Effect of a tailored sepsis treatment protocol on patient outcomes in the Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital, Ethiopia: results of an interrupted time series analysis.

Lisa M Puchalski Ritchie, Lemlem Beza, Finot Debebe, Andualem Wubetie, Kathleen Gamble, Gerald Lebovic, Sharon E Straus, Tigist Zewdu, Aklilu Azazh, Cheryl Hunchak, Megan Landes, Dawit Kebebe Huluka
{"title":"Effect of a tailored sepsis treatment protocol on patient outcomes in the Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital, Ethiopia: results of an interrupted time series analysis.","authors":"Lisa M Puchalski Ritchie,&nbsp;Lemlem Beza,&nbsp;Finot Debebe,&nbsp;Andualem Wubetie,&nbsp;Kathleen Gamble,&nbsp;Gerald Lebovic,&nbsp;Sharon E Straus,&nbsp;Tigist Zewdu,&nbsp;Aklilu Azazh,&nbsp;Cheryl Hunchak,&nbsp;Megan Landes,&nbsp;Dawit Kebebe Huluka","doi":"10.1186/s13012-022-01221-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite improvement, sepsis mortality rates remain high, with an estimated 11 million sepsis-related deaths globally in 2017 (Rudd et. al, Lancet 395:200-211, 2020). Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are estimated to account for 85% of global sepsis mortality; however, evidence for improved sepsis mortality in LMICs is lacking. We aimed to improve sepsis care and outcomes through development and evaluation of a sepsis treatment protocol tailored to the Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital Emergency Department, Ethiopia, context.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We employed a mixed methods design, including an interrupted times series study, pre-post knowledge testing, and process evaluation. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients receiving appropriate sepsis care (blood culture collection before antibiotics and initiation of appropriate antibiotics within 1 h of assessment). Secondary outcomes included time to antibiotic administration, 72-h sepsis mortality, and 90-day all-cause mortality. Due to poor documentation, we were unable to assess our primary outcome and time to antibiotic administration. We used segmented regression with outcomes as binomial proportions to assess the impact of the intervention on mortality. Pre-post knowledge test scores were analyzed using the Student's t-test to compare group means for percentage of scenarios with correct diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 113 and 300 patients were enrolled in the pre-implementation and post-implementation phases respectively. While age and gender were similar across the phases, a higher proportion (31 vs. 57%) of patients had malignancies in the post-implementation phase. We found a significant change in trend between the phases, with a trend for increasing odds of survival in the pre-implementation phase (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.98-1.56), and a shift down, with odds of survival virtually flat (OR 0.95, 95% CI. 0.88-1.03) in the post-implementation phases for 72-h mortality, and trends for survival pre- and post-implementation are virtually flat for 90-day mortality. We found no significant difference in pre-post knowledge test scores, with interpretation limited by response rate. Implementation quality was negatively impacted by resource challenges.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found no improvement in sepsis outcomes, with a trend for increasing odds of survival lost post-implementation and no significant change in knowledge pre- and post-implementation. Variable availability of resources was the principal barrier to implementation.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Open Science Framework osf.io/ju4ga . Registered June 28, 2017.</p>","PeriodicalId":417097,"journal":{"name":"Implementation Science : IS","volume":" ","pages":"45"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9295292/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation Science : IS","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01221-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: Despite improvement, sepsis mortality rates remain high, with an estimated 11 million sepsis-related deaths globally in 2017 (Rudd et. al, Lancet 395:200-211, 2020). Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are estimated to account for 85% of global sepsis mortality; however, evidence for improved sepsis mortality in LMICs is lacking. We aimed to improve sepsis care and outcomes through development and evaluation of a sepsis treatment protocol tailored to the Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital Emergency Department, Ethiopia, context.

Methods: We employed a mixed methods design, including an interrupted times series study, pre-post knowledge testing, and process evaluation. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients receiving appropriate sepsis care (blood culture collection before antibiotics and initiation of appropriate antibiotics within 1 h of assessment). Secondary outcomes included time to antibiotic administration, 72-h sepsis mortality, and 90-day all-cause mortality. Due to poor documentation, we were unable to assess our primary outcome and time to antibiotic administration. We used segmented regression with outcomes as binomial proportions to assess the impact of the intervention on mortality. Pre-post knowledge test scores were analyzed using the Student's t-test to compare group means for percentage of scenarios with correct diagnosis.

Results: A total of 113 and 300 patients were enrolled in the pre-implementation and post-implementation phases respectively. While age and gender were similar across the phases, a higher proportion (31 vs. 57%) of patients had malignancies in the post-implementation phase. We found a significant change in trend between the phases, with a trend for increasing odds of survival in the pre-implementation phase (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.98-1.56), and a shift down, with odds of survival virtually flat (OR 0.95, 95% CI. 0.88-1.03) in the post-implementation phases for 72-h mortality, and trends for survival pre- and post-implementation are virtually flat for 90-day mortality. We found no significant difference in pre-post knowledge test scores, with interpretation limited by response rate. Implementation quality was negatively impacted by resource challenges.

Conclusion: We found no improvement in sepsis outcomes, with a trend for increasing odds of survival lost post-implementation and no significant change in knowledge pre- and post-implementation. Variable availability of resources was the principal barrier to implementation.

Trial registration: Open Science Framework osf.io/ju4ga . Registered June 28, 2017.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

埃塞俄比亚Tikur Anbessa专科医院定制脓毒症治疗方案对患者预后的影响:中断时间序列分析的结果
背景:尽管有所改善,但败血症死亡率仍然很高,2017年全球估计有1100万例败血症相关死亡(Rudd et. al, Lancet 395:200- 21,2020)。据估计,低收入和中等收入国家占全球败血症死亡率的85%;然而,缺乏证据表明中低收入国家败血症死亡率有所改善。我们旨在通过制定和评估针对埃塞俄比亚Tikur Anbessa专科医院急诊科量身定制的败血症治疗方案来改善败血症护理和结果。方法:采用混合方法设计,包括中断时间序列研究、前后知识测试和过程评价。主要结局是接受适当脓毒症护理的患者比例(在使用抗生素前采集血培养并在评估后1小时内开始使用适当的抗生素)。次要结局包括抗生素给药时间、72小时脓毒症死亡率和90天全因死亡率。由于缺乏文献资料,我们无法评估我们的主要结果和抗生素使用的时间。我们使用分段回归,以二项比例来评估干预对死亡率的影响。使用学生t检验对前后知识测试分数进行分析,以比较正确诊断情景百分比的组均值。结果:实施前和实施后分别入组113例和300例患者。虽然各阶段患者的年龄和性别相似,但在实施后阶段出现恶性肿瘤的比例较高(31%对57%)。我们发现各阶段之间的趋势有显著变化,实施前阶段的生存几率呈增加趋势(OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.98-1.56),而下降趋势,生存几率几乎持平(OR 0.95, 95% CI)。0.88-1.03)的72小时死亡率在实施后阶段,90天死亡率在实施前和实施后阶段的生存趋势基本持平。我们发现前后知识测试分数没有显著差异,解释受回复率限制。实施质量受到资源挑战的负面影响。结论:我们发现脓毒症的结局没有改善,实施后生存损失的几率有增加的趋势,实施前后的知识没有显著变化。资源的可得性变化是执行的主要障碍。试验注册:开放科学框架osf。io / ju4ga。2017年6月28日注册。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信