ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2021
A simple measure to improve sepsis documentation and coding.
Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2021. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSepsis incidence and mortality are increasing, yet sepsis appears to be under-recognised and under-reported. Accurate recognition and coding of sepsis allows for appropriate funding and accurate epidemiological representation.
methodsWe implemented a discharge summary template for all patients discharged from our infectious diseases service and analysed sepsis documentation and coding before and after its introduction.
resultsBeforehand, we found that 59% of 29 patients had sepsis, yet only 10% had it documented on their discharge summary, and 17% had it coded. Following implementation of the template, 38% of 52 patients had sepsis documented, yet only 20% of these had it coded. After delivery of a training session to the coders regarding the importance of sepsis, 38% of patients with a diagnosis of sepsis had it coded. DISCUSSION: Despite requiring ongoing education and encouragement of clinicians and coders, implementation of the template was quick, cheap and easy and improved sepsis coding.
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.