Impact of an electronic alert system for pediatric sepsis screening: a tertiary hospital experience

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1500733/v1

Download PDF

Article

Impact of an electronic alert system for pediatric sepsis screening: a tertiary hospital experience

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1500733/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Objectives

This study aimed to assess the potential impact of implementing an electronic alert system (EAS) for systemic inflammatory syndrome (SIRS) and sepsis in pediatric patients mortality.

Method

This retrospective study had a pre and post design. We enrolled patients aged ≤ 14 years who were diagnosed with sepsis/severe sepsis upon admission to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) of our tertiary hospital from January 2014 to December 2018.

Intervention

We implemented an EAS for the patients with SIRS/sepsis. The patients who met the inclusion criteria pre-EAS implementation comprised the control group, and the group post-EAS implementation was the experimental group. Mortality was the primary outcome, while length of stay (LOS) and mechanical ventilation in the first hour were the secondary outcomes.

Results

Of the 308 enrolled patients, 147 were in the pre-EAS group and 161 in the post-EAS group. In terms of mortality, 44 patients in the pre-EAS group and 28 in the post-EAS group died (p 0.011). The average LOS in the PICU was 7.9 days for the pre-EAS group and 6.8 days for the post-EAS group (p 0.442). Early recognition of SIRS and sepsis via the EAS led to faster treatment interventions, which included fluid boluses (163.42 ± 107 vs. 100.85 ± 30, p 0.014) and the initiation of antimicrobial therapy (303.06 ± 451 vs. 198.94 ± 214, p 0.011). The difference in mechanical ventilation in the first hour of admission was not significant between the groups (25.17% vs. 24.22%, p 0.895).

Conclusion

The implementation of the EAS resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the mortality rate among the patients admitted to the PICU in our study. An EAS can play an important role in saving lives and subsequent Reduction in healthcare costs. Further enhancement of systematic screening is therefore highly recommended to improve the prognosis of pediatric SIRS and sepsis and warrants further validation in multicenter or national studies.

electronic alert

outcomes

pediatrics

Saudi

sepsis

Despite several years of clinical and bench research, sepsis has remained the key cause of pediatric mortality in hospitals, and the only intervention that has reduced mortality is the early recognition of sepsis and the administration of antibiotics [1, 2]. Pediatric early warning scores (PEWS) are used in various hospitals and have been integrated with the vital signs and laboratory values of patients’ electronic health records. Alert triggering thresholds have also been established [3]. Following the successful execution of PEWS, PEWS-identified patients have been found to have received expedited care services and, when indicated, have been transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) considerably faster than non-PEWS patients. The provision of expedited care services translates into decreased mortality from sepsis [4].

The electronic alert system (EAS) for systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and sepsis alerts the care team to the deteriorating condition of patients with probable SIRS or sepsis. To achieve this, the EAS primarily evaluates the vital signs of patients and sends precise messages to the care team in instances where it forecasts or establishes a deterioration in the signs of sepsis. Based on such changes, the EAS then proposes the next steps that should be taken to avert a deterioration in the patient’s conditions [5]. The early diagnosis and employment of various therapeutic treatments are possible once patients with sepsis have been identified using the EAS [6]. The use of an EAS can significantly reduce the time before starting sepsis-linked treatment interventions [7].

Due to the significant epidemiological burden of sepsis and a lack of clear consensus about a specific sepsis alert system that may aid in reducing the undesirable yet avoidable sequelae of sepsis, a hospital-wide SIRS/sepsis electronic alert system (EAS) was installed at King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre (KFSHRC) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. This study aimed to assess the impact of the use of the SIRS/sepsis EAS on mortality and length of stay (LOS) in a pediatric population admitted to the pediatric ICU (PICU) with SIRS or sepsis.

This retrospective study with a pre and post design was carried out at a tertiary hospital. We enrolled patients diagnosed with sepsis, severe sepsis, septicemia, or septic shock as a primary diagnosis upon admission to the PICU from January 2014 to December 2018. Children aged ≤ 14 years were included in this study if they had suspected or confirmed sepsis as per the definition of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign and were admitted to the PICU during the study period [8]. The causes of sepsis/severe sepsis were not relevant to their eligibility for the study. The eligible patients were identified by searching the electronic medical records and PICU database registry. Patients were excluded if their data were incomplete. The data were collected from the patients’ electronic health records and included demographic data and clinical profiles, which comprised vital signs upon admission, initial lab values, time of antibiotics initiation, need for inotropic support, and outcomes. The following outcomes were assessed: PICU LOS, survival and mortality rates, and severity of illness scores (PRISM, PIM) on admission to the PICU.

