A Comparison of Time to Sepsis Alert and Antibiotics in Emergency Department Patients by Language Preference

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Journal of Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2026-02-01 Epub Date: 2025-11-26 DOI:10.1016/j.jemermed.2025.11.008
Rebecca J. Schwei PHD, MPH , Christopher Shank PHD , Ryan E. Tsuchida MD , Franchesca Arias PHD , Maichou Lor RN, PHD , Manish N. Shah MD, MPH , Douglas Wiegmann PHD , Michael S. Pulia MD, PHD
{"title":"A Comparison of Time to Sepsis Alert and Antibiotics in Emergency Department Patients by Language Preference","authors":"Rebecca J. Schwei PHD, MPH ,&nbsp;Christopher Shank PHD ,&nbsp;Ryan E. Tsuchida MD ,&nbsp;Franchesca Arias PHD ,&nbsp;Maichou Lor RN, PHD ,&nbsp;Manish N. Shah MD, MPH ,&nbsp;Douglas Wiegmann PHD ,&nbsp;Michael S. Pulia MD, PHD","doi":"10.1016/j.jemermed.2025.11.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Prior studies have found increases in sepsis-related mortality among patients with non-English language preference (NELP) vs. English language preference (ELP) in the inpatient setting, even after controlling for demographic, illness severity, and clinical encounter variables. It is unclear if disparities in sepsis care extend to the emergency department.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>We compared time to sepsis alert and antibiotics between patients with NELP vs. ELP overall and by emergency severity index (ESI) subgroup.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In this retrospective observational cohort study, the independent variable was preferred language, and the dependent variables were time to sepsis alert (clinician-initiated vs. automatic) and antibiotics. We developed multivariable adjusted plus inverse probability of treatment weight (IPTW) Cox proportional hazard models.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>There were no overall differences in the time to sepsis alerts or time to antibiotic administration. In the ESI 2 subgroup, NELP patients had faster time to sepsis alert than ELP patients in clinician-initiated alerts (clinician-initiated: absolute difference: 17 min; covariate +IPTW: HR: 1.76, 99.44% CI 1.22, 2.54, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). Within the ESI 3 to 5 subgroup, among patients with a clinician-initiated alert, NELP patients had slower time to sepsis alert than ELP patients (absolute difference: 17 min; covariate +IPTW: HR: 0.64, 99.44% CI 0.44, 0.94, <em>p</em> = 0.012).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>While we found no overall differences in time to sepsis alert, there were significant differences in subgroups, suggesting that language preference may be associated with triage score assignment and sepsis recognition. The lack of differences observed in time to antibiotics underscores the potential for thoughtfully designed best practice alerts to support equitable clinical practice.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16085,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":"81 ","pages":"Pages 19-29"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S073646792500441X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/11/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Prior studies have found increases in sepsis-related mortality among patients with non-English language preference (NELP) vs. English language preference (ELP) in the inpatient setting, even after controlling for demographic, illness severity, and clinical encounter variables. It is unclear if disparities in sepsis care extend to the emergency department.

Objective

We compared time to sepsis alert and antibiotics between patients with NELP vs. ELP overall and by emergency severity index (ESI) subgroup.

Methods

In this retrospective observational cohort study, the independent variable was preferred language, and the dependent variables were time to sepsis alert (clinician-initiated vs. automatic) and antibiotics. We developed multivariable adjusted plus inverse probability of treatment weight (IPTW) Cox proportional hazard models.

Results

There were no overall differences in the time to sepsis alerts or time to antibiotic administration. In the ESI 2 subgroup, NELP patients had faster time to sepsis alert than ELP patients in clinician-initiated alerts (clinician-initiated: absolute difference: 17 min; covariate +IPTW: HR: 1.76, 99.44% CI 1.22, 2.54, p < 0.001). Within the ESI 3 to 5 subgroup, among patients with a clinician-initiated alert, NELP patients had slower time to sepsis alert than ELP patients (absolute difference: 17 min; covariate +IPTW: HR: 0.64, 99.44% CI 0.44, 0.94, p = 0.012).

Conclusion

While we found no overall differences in time to sepsis alert, there were significant differences in subgroups, suggesting that language preference may be associated with triage score assignment and sepsis recognition. The lack of differences observed in time to antibiotics underscores the potential for thoughtfully designed best practice alerts to support equitable clinical practice.
急诊科患者语言偏好对脓毒症预警时间和抗生素使用时间的比较
背景:先前的研究发现,即使在控制了人口统计学、疾病严重程度和临床遭遇变量之后,住院环境中,非英语语言偏好(NELP)患者与英语语言偏好(ELP)患者的败血症相关死亡率增加。目前尚不清楚败血症护理的差异是否延伸到急诊科。目的:通过急诊严重程度指数(ESI)亚组比较NELP与ELP患者的脓毒症预警时间和抗生素使用情况。方法:在这项回顾性观察队列研究中,自变量为首选语言,因变量为脓毒症预警时间(临床启动vs自动)和抗生素。我们建立了多变量校正加处理权重逆概率(IPTW)的Cox比例风险模型。结果:脓毒症警报时间和抗生素使用时间没有总体差异。在ESI 2亚组中,NELP患者在临床启动警报中比ELP患者有更快的脓毒症警报时间(临床启动:绝对差异:17分钟;协变量+IPTW: HR: 1.76, 99.44% CI 1.22, 2.54, p < 0.001)。在ESI 3 ~ 5亚组中,在有临床启动警报的患者中,NELP患者到脓毒症警报的时间比ELP患者慢(绝对差异:17分钟;协变量+IPTW: HR: 0.64, 99.44% CI 0.44, 0.94, p = 0.012)。结论:虽然我们没有发现脓毒症警报时间的总体差异,但在亚组中存在显著差异,这表明语言偏好可能与分诊评分分配和脓毒症识别有关。在使用抗生素的时间上没有观察到差异,这强调了精心设计最佳实践警报以支持公平临床实践的潜力。
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 Emergency Medicine
Journal of Emergency Medicine 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
6.70%
发文量
339
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Emergency Medicine is an international, peer-reviewed publication featuring original contributions of interest to both the academic and practicing emergency physician. JEM, published monthly, contains research papers and clinical studies as well as articles focusing on the training of emergency physicians and on the practice of emergency medicine. The Journal features the following sections: • Original Contributions • Clinical Communications: Pediatric, Adult, OB/GYN • Selected Topics: Toxicology, Prehospital Care, The Difficult Airway, Aeromedical Emergencies, Disaster Medicine, Cardiology Commentary, Emergency Radiology, Critical Care, Sports Medicine, Wound Care • Techniques and Procedures • Technical Tips • Clinical Laboratory in Emergency Medicine • Pharmacology in Emergency Medicine • Case Presentations of the Harvard Emergency Medicine Residency • Visual Diagnosis in Emergency Medicine • Medical Classics • Emergency Forum • Editorial(s) • Letters to the Editor • Education • Administration of Emergency Medicine • International Emergency Medicine • Computers in Emergency Medicine • Violence: Recognition, Management, and Prevention • Ethics • Humanities and Medicine • American Academy of Emergency Medicine • AAEM Medical Student Forum • Book and Other Media Reviews • Calendar of Events • Abstracts • Trauma Reports • Ultrasound in Emergency Medicine
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书