当前欧洲急诊科败血症管理实践:isg -急诊科欧洲调查

IF 4.2 4区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
European Journal of Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-07-11 DOI:10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001255
Myrto Bolanaki, Lisa Kurland, Mikkel Brabrand, Ron Daniels, Kiren Govender, Frank Hanses, Francesca Innocenti, Annmarie Lassen, Ignacio Martin-Loeches, Martin Möckel
{"title":"当前欧洲急诊科败血症管理实践:isg -急诊科欧洲调查","authors":"Myrto Bolanaki, Lisa Kurland, Mikkel Brabrand, Ron Daniels, Kiren Govender, Frank Hanses, Francesca Innocenti, Annmarie Lassen, Ignacio Martin-Loeches, Martin Möckel","doi":"10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001255","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Emergency departments (EDs) are often the first point of contact for patients with sepsis, and therefore play a critical role in early recognition and treatment. However, the extent to which sepsis guidelines are implemented across EDs in Europe remains unclear, and variability in adherence may impact patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to assess current sepsis management practices in European EDs, evaluate adherence to international guidelines, and identify key challenges limiting effective implementation.</p><p><strong>Methods and design: </strong>A structured survey was developed by sepsis experts from the European Society for Emergency Medicine (EUSEM). The questionnaire included both quantitative and open-ended items and underwent iterative refinement through pilot testing to ensure clarity and relevance.</p><p><strong>Settings and participants: </strong>The survey was distributed to EUSEM members and national emergency medicine societies across Europe. Respondents included medical directors or designated sepsis specialists, with only one response requested per ED.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 402 EDs from 28 European countries participated in the survey. While most EDs (72.5%) reported having a sepsis protocol in place, less than half implemented regular monitoring or structured training measures. The 1-h sepsis bundle was described as moderately to highly challenging to implement by the majority of the respondents; just over half (55%) reported completing all its elements within 1 h of ED presentation. Key barriers included high patient volumes, insufficient staffing, and lack of standardized sepsis definitions, leading to delays in recognition and treatment. The results also highlighted concerns regarding increased broad-spectrum antibiotic use following the implementation of the 1-h bundle, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that considers antimicrobial stewardship.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This survey establishes a benchmark for understanding sepsis management practices in European EDs, identifying substantial variations and challenges. Areas for improvement include enhanced training to follow protocols, improved monitoring systems that measure protocol adherence, and alignment with evidence-based guidelines.</p>","PeriodicalId":11893,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"368-376"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12382737/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Current sepsis management practices in European emergency departments: the ISG-emergency department European Survey.\",\"authors\":\"Myrto Bolanaki, Lisa Kurland, Mikkel Brabrand, Ron Daniels, Kiren Govender, Frank Hanses, Francesca Innocenti, Annmarie Lassen, Ignacio Martin-Loeches, Martin Möckel\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001255\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Emergency departments (EDs) are often the first point of contact for patients with sepsis, and therefore play a critical role in early recognition and treatment. However, the extent to which sepsis guidelines are implemented across EDs in Europe remains unclear, and variability in adherence may impact patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to assess current sepsis management practices in European EDs, evaluate adherence to international guidelines, and identify key challenges limiting effective implementation.</p><p><strong>Methods and design: </strong>A structured survey was developed by sepsis experts from the European Society for Emergency Medicine (EUSEM). The questionnaire included both quantitative and open-ended items and underwent iterative refinement through pilot testing to ensure clarity and relevance.</p><p><strong>Settings and participants: </strong>The survey was distributed to EUSEM members and national emergency medicine societies across Europe. Respondents included medical directors or designated sepsis specialists, with only one response requested per ED.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 402 EDs from 28 European countries participated in the survey. While most EDs (72.5%) reported having a sepsis protocol in place, less than half implemented regular monitoring or structured training measures. The 1-h sepsis bundle was described as moderately to highly challenging to implement by the majority of the respondents; just over half (55%) reported completing all its elements within 1 h of ED presentation. Key barriers included high patient volumes, insufficient staffing, and lack of standardized sepsis definitions, leading to delays in recognition and treatment. The results also highlighted concerns regarding increased broad-spectrum antibiotic use following the implementation of the 1-h bundle, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that considers antimicrobial stewardship.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This survey establishes a benchmark for understanding sepsis management practices in European EDs, identifying substantial variations and challenges. Areas for improvement include enhanced training to follow protocols, improved monitoring systems that measure protocol adherence, and alignment with evidence-based guidelines.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11893,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"368-376\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12382737/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001255\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001255","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:急诊科(EDs)通常是脓毒症患者的第一接触点,因此在早期识别和治疗中起着至关重要的作用。然而,败血症指南在欧洲急诊科的实施程度尚不清楚,依从性的差异可能会影响患者的预后。目的:本研究旨在评估欧洲急诊科目前的脓毒症管理实践,评估国际指南的遵守情况,并确定限制有效实施的关键挑战。方法和设计:欧洲急诊医学学会(EUSEM)的败血症专家进行了一项结构化调查。调查问卷包括定量和开放式项目,并通过试点测试进行反复改进,以确保清晰度和相关性。环境和参与者:该调查已分发给欧洲应急医学委员会成员和欧洲各国急诊医学协会。受访者包括医疗主任或指定的败血症专家,每个ed只要求一个答复。结果:来自28个欧洲国家的402名ed参与了调查。虽然大多数急诊科(72.5%)报告有败血症方案,但不到一半的急诊科实施了定期监测或结构化培训措施。1-h脓毒症治疗包被大多数应答者描述为中度到高度具有挑战性;超过一半(55%)的学生报告在ED演示的1小时内完成了所有内容。主要障碍包括患者数量大、人员不足和缺乏标准化的败血症定义,导致识别和治疗的延误。结果还强调了对实施1-h束后广谱抗生素使用增加的担忧,强调需要一种考虑抗菌药物管理的平衡方法。结论:本调查为了解欧洲急诊科败血症管理实践建立了基准,确定了实质性的变化和挑战。需要改进的领域包括加强遵守协议的培训,改进衡量协议遵守情况的监测系统,并与循证指南保持一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Current sepsis management practices in European emergency departments: the ISG-emergency department European Survey.