The patients were categorized into pre- and post-intervention groups, and the intervention was defined as the implementation of the SIRS/sepsis alerts via the EAS. In collaboration with a physician group, the healthcare information technology affairs at KFSHRC announced that the go-live date of the SIRS/sepsis alerts would be February 23, 2016. The cohort of patients who met the inclusion criteria during the period January 1, 2014, to February 22, 2016, were considered the pre-EAS (control) group, while those treated from February 23, 2016, to December 31, 2018, comprised the post-EAS (experimental) group. More detailed information related to the SIRS/sepsis alerts is provided in the supplementary file. When calculating the time to intervention, which may have included the first fluid bolus or the first dose of antibiotics, the zero time was based on the time of alert initiation in the system for the post-EAS group. For the pre-EAS group, the timing was based on the retrospective application of the same alert filter in the system to capture the zero time for these patients. The data consisted of the patients’ electronic medical records and the associated data from the hospital database for quality assurance.

In the statistical analysis, the categorical values were presented as percentages and the continuous variables as the mean (± standard deviation) for the parametric data and the median interquartile range for the nonparametric data. The chi-squared test and Fisher’s exact test were used to compare the proportions between the groups, Student’s t-test to compare the means, and the Mann–Whitney U test to compare the medians. To adjust for confounding variables, a multivariate logistic regression was conducted to consider the clinically relevant variables while avoiding possible colinearity. The model diagnostic metrics were calculated accordingly. A p-value of 0.05 was considered significant, and all the statistical calculations were carried out using SPSS version 23.0 (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 23.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. IBM Corp). Given that improving mortality was the primary outcome of this study, our null hypothesis was that the proportion of deaths in the post-EAS group would be 20–25% less compared to that in the pre-EAS group with the proviso that the pre-EAS sepsis mortality rate was 30%, the alpha was 5% (two-sided), and the power was 90%. The estimated sample size for the two-sample comparison was 161 for each group (pre- and post-EAS).

The study was approved by the institutional review board of the KFSHRC, and consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of the study. The data collection form included serial code numbers to ensure patient privacy. In accordance with KFSHRC policy, confidentiality was maintained by securing the forms in a locked cabinet with very limited access.

All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations of KFSHRC Institution Review Board

The total number of enrolled patients with sepsis was 308 out of 4252 PICU admissions, which corresponds to a prevalence of 7.24% over the five-year period of the study. Of the 308 patients, 147 were in the pre-EAS group, and 161 were in the post-EAS group. The demographics and presentation variables between the two groups are shown in Table 1.

The average time before the first normal saline bolus administration to the patients in the pre-EAS group was 163.42 ± 107 minutes compared to 100.85 ± 30 minutes for those in the post-EAS group (p 0.014). The average time before the first dose of antimicrobials administration was 303.06 ± 451 minutes for the pre-EAS group, with 198.94 ± 214 minutes for the post-EAS group (p 0.011). The difference in mechanical ventilation in the first hour of admission was not significant between the pre- and post-EAS groups (25.17% vs. 24.22%, respectively; p 0.895), with an average total ventilation duration of 5.41 and 5.36 days, respectively (p 0.8988). In the pre-EAS group, 23 (15.6%) patients required high-frequency oscillation ventilation compared to 16 (9.9%) patients in the post-EAS group (p 0.6776). Inotropic support was needed for 112 (76.12%) of the patients in the pre-EAS group and in 112 (69.56%) of the patients in the post-EAS group (p 0.20).

The mean number of organs affected during PICU stay in the pre-EAS group was 2.65 (± 1.13) and 2.32 (± 1.14) in the post-EAS group (p 0.0098). The average LOS in the PICU was 7.9 days in the pre-EAS group and 6.8 days in the post-EAS group (p 0.442).

In terms of survival, 44 (29.93%) patients died in the pre-EAS group whereas the total deaths in the post-EAS group was 28 (17.39%) patients (p 0.011). The details of the required interventions and outcomes are shown in Table 2. The multivariate logistic regression analysis for mortality as the dependent outcome revealed that younger age, a higher pediatric risk of mortality 3 (PRISM3) score, and being in the pre-EAS group were independent predictors of mortality, as shown in Table 3.

