ArticleJournal of acute medicine2017
Emergency Physician Compliance with Quality Indicators of Septic Shock and Severe Sepsis in Eastern Taiwanese Community Hospital.
Article in Journal of acute medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic value of hemodynamic indices in patients with sepsis after fluid resuscitation.World journal of clinical cases · 2021Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA retrospective review was conducted, examining patient charts at a community hospital in Eastern Taiwan during a 2-year period, from April 2013 to March 2015.
aimsThe goal was assessment of adherence to quality indicators (QIs) in septic shock and severe sepsis (4S status) by emergency physicians (EPs).
methodsBased on the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines, data was electronically retrieved from the Hospital Information System (HIS); and beginning in April 2014, our staff was regularly educated on this topic during monthly meetings. A Sepsis Bundle Care Set (SBCS) was also launched in September 2014. The Chi-square post hoc test was utilized in statistical analysis, setting signifi cance at p < 0.05. In patients with septic shock (n = 81) or severe sepsis (n = 572), QIs before and after educational initiatives were 36 vs. 45 and 259 vs. 313, respectively.
resultsIn terms of septic shock, QIs that improved signifi cantly after education were C-reactive protein (CRP: 66.67% vs. 91.11%), arterial blood gas (ABG: 58.33% vs. 80.00%), and intravenous (IV)-fluid infusion rate (0.00% vs. 40.00%). QIs that significantly improved in the context of severe sepsis were CRP (59.46% vs. 84.66%), serum lactate (75.68% vs. 86.26%), intensive care unit (ICU) admission within 4 hours (72.97% vs. 81.79%), and IV-fluid infusion rate (0.00% vs. 18.85%). In comparing QI adherence rates by educational period subsets, two-set IV line showed signifi cant improvement after 7 months of education, and admission to ICU within 4 hours after 4 months of education. However, most QIs associated with severe sepsis (except serum lactate and antibiotic given in 1 hour) showed signifi cant improvement after 3 months of education.
conclusionsWe concluded that there is much room to improve QI adherence rates in patients with 4S status, using educational initiatives.
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.