Physician documentation of sepsis syndrome is associated with more aggressive treatment

Lisa R Stoneking, John P. Winkler, Lawrence A. DeLuca, Uwe Stolz, Aaron Stutz, Jenifer C. Luman, Michael Gaub, Donna Wolk, Albert B. Fiorello, Kurt R Denninghoff

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: Timely recognition and treatment of sepsis improves survival. The objective is to examine the association between recognition of sepsis and timeliness of treatments. Methods: We identified a retrospective cohort of emergency department (ED) patients with positive blood cultures from May 2007 to January 2009, and reviewed vital signs, imaging, laboratory data, and physician/nursing charts. Patients who met systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria and had evidence of infection available to the treating clinician at the time of the encounter were classified as having sepsis. Patients were dichotomized as RECOGNIZED if sepsis was explicitly articulated in the patient record or if a sepsis order set was launched, or as UNRECOGNIZED if neither of these two criteria were met. We used median regression to compare time to antibiotic administration and total volume of fluid resuscitation between groups, controlling for age, sex, and sepsis severity. Results: SIRS criteria were present in 228/315 (72.4%) cases. Our record review identified sepsis syndromes in 214 (67.9%) cases of which 118 (55.1%) had sepsis, 64 (29.9%) had severe sepsis, and 32 (15.0%) had septic shock. The treating team contemplated sepsis (RECOGNIZED) in 123 (57.6%) patients. Compared to the UNRECOGNIZED group, the RECOGNIZED group had a higher use of antibiotics in the ED (91.9 vs.75.8%, p=0.002), more patients aged 60 years or older (56.9 vs. 33.0%, p=0.001), and more severe cases (septic shock: 18.7 vs. 9.9%, severe sepsis: 39.0 vs.17.6%, sepsis: 42.3 vs.72.5%; p<0.001). The median time to antibiotic (minutes) was lower in the RECOGNIZED (142) versus UNRECOGNIZED (229) group, with an adjusted median difference of-74 minutes (95% CI [-128 to-19]). The median total volume of fluid resuscitation (mL) was higher in the RECOGNIZED (1,600 mL) compared to the UNRECOGNIZED (1,000 mL) group. However, the adjusted median difference was not statistically significant: 262 mL (95% CI [-171 to 694 mL]). Conclusion: Patients whose emergency physicians articulated sepsis syndrome in their documentation or who launched the sepsis order set received antibiotics sooner and received more total volume of fluid. Age <60 and absence of fever are factors associated with lack of recognition of sepsis cases.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)401-407
Number of pages7
JournalWestern Journal of Emergency Medicine
Volume16
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2015

Fingerprint

Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome
Documentation
Sepsis
Physicians
Therapeutics
Anti-Bacterial Agents
Septic Shock
Resuscitation
Hospital Emergency Service
Vital Signs

Keywords

  • Differential Diagnosis
  • Documentation
  • Emergency Department
  • Sepsis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

Physician documentation of sepsis syndrome is associated with more aggressive treatment. / Stoneking, Lisa R; Winkler, John P.; DeLuca, Lawrence A.; Stolz, Uwe; Stutz, Aaron; Luman, Jenifer C.; Gaub, Michael; Wolk, Donna; Fiorello, Albert B.; Denninghoff, Kurt R.

