Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36248316›Full record

ArticleCritical care explorations2022

Can an End-to-End Telesepsis Solution Improve the Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Management Bundle-1 Metrics for Sepsis Patients Admitted From the Emergency Department to the Hospital?

David F Gaieski, Brendan Carr, Melanie Toolan, Kimberly Ciotti, Amy Kidane, Drew Flaada, Joseph Christina, Rajesh Aggarwal

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care explorations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

David F GaieskiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA.
Brendan CarrDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Health System, New York City, NY.
Melanie ToolanJefferson Strategic Ventures, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA.
Kimberly CiottiJefferson Strategic Ventures, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA.
Amy KidaneJefferson Strategic Ventures, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA.
Drew FlaadaAmbient Clinical Analytics, Inc, Rochester, MN.
Joseph ChristinaInTouch/TelaDoc Health, Inc, Purchase, NY.
Rajesh AggarwalJefferson Strategic Ventures, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA.
Thomas Jefferson University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Early detection and treatment for sepsis patients are key components to improving sepsis care delivery and increased The Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Management Bundle (SEP-1) compliance may correlate with improved outcomes.

objectivesWe assessed the impact of implementing a partially automated end-to-end sepsis solution including electronic medical record-linked automated monitoring, early detection, around-the-clock nurse navigators, and teleconsultation, on SEP-1 compliance in patients with primary sepsis, present at admission, admitted through the emergency department (ER). DESIGN SETTING AND

participantsAfter a "surveillance only" training period between September 3, 2020, and October 5, 2020, the automated end-to-end sepsis solution intervention period occurred from October 6, 2020, to January 1, 2021 in five ERs in an academic health system. Patients who screened positive for greater than or equal to 3 sepsis screening criteria (systemic inflammatory response syndrome, quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, pulse oximetry), had evidence of infection and acute organ dysfunction, and were receiving treatment consistent with infection or sepsis were included. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: SEP-1 compliance during the "surveillance only" period compared to the intervention period.

resultsDuring the intervention period, 56,713 patients presented to the five ERs; 20,213 (35.6%) met electronic screening criteria for potential sepsis; 1,233 patients had a primary diagnosis of sepsis, present at admission, and were captured by the nurse navigators. Median age of the cohort was 68 years (interquartile range, 57-79 yr); 55.3% were male; 63.5% were White/Caucasian, 26.3% Black/African-American; was 16.7%, and 879 patients (71.3%) were presumed bacterial sepsis, nonviral etiology, and SEP-1 bundle eligible. Nurse navigator real-time classification of this group increased from 51.7% during the "surveillance only" period to 71.8% during the intervention period ( CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: During an 11-week period of sepsis screening, monitoring, and teleconsultation in 5 EDs, SEP-1 compliance improved significantly compared with institutional SEP-1 reporting metrics and to a "surveillance only" training period.

Indexed as

identificationresuscitationsepsistelemedicineThe Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Management Bundle-1time-sensitive illness

Identifiers

PMID36248316
PMCPMC9553400
OpenAlexW4304141146

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.