Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11536513/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmacy Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/87551225241283193","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Prompt treatment of sepsis and septic shock is critical as delays increase mortality risk. Various tools, such as electronic alerts, standardized order sets, and rapid response teams, are used to expedite sepsis bundled care, yet their individual effects on outcomes and antimicrobial timing are unclear. This study evaluated the impact of an Inpatient Code Sepsis protocol, featuring an overhead page and order set, on mortality in hospitalized patients with sepsis and septic shock. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a 371-bed hospital from July 1, 2020, to July 31, 2023. Hospitalized adults (≥18 years) diagnosed with sepsis and septic shock before and after the Inpatient Code Sepsis protocol implementation were included. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay, 30-day readmission, and time to antibiotic administration. Patients were excluded if they were identified for sepsis without infection, had sepsis due to non-bacterial causes, lost to follow-up within 30 days of admission, received empiric antibiotics in an emergency department or outside hospital, or were missing antibiotic administration time. Results: A total of 138 patients were included in the analysis. Mortality within 30 days did not significantly differ preprotocol and postprotocol (p = 0.381). However, a significant reduction in time to antibiotic administration was noted postimplementation (p < 0.05). Hospital length of stay and 30-day readmission showed no significant changes. Conclusion: The Inpatient Code Sepsis protocol did not impact 30-day mortality but did improve the time to antibiotic administration.

一家社区医院实施败血症护理改进计划前后败血症住院患者的治疗效果。
目的:脓毒症和脓毒性休克的及时治疗至关重要,因为延误治疗会增加死亡风险。电子警报、标准化医嘱集和快速反应小组等各种工具被用于加快败血症捆绑式治疗,但它们对治疗结果和抗菌药物使用时机的影响尚不明确。本研究评估了住院病人脓毒症代码协议对脓毒症和脓毒性休克住院病人死亡率的影响,该协议的特点是采用了高架页面和医嘱集。研究方法2020 年 7 月 1 日至 2023 年 7 月 31 日,在一家拥有 371 张病床的医院开展了一项回顾性队列研究。研究纳入了在住院患者脓毒症代码协议实施前后被诊断为脓毒症和脓毒性休克的成人住院患者(≥18 岁)。主要结果是 30 天全因死亡率;次要结果是住院时间、30 天再入院率和使用抗生素的时间。如果患者被确认为无感染的败血症、非细菌原因导致的败血症、入院后 30 天内失去随访、在急诊科或医院外接受经验性抗生素治疗,或缺少抗生素用药时间,则不包括在内。研究结果共有 138 名患者纳入分析。协议前和协议后 30 天内的死亡率没有明显差异(P = 0.381)。但是,实施后抗生素用药时间明显缩短(p < 0.05)。住院时间和 30 天再入院率没有明显变化。结论:住院病人败血症代码协议并未影响 30 天死亡率,但确实缩短了使用抗生素的时间。
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
Journal of Pharmacy Technology
Journal of Pharmacy Technology PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: For both pharmacists and technicians, jPT provides valuable information for those interested in the entire body of pharmacy practice. jPT covers new drugs, products, and equipment; therapeutic trends; organizational, legal, and educational activities; drug distribution and administration; and includes continuing education articles.
×
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