Design of a national patient-centred clinical pathway for sepsis in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization has adopted a resolution on sepsis and urged member states to develop national processes to improve sepsis care. In Sweden, sepsis was selected as one of the ten first diagnoses to be addressed, when the Swedish government in 2019 allocated funds for patient-centred clinical pathways in healthcare. A national multidisciplinary working group, including a patient representative, was appointed to develop the patient-centred clinical pathway for sepsis. METHODS: The working group mapped challenges and needs surrounding sepsis care and included a survey sent to all emergency departments (ED) in Sweden, and then designed a patient-centred clinical pathway for sepsis. RESULTS: The working group decided to focus on the following four areas: (1) sepsis alert for early detection and management optimisation for the most severely ill sepsis patients in the ED; (2) accurate sepsis diagnosis coding; (3) structured information to patients at discharge after sepsis care and (4) structured telephone follow-up after sepsis care. A health-economic analysis indicated that the implementation of the clinical pathway for sepsis will most likely not drive costs. An important aspect of the clinical pathway is implementing continuous monitoring of performance and process indicators. A national working group is currently building up such a system for monitoring, focusing on extraction of this information from the electronic health records systems. CONCLUSION: A national patient-centred clinical pathway for sepsis has been developed and is currently being implemented in Swedish healthcare. We believe that the clinical pathway and the accompanying monitoring will provide a more efficient and equal sepsis care and improved possibilities to monitor and further develop sepsis care in Sweden.

Risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19 during 2020; a retrospective cross-sectional study in a Swedish health care system.

To establish the impact of COVID-19 on the pre-test probability for VTE in patients with suspected VTE. This was a retrospective, observational, cross-sectional study of patients 18 years and older undergoing diagnostic tests for VTE in an integrated healthcare system covering a population of 465,000 during the calendar year of 2020. We adjusted for risk factors such as age, sex, previous VTE, ongoing anticoagulant treatment, malignancy, Charlson score, ward care, ICU care and wave of COVID-19. In total, 303 of 5041 patients had a positive diagnosis of COVID-19 around the time of investigation. The prevalence of VTE in COVID-positive patients was 10.2% (36/354), 14.7% (473/3219) in COVID-19 negative patients, and 15.6% (399/2589) in patients without a COVID-19 test. A COVID-positive status was not associated with an increased risk for VTE (crude odds ratio 0.64, 95% CI 0.45-0.91, adjusted odds ratio 0.46, 95%CI 0.19-1.16). We found no increased VTE risk in COVID-positive patients. This indicates that COVID-19 status should not influence VTE workup.The study was pre-registered on May 26, 2020 at ClinicalTrials.gov with identifier NCT04400877.

Risk of venous thromboembolism in a Swedish healthcare system during the COVID-19 pandemic: A retrospective cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the risk and prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) for patients undergoing a diagnostic test for VTE with confirmed COVID-19 infection compared with patients with no COVID-19 infection. METHODS: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of patients in an integrated healthcare system in Sweden, covering a population of 465,000, with a diagnostic test for VTE between March 1 and May 31 in the years 2015 to 2020. Risk for VTE with COVID-19 was assessed by logistic regression, adjusting for baseline risk factors. RESULTS: A total of 8702 patients were included, and 88 of those patients tested positive on the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction test. A positive SARS-CoV-2 test did not increase the odds for VTE (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-1.74) and did not change when adjusting for sex, previous VTE, previous malignancy, Charlson score, hospital admission, intensive care, or ongoing treatment with anticoagulation (odds ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.16-3.3). The prevalence of VTE was unchanged in 2020 compared with 2015 to 2019 (16.5% vs 16.1%, respectively), and there was no difference in VTE between the SARS-CoV-2 positive, negative, or untested groups in 2020 (15.9%, 17.6%, and 15.7%, respectively; P = 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: We found no increased prevalence of VTE in the general population compared with previous years and no increased risk of VTE in patients who were SARS-CoV-2 positive, suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 status should not influence VTE workup in the emergency department. The prevalence of VTE was high in patients with SARS-CoV-2 treated in the intensive care unit (ICU), where the suspicion for VTE should remain high.