Does Being Transported by Emergency Medical Services Improve Compliance with the Surviving Sepsis Bundle and Mortality Rate? A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Acute care
basic ambulance care
clinical management
critical care transport
emergency department
prehospital care
Journal
Journal of epidemiology and global health
ISSN: 2210-6014
Titre abrégé: J Epidemiol Glob Health
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101592084
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2020
12 2020
Historique:
received:
23
08
2019
accepted:
11
12
2019
pubmed:
23
9
2020
medline:
24
8
2021
entrez:
22
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study aimed to investigate the relationship between patients with severe sepsis or septic shock being transported to the Emergency Department (ED) by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and the compliance with the 3-h sepsis resuscitation bundle [Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC)], and to compare the management and laboratory results of patients transported by EMS or non-EMS transport. A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from a quality-improvement project at King Abdulaziz Medical City in Riyadh. The data for patients who presented to ED with sepsis (severe sepsis or septic shock) was categorized as being transported with EMS or non-EMS. The two groups were compared in terms of compliance with the SSC bundle and 30-day mortality. In a sample of 436 patients with severe sepsis or septic shock presented at the ED during the study period, EMS transported almost one-third of the patients (134, 31%) and 302 patients (69%) used non-EMS transport. For the EMS group, adherence to intravenous fluid was 91.4% compared with 87% for the non-EMS group ( Whether transported with or without EMS did not result in a statistically significant difference in patients presenting with sepsis, in terms of the adherence to the SSC bundle elements or the 30-day hospital mortality rate. The only statistically significant difference was the time to lactate measurement.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to investigate the relationship between patients with severe sepsis or septic shock being transported to the Emergency Department (ED) by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and the compliance with the 3-h sepsis resuscitation bundle [Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC)], and to compare the management and laboratory results of patients transported by EMS or non-EMS transport.
METHODS
A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from a quality-improvement project at King Abdulaziz Medical City in Riyadh. The data for patients who presented to ED with sepsis (severe sepsis or septic shock) was categorized as being transported with EMS or non-EMS. The two groups were compared in terms of compliance with the SSC bundle and 30-day mortality.
RESULTS
In a sample of 436 patients with severe sepsis or septic shock presented at the ED during the study period, EMS transported almost one-third of the patients (134, 31%) and 302 patients (69%) used non-EMS transport. For the EMS group, adherence to intravenous fluid was 91.4% compared with 87% for the non-EMS group (
CONCLUSION
Whether transported with or without EMS did not result in a statistically significant difference in patients presenting with sepsis, in terms of the adherence to the SSC bundle elements or the 30-day hospital mortality rate. The only statistically significant difference was the time to lactate measurement.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32959607
pii: jegh.k.191215.001
doi: 10.2991/jegh.k.191215.001
pmc: PMC7758847
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
276-279Informations de copyright
© 2019 Atlantis Press International B.V.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.
Références
CJEM. 2017 Jul;19(S2):S18-S27
pubmed: 28756800
Crit Care Med. 2017 May;45(5):759-765
pubmed: 28234754
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jun 8;376(23):2235-2244
pubmed: 28528569
J Crit Care. 2010 Dec;25(4):553-62
pubmed: 20381301
Crit Care Med. 2013 Feb;41(2):580-637
pubmed: 23353941
Crit Care. 2014 Sep 27;18(5):533
pubmed: 25260233
Crit Care Med. 2006 Jun;34(6):1589-96
pubmed: 16625125
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2017 May-Jun;21(3):291-300
pubmed: 27918869
Eur J Neurol. 2014 Oct;21(10):1344-7
pubmed: 24471796
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012 Dec 15;186(12):1264-71
pubmed: 23087028
Crit Care Med. 2004 Jul;32(7):1588-97
pubmed: 15241106
Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2017 Feb;35(1):175-183
pubmed: 27908332
Acad Emerg Med. 2011 Sep;18(9):934-40
pubmed: 21883637
Lancet Respir Med. 2018 Jan;6(1):40-50
pubmed: 29196046
JAMA. 2014 Apr 2;311(13):1308-16
pubmed: 24638143
CMAJ. 2008 Apr 22;178(9):1141-52
pubmed: 18427089
Crit Care. 2016 Jan 09;20:4
pubmed: 26747085
J Emerg Med. 2013 Jun;44(6):1116-25
pubmed: 23321295
Lancet Infect Dis. 2012 Dec;12(12):919-24
pubmed: 23103175
West J Emerg Med. 2016 Jul;17(4):427-37
pubmed: 27429693
Crit Care Med. 2015 Sep;43(9):1907-15
pubmed: 26121073
Emerg Med J. 2016 Jun;33(6):408-13
pubmed: 26864327
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2018 Feb/Mar;19(2):117-125
pubmed: 29447109
Circulation. 2009 Feb 10;119(5):728-34
pubmed: 19171854
Crit Care Med. 2014 Mar;42(3):625-31
pubmed: 24201173
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2010 Apr-Jun;14(2):145-52
pubmed: 20199228