In: Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 16, No. 3, 01.05.2015, p. 401-407.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Stoneking, Lisa R ; Winkler, John P. ; DeLuca, Lawrence A. ; Stolz, Uwe ; Stutz, Aaron ; Luman, Jenifer C. ; Gaub, Michael ; Wolk, Donna ; Fiorello, Albert B. ; Denninghoff, Kurt R. / Physician documentation of sepsis syndrome is associated with more aggressive treatment. In: Western Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2015 ; Vol. 16, No. 3. pp. 401-407.
@article{64b23dd260284db89524617ddf38f637,
title = "Physician documentation of sepsis syndrome is associated with more aggressive treatment",
abstract = "Introduction: Timely recognition and treatment of sepsis improves survival. The objective is to examine the association between recognition of sepsis and timeliness of treatments. Methods: We identified a retrospective cohort of emergency department (ED) patients with positive blood cultures from May 2007 to January 2009, and reviewed vital signs, imaging, laboratory data, and physician/nursing charts. Patients who met systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria and had evidence of infection available to the treating clinician at the time of the encounter were classified as having sepsis. Patients were dichotomized as RECOGNIZED if sepsis was explicitly articulated in the patient record or if a sepsis order set was launched, or as UNRECOGNIZED if neither of these two criteria were met. We used median regression to compare time to antibiotic administration and total volume of fluid resuscitation between groups, controlling for age, sex, and sepsis severity. Results: SIRS criteria were present in 228/315 (72.4{\%}) cases. Our record review identified sepsis syndromes in 214 (67.9{\%}) cases of which 118 (55.1{\%}) had sepsis, 64 (29.9{\%}) had severe sepsis, and 32 (15.0{\%}) had septic shock. The treating team contemplated sepsis (RECOGNIZED) in 123 (57.6{\%}) patients. Compared to the UNRECOGNIZED group, the RECOGNIZED group had a higher use of antibiotics in the ED (91.9 vs.75.8{\%}, p=0.002), more patients aged 60 years or older (56.9 vs. 33.0{\%}, p=0.001), and more severe cases (septic shock: 18.7 vs. 9.9{\%}, severe sepsis: 39.0 vs.17.6{\%}, sepsis: 42.3 vs.72.5{\%}; p<0.001). The median time to antibiotic (minutes) was lower in the RECOGNIZED (142) versus UNRECOGNIZED (229) group, with an adjusted median difference of-74 minutes (95{\%} CI [-128 to-19]). The median total volume of fluid resuscitation (mL) was higher in the RECOGNIZED (1,600 mL) compared to the UNRECOGNIZED (1,000 mL) group. However, the adjusted median difference was not statistically significant: 262 mL (95{\%} CI [-171 to 694 mL]). Conclusion: Patients whose emergency physicians articulated sepsis syndrome in their documentation or who launched the sepsis order set received antibiotics sooner and received more total volume of fluid. Age <60 and absence of fever are factors associated with lack of recognition of sepsis cases.",
keywords = "Differential Diagnosis, Documentation, Emergency Department, Sepsis",
author = "Stoneking, {Lisa R} and Winkler, {John P.} and DeLuca, {Lawrence A.} and Uwe Stolz and Aaron Stutz and Luman, {Jenifer C.} and Michael Gaub and Donna Wolk and Fiorello, {Albert B.} and Denninghoff, {Kurt R}",
year = "2015",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.5811/westjem.2015.3.25529",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
pages = "401--407",
journal = "Western Journal of Emergency Medicine",
issn = "1936-900X",
publisher = "University of California",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Physician documentation of sepsis syndrome is associated with more aggressive treatment

AU - Stoneking, Lisa R

AU - Winkler, John P.

AU - DeLuca, Lawrence A.

AU - Stolz, Uwe

AU - Stutz, Aaron

AU - Luman, Jenifer C.

AU - Gaub, Michael

AU - Wolk, Donna

AU - Fiorello, Albert B.

