Presentation of the septic patient to the emergency department with respect to age and sex - a retrospective cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: It is challenging to identify sepsis in the emergency department, in part due to the non-specific presentation of septic patients. Current clinical sepsis screening tools rely on vital signs but many patients present with near normal vital signs and are therefore not identified as septic. This suggests that variables, e.g. signs and symptoms, need to be included to improve sepsis detection in the emergency department. Our hypothesis was that the presentation of sepsis differs based age and sex. The potential differences in presentation could be used to apply to future sepsis screening tools. The aim was to analyze the prevalence of keywords reflecting the presentation of septic patients in the emergency department in relation to age and sex. METHOD: Retrospective cross-sectional study. Keywords reflecting sepsis presentation to the emergency department were quantified and compared between age categories and the sex. 479 patients admitted to the emergency department of Södersjukhuset, Stockholm during 2013 and discharged with an ICD-10 code consistent with sepsis were included. We adjusted for multiple comparisons by applying Bonferroni-adjusted significance levels for all comparisons. RESULT: "Pain" and "risk factors for sepsis" were significantly more common among patients younger than 65 years as compared with those 75 years and older: (n = 87/137; 63.5% vs n = 99/240; 41.3%, P-value < 0.000) and (n = 74/137; 54.0% vs 55/240; 22.9%, P-value < 0.000) respectively. "Risk factors for sepsis" was also significantly more common among patients between 65 and 74 years as compared with those 75 years and older: (n = 43/102; 42.2% vs 55/240; 22.9%, P-value < 0.000). "Pain" and "gastrointestinal symptoms" were significantly more common among women as compared with men: (n = 128/224; 57.1% vs n = 102/255; 40.0%, P-value < 0.000) and (n = 82/244; 36.6% vs n = 55/255; 21.6%, P-value < 0.000) respectively. CONCLUSION: The keywords "pain" and "risk factors for sepsis" were more common among younger patients and "pain" and "gastrointestinal symptoms" were more common among women. However, most keywords had a similar prevalence irrespective of age and sex. The results could potentially be used to augment sepsis screening tools or clinical decision tools.

Performance of NEWS2, RETTS, clinical judgment and the Predict Sepsis screening tools with respect to identification of sepsis among ambulance patients with suspected infection: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence of which sepsis screening tool to use in the ambulance setting. The primary aim of the current study was to compare the performance of NEWS2 (National Early Warning score 2) and RETTS (Rapid Emergency Triage and Treatment System) with respect to identification of sepsis among ambulance patients with clinically suspected infection. The secondary aim was to compare the performance of the novel Predict Sepsis screening tools with that of NEWS2, RETTS and clinical judgment. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of 323 adult ambulance patients with clinically suspected infection, transported to hospitals in Stockholm, during 2017/2018. The sensitivity, specificity, and AUC (Area Under the receiver operating Curve) were calculated and compared by using McNemar´s test and DeLong's test. RESULTS: The prevalence of sepsis in the current study population was 44.6% (144 of 323 patients). No significant difference in AUC was demonstrated between NEWS2 ≥ 5 and RETTS ≥ orange. NEWS2 ≥ 7 demonstrated a significantly greater AUC than RETTS red. The Predict Sepsis screening tools ≥ 2 demonstrated the highest sensitivity (range 0.87-0.91), along with RETTS ≥ orange (0.83), but the lowest specificity (range 0.39-0.49). The AUC of NEWS2 (0.73) and the Predict Sepsis screening tools (range 0.75-0.77) was similar. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that NEWS2 could be the better alternative for sepsis identification in the ambulance, as compared to RETTS. The Predict Sepsis screening tools demonstrated a high sensitivity and AUCs similar to that of NEWS2. However, these results need to be interpreted with caution as the Predict Sepsis screening tools require external validation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03249597. Registered 15 August 2017-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03249597 .

Identification of adult septic patients in the prehospital setting: a comparison of two screening tools and clinical judgment.

BACKGROUND: Timely identification and treatment of sepsis is crucial for patient outcome. The aim of this study was to compare two previously unvalidated prehospital sepsis screening tools with clinical judgment by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel with respect to identification of septic patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We carried out a retrospective cross-sectional study of 353 adult patients, transported by the EMS, with a hospital discharge International Classification of Diseases code consistent with sepsis. We analyzed EMS records for the identification of sepsis according to two screening tools and clinical judgment by EMS providers. The Robson screening tool includes temperature, heart rate, respiratory rate, altered mental status, plasma glucose, and a history suggestive of a new infection. BAS 90-30-90 refers to the vital signs: oxygen saturation, respiratory rate, and systolic blood pressure. McNemar's two related samples test was used to compare the sensitivity of the two screening tools with the sensitivity of clinical judgment. RESULTS: The Robson screening tool had a sensitivity of 75% (18 out of 24 patients for whom all parameters were documented, P<0.001, as compared with clinical judgment). BAS 90-30-90 had a sensitivity of 43% (76 out of 175 patients, P<0.001). EMS personnel documented suspected sepsis in 42 out of 353 (12%) patients with sepsis. CONCLUSION: The Robson screening tool had a sensitivity superior to both BAS 90-30-90 and clinical judgment. This supports our hypothesis that the implementation of a screening tool could lead to increased prehospital identification of sepsis, which may enable a more timely treatment of these patients.