Current sepsis management practices in European emergency departments: the ISG-emergency department European Survey.

Current sepsis management practices in European emergency departments: the ISG-emergency department European Survey.

Current sepsis management practices in European emergency departments: the ISG-emergency department European Survey.

Background: Emergency departments (EDs) are often the first point of contact for patients with sepsis, and therefore play a critical role in early recognition and treatment. However, the extent to which sepsis guidelines are implemented across EDs in Europe remains unclear, and variability in adherence may impact patient outcomes.

Objective: This study aimed to assess current sepsis management practices in European EDs, evaluate adherence to international guidelines, and identify key challenges limiting effective implementation.

Methods and design: A structured survey was developed by sepsis experts from the European Society for Emergency Medicine (EUSEM). The questionnaire included both quantitative and open-ended items and underwent iterative refinement through pilot testing to ensure clarity and relevance.

Settings and participants: The survey was distributed to EUSEM members and national emergency medicine societies across Europe. Respondents included medical directors or designated sepsis specialists, with only one response requested per ED.

Results: A total of 402 EDs from 28 European countries participated in the survey. While most EDs (72.5%) reported having a sepsis protocol in place, less than half implemented regular monitoring or structured training measures. The 1-h sepsis bundle was described as moderately to highly challenging to implement by the majority of the respondents; just over half (55%) reported completing all its elements within 1 h of ED presentation. Key barriers included high patient volumes, insufficient staffing, and lack of standardized sepsis definitions, leading to delays in recognition and treatment. The results also highlighted concerns regarding increased broad-spectrum antibiotic use following the implementation of the 1-h bundle, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that considers antimicrobial stewardship.

Conclusion: This survey establishes a benchmark for understanding sepsis management practices in European EDs, identifying substantial variations and challenges. Areas for improvement include enhanced training to follow protocols, improved monitoring systems that measure protocol adherence, and alignment with evidence-based guidelines.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
27.30%
发文量
180
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Emergency Medicine is the official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine. It is devoted to serving the European emergency medicine community and to promoting European standards of training, diagnosis and care in this rapidly growing field. Published bimonthly, the Journal offers original papers on all aspects of acute injury and sudden illness, including: emergency medicine, anaesthesiology, cardiology, disaster medicine, intensive care, internal medicine, orthopaedics, paediatrics, toxicology and trauma care. It addresses issues on the organization of emergency services in hospitals and in the community and examines postgraduate training from European and global perspectives. The Journal also publishes papers focusing on the different models of emergency healthcare delivery in Europe and beyond. With a multidisciplinary approach, the European Journal of Emergency Medicine publishes scientific research, topical reviews, news of meetings and events of interest to the emergency medicine community. Submitted articles undergo a preliminary review by the editor. Some articles may be returned to authors without further consideration. Those being considered for publication will undergo further assessment and peer-review by the editors and those invited to do so from a reviewer pool. ​
×
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