Table 1

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics for the pre- and post-EAS groups
Variables	Pre-EAS group n = 147 n (%)	Post-EAS group n = 161 n (%)	p-value
Gender Male Female	80 (54.42) 67 (45.58)	96 (59.63) 65 (40.37)	0.36*
Age mean ± SD (years)	5.60 ± 4.91	6.23 ± 4.80	0.208^t
Age (years) 0–2	53 (36.05)	44 (27.33)
2–7 8–12	39 (26.53) 35 (23.80)	32 (19.88) 54 (33.54)	0.0626*
> 12	20 (13.60)	31 (19.25)
Weight mean ± SD (kg)	17.21 ± 11.98	17.14 ± 13.2	0.962^t
Primary disease Hematology/oncology Bone marrow transplant Immunodeficiency Genetic/metabolic Cardiac Gastroenterology/hepatology	48 (32.65) 30 (20.40) 11 (7.48) 9 (6.12) 24 (16.33) 2 (1.36)	54 (33.54) 41 (25.57) 2 (1.24) 12 (7.45) 11 (6.83) 8 (4.97)	0.0348^*
Neurology	7 (4.76)	8 (4.97)
Solid organ transplant	11 (7.48)	13 (8.07)
Renal	2 (1.36)	6 (3.73)
Endocrinology	2 (1.36)	4 (2.24)
Other	1 (0.68)	2 (1.24)
Pediatric risk of mortality score 3	14.06 ± 8.23	13.40 ± 9.66	0.523^t
EAS electronic alert system; SD standard deviation

The p-value was calculated using the indicated statistics: ^t Student’s t-test, ^* chi-squared test, ^# Fisher’s exact test

Table 2

Clinical interventions and outcomes comparison between the pre- and post-EAS groups
Variables	Pre-EAS group n = 147 n (%)	Post-EAS group n = 161 n (%)	p-value
Interventions Time to first dose of fluid bolus (min.) Mean ± SD	163.42 ± 107	100.85 ± 30	0.014^t
Median (IQR)	107 (180)	30 (101.5)	< 0.001 ^M
Time to first dose of antibiotics (min.) Mean ± SD	303.06 ± 451	198.94 ± 214	0.011^t
Median (IQR)	170.5 (253)	131 (226)	0.042 ^M
Inotropic support	112 (76.12)	112 (69.56)	0.20^#
High-flow nasal oxygen	58 (39.46)	64 (39.75)	1^#
Conventional mechanical ventilation first hour	37 (25.17)	39 (24.22)	0.895^#
Conventional mechanical ventilation first 24 hours	68 (46.58)	59 (36.64)	0.081^#
High-frequency oscillatory ventilation	23 (15.65)	16 (9.94)	0.6776^#
Mechanical ventilation duration (mean ± SD) (days)	5.41	5.36	0.8988 ^t
Renal replacement therapy	10 (6.80)	8 (4.97)	0.6281^#
Outcomes Number of organs affected (mean	2.65 (± 1.13)	2.32 (± 1.14)	0.0098 ^t
PICU length of stay) (days) Mean ± SD	7.9 ± 14.49	6.8 ± 9.7	0.442 ^t
Median (IQR)	3.08 (6.71)	3.71 (7.78)	0.976 ^M
Mortality	44 (29.93)	28 (17.39)	0.011^#
EAS electronic alert system; SD standard deviation; IQR interquartile range

The p-value was calculated using the indicated statistics: ^t Student’s t-test, ^# Fisher’s exact test, ^M Mann–Whitney U test

Table 3

Multivariate logistic regression analysis for mortality as the dependent outcome
	Estimate	Coefficientts Standard error	Odds ratio	z	Wald test
	Estimate	Coefficientts Standard error	Odds ratio	z	Wald statistic	df	p
Intercept	4.266	0.593	71.243	7.199	51.826	1	< 0.001
Age	0.122	0.039	1.129	3.097	9.589	1	0.002
PRISM 3 score	-0.185	0.028	0.831	−6.562	43.065	1	< .001
Gender	-0.491	0.361	0.612	−1.360	1.849	1	0.174
Group (pre-EAS)	-0.776	0.350	0.460	−2.216	4.909	1	0.027
Mechanical ventilation in first hour	-0.699	0.374	0.497	−1.869	3.493	1	0.062
PRISM 3 Pediatric Risk of Mortality III; EAS electronic alert system
Note. Outcome level “Survived” was coded as class 1.

