ArticleLung2011
Implementing a collaborative protocol in a sepsis intervention program: lessons learned.
Article in Lung, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early fluid bolus in adults with sepsis in the emergency department: a systematic review, meta-analysis and narrative synthesis.BMC emergency medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Sepsis and post-sepsis syndrome: a multisystem challenge requiring comprehensive care and management-a review.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Sepsis screening protocol implementation: a clinician-validated rapid realist review.BMJ open quality · 2024Review
- Sepsis recognition in the emergency department - impact on quality of care and outcome?BMC emergency medicine · 2017Article
- Early management of sepsis with emphasis on early goal directed therapy: AME evidence series 002.Journal of thoracic disease · 2017Review
- Early goal-directed therapy in severe sepsis and septic shock: insights and comparisons to ProCESS, ProMISe, and ARISE.Critical care (London, England) · 2016Review
- Utilization of Pharmacist Responders as a Component of a Multidisciplinary Sepsis Bundle.The Annals of pharmacotherapy · 2014Article
- Implementing a collaborative sepsis protocol on the time to antibiotics in an emergency department of a saudi hospital: quasi randomized study.Critical care research and practice · 2014Article
- Implementation of modified early-goal directed therapy for sepsis in the emergency center of a comprehensive cancer center.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2013Article
- Pediatric sepsis: preparing for the future against a global scourge.Current infectious disease reports · 2012Article
- Alpha7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor is a target in pharmacology and toxicology.International journal of molecular sciences · 2012Review
- Changing practice: implementation of a venous thromboembolism prophylaxis protocol at an academic medical center.Plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this prospective cohort study was to see the effect of the implementation of a Sepsis Intervention Program on the standard processes of patient care using a collaborative approach between the Emergency Department (ED) and Medical Intensive Care Unit (MICU). This was performed in a large urban tertiary-care hospital, with no previous experience utilizing a specific intervention program as routine care for septic shock and which has services and resources commonly available in most hospitals. The study included 106 patients who presented to the ED with severe sepsis or septic shock. Eighty-seven of those patients met the inclusion criteria for complete data analysis. The ED and MICU staff underwent a 3-month training period followed by implementation of a protocol for sepsis intervention program over 6 months. In the first 6 months of the program's implementation, 106 patients were admitted to the ED with severe sepsis and septic shock. During this time, the ED attempted to initiate the sepsis intervention protocol in 76% of the 87 septic patients who met the inclusion criteria. This was assessed by documentation of a central venous catheter insertion for continuous SvO(2) monitoring in a patient with sepsis or septic shock. However, only 48% of the eligible patients completed the early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) protocol. Our data showed that the in-hospital mortality rate was 30.5% for the 87 septic shock patients with a mean APACHE II score of 29. This was very similar to a landmark study of EGDT (30.5% mortality with mean APACHE II of 21.5). Data collected on processes of care showed improvements in time to fluid administration, central venous access insertion, antibiotic administration, vasopressor administration, and time to MICU transfer from ED arrival in our patients enrolled in the protocol versus those who were not. Further review of our performance data showed that processes of care improved steadily the longer the protocol was in effect, although this was not statistically significant. There was no improvement in secondary outcomes, including total length of hospital stay, MICU days, and mortality. Implementation of a sepsis intervention program as a standard of care in a typical hospital protocol leads to improvements in processes of care. However, despite a collaborative approach, the sepsis intervention program was underutilized with only 48% of the patients completing the sepsis intervention protocol.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.