Evaluation of Repeated Quick Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment Measurements Among Patients With Suspected Infection.

OBJECTIVES: Among patients with suspected infection, a single measurement of the quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment has good predictive validity for sepsis, yet the increase in validity from repeated measurements is unknown. We sought to determine the incremental predictive validity for sepsis of repeated quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment measurements over 48 hours compared with the initial measurement. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Twelve hospitals in southwestern Pennsylvania in 2012. PATIENTS: All adult medical and surgical encounters in the emergency department, hospital ward, postanesthesia care unit, and ICU. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 1.3 million adult encounters, we identified those with a first episode of suspected infection. Using the maximum quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment score in each 6-hour epoch from onset of suspected infection until 48 hours later, we characterized repeated quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment with: 1) summary measures (e.g., mean over 48 hr), 2) crude trajectory groups, and 3) group-based trajectory modeling. We measured the predictive validity of repeated quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment using incremental changes in the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for in-hospital mortality beyond that of baseline risk (age, sex, race/ethnicity, and comorbidity). Of 37,591 encounters with suspected infection, 1,769 (4.7%) died before discharge. Both the mean quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment at 48 hours (area under the receiver operating characteristic, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.85-0.86]) and crude trajectory groups (area under the receiver operating characteristic, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.83-0.83]) improved predictive validity compared with initial quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (area under the receiver operating characteristic, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.78-0.80]) (p < 0.001 for both). Group-based trajectory modeling found five trajectories (quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment always low, increasing, decreasing, moderate, and always high) with greater predictive validity than the initial measurement (area under the receiver operating characteristic, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.84-0.85]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Repeated measurements of quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment improve predictive validity for sepsis using in-hospital mortality compared with a single measurement of quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment at the time a clinician suspects infection.

External validation of a prehospital risk score for critical illness.

BACKGROUND: Identification of critically ill patients during prehospital care could facilitate early treatment and aid in the regionalization of critical care. Tools to consistently identify those in the field with or at higher risk of developing critical illness do not exist. We sought to validate a prehospital critical illness risk score that uses objective clinical variables in a contemporary cohort of geographically and temporally distinct prehospital encounters. METHODS: We linked prehospital encounters at 21 emergency medical services (EMS) agencies to inpatient electronic health records at nine hospitals in southwestern Pennsylvania from 2010 to 2012. The primary outcome was critical illness during hospitalization, defined as an intensive care unit stay with delivery of organ support (mechanical ventilation or vasopressor use). We calculated the prehospital risk score using demographics and first vital signs from eligible EMS encounters, and we tested the association between score variables and critical illness using multivariable logistic regression. Discrimination was assessed using the AUROC curve, and calibration was determined by plotting observed versus expected events across score values. Operating characteristics were calculated at score thresholds. RESULTS: Among 42,550 nontrauma, non-cardiac arrest adult EMS patients, 1926 (4.5 %) developed critical illness during hospitalization. We observed moderate discrimination of the prehospital critical illness risk score (AUROC 0.73, 95 % CI 0.72-0.74) and adequate calibration based on observed versus expected plots. At a score threshold of 2, sensitivity was 0.63 (95 % CI 0.61-0.75), specificity was 0.73 (95 % CI 0.72-0.73), negative predictive value was 0.98 (95 % CI 0.98-0.98), and positive predictive value was 0.10 (95 % CI 0.09-0.10). The risk score performance was greater with alternative definitions of critical illness, including in-hospital mortality (AUROC 0.77, 95 % CI 0.7 -0.78). CONCLUSIONS: In an external validation cohort, a prehospital risk score using objective clinical data had moderate discrimination for critical illness during hospitalization.

Clinical profile of injection drug users presenting to the ED.

BACKGROUND: Injection drug users (IDUs) commonly use the emergency department (ED) as their primary health care access point. OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize infectious disease clinical presentations and laboratory results of IDUs admitted to the hospital from the ED and contrast them with those of non-IDUs. METHODS: We enrolled all admitted adult patients with infectious disease-related diagnoses at a county level 1 trauma center from June 2010 to January 2011 and used a structured chart abstraction tool to record patient characteristics and clinical outcomes. We compared clinical presenting features, laboratory data, and microbiological culture results of IDUs with concomitantly enrolled non-IDUs. RESULTS: Of 603 total participants, 189 were IDUs, and 414 were non-IDUs. Injection drug users had higher rates of skin and soft tissue infection admission but had similar hospital length of stay (7.5 vs 6.1 days) and mortality (2.1% vs 2.9%). Compared with non-IDUs, IDUs more commonly had hyponatremia, 38.1% vs 27.1% (mean difference, 11.4%; 95% confidence intervals [CIs], 3.4%-19.6%) and thrombocytopenia, 18.5% vs 11.0% (mean difference, 7.5%; 95% CI, 1.5%-14.2%) but less frequently had leukocytosis, 36.0% vs 52.7% (mean difference, 16.7%; 95% CI, 8.2%-24.8%). Injection drug users and non-IDUs had similar rates of positive ED-derived blood cultures, 16.5% vs 22.6% (mean difference, 6.1%; 95% CI, -13.3 to 1.7%). CONCLUSIONS: When admitted from the ED for infectious disease-related diagnoses, IDUs had similar rates of fever, higher rates of hyponatremia and thrombocytopenia, and lower rates of leukocytosis than non-IDUs. Although they had similar rates of bacteremia, only IDUs were positive for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

English-based Pediatric Emergency Medicine Software Improves Physician Test Performance on Common Pediatric Emergencies: A Multicenter Study in Vietnam.

INTRODUCTION: Global health agencies and the Vietnam Ministry of Health have identified pediatric emergency care and health information technology as high priority goals. Clinical decision support (CDS) software provides physicians with access to current literature to answer clinical queries, but there is limited impact data in developing countries. We hypothesized that Vietnamese physicians will demonstrate improved test performance on common pediatric emergencies using CDS technologies despite being in English. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective, pretest-posttest study was conducted in 11 Vietnamese hospitals enrolled a convenience sample of physicians who attended an 80-minute software training on a pediatric CDS software (PEMSoft). Two multiple-choice exams (A, B) were administered before and after the session. Participants, who received Test A as a pretest, received Test B as a posttest, and vice versa. Participants used the CDS software for the posttest. The primary outcome measure was the mean percentage difference in physician scores between the pretest and posttest, as calculated by a paired, two-tailed t-test. RESULTS: For the 203 participants, the mean pretest, posttest, and improvement scores were 37% (95% CI: 35-38%), 70% (95% CI: 68-72%), and 33% (95% CI: 30-36%), respectively, with p<0.0001. This represents an 89% improvement over baseline. Subgroup analysis of practice setting, clinical experience, and comfort level with written English and computers showed that all subgroups equivalently improved their test scores. CONCLUSION: After brief training, Vietnamese physicians can effectively use an English-based CDS software based on improved performance on a written clinical exam. Given this rapid improvement, CDS technologies may serve as a transformative tool in resource-poor environments.