Model performance metrics: area under curve = 0.857, sensitivity = 0.940, specificity = 0.500, precision = 0.860

In this study, we report a significant statistical and clinical reduction by almost half (i.e., from 29.93%% down to 17.39%) in mortality related to sepsis in pediatric cases admitted to the PICU upon implementation of an EAS for SIRS/sepsis in an in-hospital setting. This finding is mainly attributed to the successful integration of the early identification of potential sepsis cases and prompt management. As observed in the literature, among all the interventions aimed at improving survival in patients with sepsis, fast recognition and the timely initiation of therapy, including antimicrobial administration, are the most important components [1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]. Different approaches have been investigated to address the timely implementation of the recommended management. These have ranged from increasing awareness, enhancing education, and delegation to specialized teams to the implementation of a timely protocol or pathway [6, 14, 19]. Compliance with the Surviving Sepsis Campaign performance bundles, which include early recognition and intervention, was associated with a 25% relative risk reduction in mortality in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock [20]. Nevertheless, these bundles and protocols may not be consistent in improving mortality due to compliance variability and concern regarding the identification of zero time in the timeline protocol [6, 21]. Given that the diagnosis of potential sepsis cases is the cornerstone of therapeutic practice, a more structured and relatively objective approach is required to minimize human-related factors that could result in potential sepsis cases being missed. Such efforts led to the proposal of the PEWS system, which is widely accepted and has been validated in different settings with the potential benefit of identifying sepsis cases earlier and thus improving outcomes [1, 9, 22]. However, compliance with PEWS and integrated bundles requires reliable performance, high compliance, and regular audits, which could be challenging and resource demanding due to human factors [9, 17, 23]. The need for automated, effective, and timely screening tools for sepsis screening triggered further investment and investigations aimed at integrating health informatics and data analysis models [24, 25]. The growing interest in machine learning and big data analysis fueled this innovative approach, which resulted in the development of automated decisions-aiding models and electronic alerts for potential sepsis cases [3, 13, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 21, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36].

Many challenges and limitations can be encountered during electronic alert development, including differences in adult and pediatric parameters, the presentation timing, and the variable phenotypes of sepsis and the underpinning genomics subgroups [35, 37, 38, 39, 40]. For instance, compared to adults, pediatric sepsis recognition is challenging due to the low specificity of tachycardia and tachypnea and the relatively late manifestation of hypotension [39]. Furthermore, many reports have addressed the validation of EAS use in the emergency department, which could be different compared to in-hospital settings [26, 27, 34, 40, 41, 42, 43]. These differences highlight the importance of accumulating more evidence to validate and support the EAS approach.

Although the early recognition of sepsis is invaluable, it must be accompanied by and integrated with appropriate therapeutic interventions to realize its essential value. Through these efforts multifaceted improvements in sepsis diagnosis and management will become more legitimate [3, 19, 44]. In our study, the implementation of a sepsis EAS was associated with a shorter time to receive a fluid bolus and the first dose of antibiotics. The average time to receiving the antibiotics from the EAS trigger was shorter by 1.7 hours (34.3%) and thus clinically relevant [2, 45, 46]. There were otherwise no changes in respiratory or hemodynamic support interventions. It is likely that the timely improvement in initial sepsis management with fluid and antibiotics, which was mediated by the sepsis EAS implementation, was associated with a reduction in mortality and LOS in PICU in our study. Similar findings were reported in a pediatric acute care setting where an analysis of the pre- and post-EAS implementation groups showed a reduction in both the 3-day sepsis-attributable mortality (2.53 vs. 0%] and 30-day mortality (3.8 vs. 1.3%) [32]. In adults, similar improvements in mortality and LOS outcomes have been associated with an EAS integrated with a multifaceted identification and intervention approach [3, 19]. An improvement in sepsis mortality has also been reported following the implementation of an EAS in an adult emergency setting [2, 13].

Another important outcome improvement in our study was the reduction in the mean number of organs affected in the post-EAS group. The marginal difference between the pre- and post-EAS groups with respect to the organs affected could explain the lack of a significant difference or change in respiratory, hemodynamic, and renal support between the groups. These clinical parameters likely did not reach statistical significance due to the relatively small sample used to detect differences in these variables as the study was powered to detect mortality differences as its primary outcome.

Although both groups in our study shared comparable basic characteristics in terms of gender, age, weight, and PRISM3 scores prior to enrollment in the study, the patients with hematology/oncology primary diseases were more prevalent than those with other diagnoses. This vulnerable population is likely to rapidly deteriorate when sepsis occurs, which may suggest that these patients could benefit from sepsis EAS implementation and that the cost-effectiveness ratio could become more favorable [23, 47, 48].

The impact of sepsis EAS could be further enhanced to include subcategories to decrease the signal’s noise for false or non-specific alerts. Identifying and focusing on specific alerts may help to improve the allocation of time and resources. For instance, Emmanuel et al. reported that the impact of alerts for potential device-associated infections resulted in more clinical interventions than less-specific alerts for central line-associated bloodstream infections, while neonatal sepsis alerts resulted in minimal interventions undertaken in response to alerts [28].

