ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2023
Recognition and Management of Hospital-Acquired Sepsis Among Older General Medical Inpatients: A Multi-Site Retrospective Study.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2023. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Achieving large-scale clinician adoption of AI-enabled decision support.BMJ health & care informatics · 2024Article
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
Purpose: To assess accuracy of early diagnosis, appropriateness and timeliness of response, and clinical outcomes of older general medical inpatients with hospital-acquired sepsis. Methods: Hospital abstracts of inpatient encounters from seven digital Queensland public hospitals between July 2018 and September 2020 were screened retrospectively for diagnoses of hospital-acquired sepsis. Electronic medical records were retrieved and cases meeting selection criteria and classified as confirmed or probable sepsis using pre-specified criteria were included. Investigations and treatments following the first digitally generated alert of clinical deterioration were compared with a best practice sepsis care bundle. Outcome measures comprised 30-day all-cause mortality after deterioration, and unplanned readmissions at 14 days after discharge. Results: Of the 169 screened care episodes, 59 comprised probable or confirmed cases of sepsis treated by general medicine teams at the time of initial deterioration. Of these, 43 (72.9%) had no mention of sepsis in the differential diagnosis on first medical review, and only 38 (64%) were managed as having sepsis. Each care bundle component of blood cultures, serum lactate, and intravenous fluid resuscitation and antibiotics was only delivered in approximately 30% of cases, and antibiotic administration was delayed more than an hour in 28 of 38 (73.7%) cases. Conclusion: Early recognition of sepsis and timely implementation of care bundles are challenging in older general medical patients. Education programs in sepsis care standards targeting nurses and junior medical staff, closer patient monitoring, and post-discharge follow-up may improve patient outcomes.
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.