scholarly journals Prognostic significance of body temperature in the emergency department vs the ICU in Patients with severe sepsis or septic shock: A nationwide cohort study

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. e0243990
Author(s):  
Malin Inghammar ◽  
Jonas Sunden-Cullberg

Background Increased body temperature in the Emergency Department (BT-ED) and the ICU (BT-ICU) is associated with lower mortality in patients with sepsis. Here, we compared how well BT-ED and BT-ICU predict mortality; investigated mortality in various combinations of BT-ED and BT-ICU, and; compared degree of fever in the ED and ICU and associated quality of care. Methods 2385 adults who were admitted to an ICU within 24 hours of ED arrival with severe sepsis or septic shock were included. Results Thirty-day mortality was 23.6%. Median BT-ED and BT-ICU was 38.1 and 37.6°C. Crude mortality decreased more than 5% points per°C increase for both BT-ED and BT-ICU. Adjusted OR for mortality was 0.82/°C increase for BT-ED (0.76–0.88, p < 0.001), and 0.89 for BT-ICU (0.83–0.95, p<0.001). Patients who were at/below median temperature in both the ED and in the ICU had the highest mortality, 32%, and those with over median in the ED and at/below in the ICU had the lowest, 16%, (p<0.001). Women had 0.2°C lower median BT-ED (p = 0.03) and 0.3°C lower BT-ICU (p<0.0001) than men. Older patients had lower BT in the ICU, but not in the ED. Fever was associated with a higher rate of sepsis bundle achievement in the ED, but lower nurse workload in the ICU. Conclusions BT-ED was more useful to prognosticate mortality than BT-ICU. Despite better prognosis in patients with elevated BT, fever was associated with higher quality of care in the ED. Future studies should assess how BT-ED can be used to improve triage of infected patients, assigning higher priority to patients with low-grade/no fever and vice versa. Patients with at/below median BT in both ED and ICU have the highest mortality and should receive special attention. Different BT according to sex and age also needs further study.

Author(s):  
Seitaro Fujishima ◽  
Satoshi Gando ◽  
Daizo Saito ◽  
Toshihiko Mayumi ◽  
Shigeki Kushimoto ◽  
...  

2022 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e001624
Author(s):  
Nicholus Michael Warstadt ◽  
J Reed Caldwell ◽  
Nicole Tang ◽  
Staci Mandola ◽  
Catherine Jamin ◽  
...  

IntroductionSepsis is a common cause of emergency department (ED) presentation and hospital admission, accounting for a disproportionate number of deaths each year relative to its incidence. Sepsis outcomes have improved with increased recognition and treatment standards promoted by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign. Due to delay in recognition and other barriers, sepsis bundle compliance remains low nationally. We hypothesised that a targeted education intervention regarding use of an electronic health record (EHR) tool for identification and management of sepsis would lead to increased EHR tool utilisation and increased sepsis bundle compliance.MethodsWe created a multidisciplinary quality improvement team to provide training and feedback on EHR tool utilisation within our ED. A prospective evaluation of the rate of EHR tool utilisation was monitored from June through December 2020. Simultaneously, we conducted two retrospective cohort studies comparing overall sepsis bundle compliance for patients when EHR tool was used versus not used. The first cohort was all patients with intention-to-treat for any sepsis severity. The second cohort of patients included adult patients with time of recognition of sepsis in the ED admitted with a diagnosis of severe sepsis or septic shock.ResultsEHR tool utilisation increased from 23.3% baseline prior to intervention to 87.2% during the study. In the intention-to-treat cohort, there was a statistically significant difference in compliance between EHR tool utilisation versus no utilisation in overall bundle compliance (p<0.001) and for several individual components: initial lactate (p=0.009), repeat lactate (p=0.001), timely antibiotics (p=0.031), blood cultures before antibiotics (p=0.001), initial fluid bolus (p<0.001) and fluid reassessment (p<0.001). In the severe sepsis and septic shock cohort, EHR tool use increased from 71.2% pre-intervention to 85.0% post-intervention (p=0.008).ConclusionWith training, feedback and EHR optimisation, an EHR tool can be successfully integrated into current workflows and appears to increase sepsis bundle compliance.


2006 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carin Franzén ◽  
Ulf Björnstig ◽  
Christine Bruhlin ◽  
Lilian Jansson ◽  
Hans Stenlund

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document