ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2025
Digital innovation in healthcare: quantifying the impact of digital sepsis screening tools on patient outcomes-a multi-site natural experiment.
Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 2025. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe National Health Service (NHS) 'move to digital' incorporating electronic patient record systems (EPR) facilitates the translation of paper-based screening tools into digital systems, including digital sepsis alerts. We evaluated the impact of sepsis screening tools on in-patient 30-day mortality across four multi-hospital NHS Trusts, each using a different algorithm for early detection of sepsis.
methodsUsing quasi-experimental methods, we investigated the impact of the screening tools. Individual-level EPR data for 718 000 patients between 2010 and 2020 were extracted to assess the impact on a target cohort and control cohort using interrupted time series analysis, based on a binomial regression model. We included one Trust which uses a paper-based screening tool to compare the impact of digital and paper-based interventions, and one Trust which did not introduce a sepsis screening tool, but did introduce an EPR.
resultsAll Trusts had lower odds of mortality, between 5% and 12%, after the introduction of the sepsis screening tool, before adjustment for pre-existing trends or patient casemix. After adjustment for existing trends, there was a significant reduction in mortality in two of the three Trusts which introduced sepsis screening tools. We also observed age-specific effects across Trusts.
conclusionOur findings confirm that patients with similar profiles have a lower mortality risk, consistent with our previous work. This study, conducted across multiple NHS Trusts, suggests that alerts could be tailored to specific patient groups based on age-related effects. Different Trusts may require unique indicators, thresholds, actions and treatments. Including additional EPR information could further enhance personalised care.
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.