AU - Denninghoff, Kurt R

PY - 2015/5/1

Y1 - 2015/5/1

N2 - Introduction: Timely recognition and treatment of sepsis improves survival. The objective is to examine the association between recognition of sepsis and timeliness of treatments. Methods: We identified a retrospective cohort of emergency department (ED) patients with positive blood cultures from May 2007 to January 2009, and reviewed vital signs, imaging, laboratory data, and physician/nursing charts. Patients who met systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria and had evidence of infection available to the treating clinician at the time of the encounter were classified as having sepsis. Patients were dichotomized as RECOGNIZED if sepsis was explicitly articulated in the patient record or if a sepsis order set was launched, or as UNRECOGNIZED if neither of these two criteria were met. We used median regression to compare time to antibiotic administration and total volume of fluid resuscitation between groups, controlling for age, sex, and sepsis severity. Results: SIRS criteria were present in 228/315 (72.4%) cases. Our record review identified sepsis syndromes in 214 (67.9%) cases of which 118 (55.1%) had sepsis, 64 (29.9%) had severe sepsis, and 32 (15.0%) had septic shock. The treating team contemplated sepsis (RECOGNIZED) in 123 (57.6%) patients. Compared to the UNRECOGNIZED group, the RECOGNIZED group had a higher use of antibiotics in the ED (91.9 vs.75.8%, p=0.002), more patients aged 60 years or older (56.9 vs. 33.0%, p=0.001), and more severe cases (septic shock: 18.7 vs. 9.9%, severe sepsis: 39.0 vs.17.6%, sepsis: 42.3 vs.72.5%; p<0.001). The median time to antibiotic (minutes) was lower in the RECOGNIZED (142) versus UNRECOGNIZED (229) group, with an adjusted median difference of-74 minutes (95% CI [-128 to-19]). The median total volume of fluid resuscitation (mL) was higher in the RECOGNIZED (1,600 mL) compared to the UNRECOGNIZED (1,000 mL) group. However, the adjusted median difference was not statistically significant: 262 mL (95% CI [-171 to 694 mL]). Conclusion: Patients whose emergency physicians articulated sepsis syndrome in their documentation or who launched the sepsis order set received antibiotics sooner and received more total volume of fluid. Age <60 and absence of fever are factors associated with lack of recognition of sepsis cases.

AB - Introduction: Timely recognition and treatment of sepsis improves survival. The objective is to examine the association between recognition of sepsis and timeliness of treatments. Methods: We identified a retrospective cohort of emergency department (ED) patients with positive blood cultures from May 2007 to January 2009, and reviewed vital signs, imaging, laboratory data, and physician/nursing charts. Patients who met systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria and had evidence of infection available to the treating clinician at the time of the encounter were classified as having sepsis. Patients were dichotomized as RECOGNIZED if sepsis was explicitly articulated in the patient record or if a sepsis order set was launched, or as UNRECOGNIZED if neither of these two criteria were met. We used median regression to compare time to antibiotic administration and total volume of fluid resuscitation between groups, controlling for age, sex, and sepsis severity. Results: SIRS criteria were present in 228/315 (72.4%) cases. Our record review identified sepsis syndromes in 214 (67.9%) cases of which 118 (55.1%) had sepsis, 64 (29.9%) had severe sepsis, and 32 (15.0%) had septic shock. The treating team contemplated sepsis (RECOGNIZED) in 123 (57.6%) patients. Compared to the UNRECOGNIZED group, the RECOGNIZED group had a higher use of antibiotics in the ED (91.9 vs.75.8%, p=0.002), more patients aged 60 years or older (56.9 vs. 33.0%, p=0.001), and more severe cases (septic shock: 18.7 vs. 9.9%, severe sepsis: 39.0 vs.17.6%, sepsis: 42.3 vs.72.5%; p<0.001). The median time to antibiotic (minutes) was lower in the RECOGNIZED (142) versus UNRECOGNIZED (229) group, with an adjusted median difference of-74 minutes (95% CI [-128 to-19]). The median total volume of fluid resuscitation (mL) was higher in the RECOGNIZED (1,600 mL) compared to the UNRECOGNIZED (1,000 mL) group. However, the adjusted median difference was not statistically significant: 262 mL (95% CI [-171 to 694 mL]). Conclusion: Patients whose emergency physicians articulated sepsis syndrome in their documentation or who launched the sepsis order set received antibiotics sooner and received more total volume of fluid. Age <60 and absence of fever are factors associated with lack of recognition of sepsis cases.

KW - Differential Diagnosis

KW - Documentation

KW - Emergency Department

KW - Sepsis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84929087618&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84929087618&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5811/westjem.2015.3.25529

DO - 10.5811/westjem.2015.3.25529

M3 - Article

VL - 16

SP - 401

EP - 407

JO - Western Journal of Emergency Medicine

JF - Western Journal of Emergency Medicine

SN - 1936-900X

IS - 3

ER -