In-Hospital Sepsis Mortality Rates Comparing Tertiary and Non-Tertiary Hospitals in Washington State.

BACKGROUND: More than a million people a year in the United States experience sepsis or sepsis-related complications, and sepsis remains the leading cause of in-hospital deaths. Unlike many other leading causes of in-hospital mortality, sepsis detection and treatment are not dependent on the presence of any technology or services that differ between tertiary and non-tertiary hospitals. OBJECTIVE: To compare sepsis mortality rates between tertiary and non-tertiary hospitals in Washington State. METHODS: A retrospective longitudinal, observational cohort study of 73 Washington State hospitals for 2010-2015 using data from a standardized state database of hospital abstracts. Abstract records on adult patients (n = 86,378) admitted through the emergency department (ED) from 2010 through 2015 in all tertiary (n = 7) and non-tertiary (n = 66) hospitals in Washington State. RESULTS: The overall mortality rate for all hospitals was 6.5%. In the fully adjusted model, the odds ratio for in-hospital death was higher in non-tertiary hospitals compared with tertiary hospitals (odds ratio 1.25; 95% confidence interval 1.17-1.35; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We observed higher sepsis mortality rates in non-tertiary hospitals, compared with tertiary hospitals. Because most patients who are treated for sepsis are treated outside of tertiary hospitals, and the number of patients treated for sepsis in non-tertiary hospitals seems to be rising, a better understanding of the cause or causes for this differential is crucial.

High School CPR/AED Training in Washington State.

OBJECTIVE: Describe the rates of CPR/AED training in high schools in the state of Washington after passage of legislation mandating CPR/AED training. DESIGN AND SAMPLE: A web-based survey was sent to administrators at 660 public and private high schools in the state of Washington. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The survey was completed by 148 schools (22%); 64% reported providing CPR training and 54% provided AED training. Reported barriers to implementation included instructor availability, cost, and a lack of equipment. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the sample characteristics and implementation rates. Mandates without resources and support do not ensure implementation of CPR/AED training in high schools. Full public health benefits of a CPR mandate will not be realized until barriers to implementation are identified and eliminated through use of available, accessible public health resources.

Rapid Response Teams: Is it Time to Reframe the Questions of Rapid Response Team Measurement?

PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to present an overview of rapid response team (RRT) history in the United States, provide a review of prior RRT effectiveness research, and propose the reframing of four new questions of RRT measurement that are designed to better understand RRTs in the context of contemporary nursing practice as well as patient outcomes. ORGANIZING CONSTRUCT: RRTs were adopted in the United States because of their intuitive appeal, and despite a lack of evidence for their effectiveness. Subsequent studies used mortality and cardiac arrest rates to measure whether or not RRTs "work." Few studies have thoroughly examined the effect of RRTs on nurses and on nursing practice. METHODS: An extensive literature review provided the background. Suppositions and four critical, unanswered questions arising from the literature are suggested. FINDINGS: The results of RRT effectiveness, which have focused on patient-oriented outcomes, have been ambiguous, contradictory, and difficult to interpret. Additionally, they have not taken into account the multiple ways in which these teams have impacted nurses and nursing practice as well as patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: What happens in terms of RRT process and utilization is likely to have a major impact on nurses and nursing care on general medical and surgical wards. What that impact will be depends on what we can learn from measuring with an expanded yardstick, in order to answer the question, "Do RRTs work?" CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Evidence for the benefits of RRTs depends on proper framing of questions relating to their effectiveness, including the multiple ways RRTs contribute to nursing efficacy.