ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Sepsis and septic shock remain a significant burden on the US health care system. A multidisciplinary response system (Coordinated Response to Sepsis, CaRTS) that included a pharmacist responder was implemented for patients with newly suspected sepsis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the time to appropriate antibiotic administration among patients with the CaRTS intervention compared with historical controls. METHOD: The CaRTS intervention included an electronic order set as well as activation of a multidisciplinary team of pharmacy and nursing personnel to coordinate resuscitation and medication administration. The CaRTS group was compared to historical controls. The primary outcome of the study was the proportion of patients with appropriate antibiotic administration within 1 hour of recognition of sepsis. Secondary outcomes included achievement of mean arterial pressure (MAP) ≥65 mm Hg and central venous pressure (CVP) of 8 to 12 mm Hg within 6 hours. RESULT: The CaRTS intervention was used for 49 patients and 59 historical controls were included for analysis. Patients with the CaRTS intervention had a greater than 20 times higher odds of antibiotic administration within 1 hour compared with controls (odds ratio [OR] 22.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.5-69) and were more likely to have a CVP ≥8 mm Hg at 6 hours (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.0-5.6) compared with controls. CaRTS patients achieved statistically nonsignificant increases in MAP ≥65 mm Hg (OR 2.2, 95% CI 0.7-7.7). CONCLUSION: Utilization of a multidisciplinary sepsis bundle that included a pharmacist responder improved the proportion of patients receiving appropriate antibiotics within 1 hour of recognition of sepsis compared to historical controls.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients often require sedation and analgesia. Scales have been developed to provide clinicians with sedation targets. Daily interruption of continuous infusions of sedatives and sedation protocols improve patients' outcomes. However, perceived instability of a patient's condition can prevent implementation of appropriate sedation targets and daily interruption of sedation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the interrater variability of a severity-of-illness score developed to help nurses determine patient-specific sedation targets and identify candidates for daily interruption of sedation. METHODS: The severity-of-illness score was implemented as part of an institutional protocol, and bedside nurses in the medical intensive care unit were taught how to determine and use the score. Bedside nurses recorded the score daily in patients' medical records. For study purposes, a study nurse who made rounds with the medical team and a pulmonary/critical care fellow physician also independently determined the score. RESULTS: A total of 38 assessments of severity-of-illness scores in 10 different patients were made during the study period. For the 24 assessments made by all 3 observers, the kappa coefficient for agreement for the severity-of-illness score was 0.58. CONCLUSIONS: The severity-of-illness score had good interrater variability as a tool for determining sedation targets and identifying candidates for daily interruption of sedation. Future study on how use of the score affects sedative dosing and outcomes is needed.