The findings of this hospital-wide study are important as they show a significant improvement in the patient survival rate following the addition of an EAS, which is the strategic goal for all healthcare facilities in general and in pediatric sepsis in particular. However, these results need to be interpreted with due consideration of their limitations. Different sepsis alert systems have been implemented by several healthcare institutes with the aim of improving the ability of healthcare practitioners to detect sepsis early and thus treat patients who meet the criteria for these alerts promptly. Notwithstanding, at present, no clear consensus exists on a single alert system as several barriers limit the wide implementation of a unified sepsis alert system. We believe that further studies testing such interventions are critical to reduce mortality in pediatric patients. In addition, further development of EASs are strongly recommended to improve the prognosis of pediatric sepsis as far as possible.

In this study, the introduction of electronic SIRS and sepsis alerts resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the mortality rate among a pediatric population admitted to the PICU of our tertiary hospital. The early recognition of SIRS and sepsis facilitated by the EAS led to faster interventions, including fluid boluses and the initiation of antimicrobial therapy. Further research into, and the enhancement of, such alerts are essential to improve the prognosis of pediatric sepsis globally.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets during and/or analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors have no conflicts of interest, and the work had no financial funding.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the work of the consultant biostatistician Dr. Edward Devol at King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre for the statistical review of this project.

Agulnik A, Mora Robles LN, Forbes PW, Soberanis Vasquez DJ, Mack R, Antillon-Klussmann F, et al. Improved outcomes after successful implementation of a pediatric early warning system (PEWS) in a resource-limited pediatric oncology hospital. Cancer 2017;123:2965–74.
Liu VX, Fielding-Singh V, Greene JD, Baker JM, Iwashyna TJ, Bhattacharya J, et al. The timing of early antibiotics and hospital mortality in sepsis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;196:856–63
Arabi YM, Al-Dorzi HM, Alamry A, Hijazi R, Alsolamy S, Al Salamah M, et al. The impact of a multifaceted intervention including sepsis electronic alert system and sepsis response team on the outcomes of patients with sepsis and septic shock. Ann Intensive Care. 2017;7:57.
Arabi Y, Alamry A, Levy MM, Taher S, Marini AM. Improving the care of sepsis: between system redesign and professional responsibility: a roundtable discussion in the World Sepsis Day, September 25, 2013, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Ann Thorac Med. 2014;9:134–7.
Weiss SL, Fitzgerald JC, Pappachan J, Wheeler D, Jaramillo-Bustamante JC, Salloo A, et al. Global epidemiology of pediatric severe sepsis: the sepsis prevalence, outcomes, and therapies study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;191:1147–57.
Paul R, Melendez E, Wathen B, Larsen G, Chapman L, Wheeler DS et al. A quality improvement collaborative for pediatric sepsis: lessons learned. Pediatr Qual Saf. 2018;3:e051.
Corfield AR, Silcock D, Clerihew L, Kelly P, Stewart E, Staines H, et al. Paediatric early warning scores are predictors of adverse outcome in the pre-hospital setting: a national cohort study. Resuscitation 2018;133:153–9.
Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, Annane D, Gerlach H, Opal SM, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39:165–228.
Gawronski O, Ferro F, Cecchetti C, Ciofi Degli Atti M, Dall'Oglio I, Tiozzo E, et al. Adherence to the bedside paediatric early warning system (BedsidePEWS) in a pediatric tertiary care hospital. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021; 21:852.
Baghdadi JD, Brook RH, Uslan DZ, Needleman J, Bell DS, Cunningham WE, et al. Association of a care bundle for early sepsis management with mortality among patients with hospital-onset or community-onset sepsis. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180:707–16.
Stinson HR, Viteri S, Koetter P, Stevens E, Remillard K, Parlow R, et al. Early experience with a novel strategy for assessment of sepsis risk: the shock huddle. Pediatr Qual Saf. 2019;4:e197.
Sefton G, McGrath C, Tume L, Lane S, Lisboa PJ, Carrol ED. What impact did a paediatric early warning system have on emergency admissions to the paediatric intensive care unit? An observational cohort study. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2015;31:91–9.
Hayden GE, Tuuri RE, Scott R, Losek JD, Blackshaw AM, Schoenling AJ, et al. Triage sepsis alert and sepsis protocol lower times to fluids and antibiotics in the ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2016;34:1–9
Apibunyopas Y. Mortality rate among patients with septic shock after implementation of 6-hour sepsis protocol in the emergency department of Thammasat University Hospital. J Med Assoc Thail. = Chotmaihet thangphaet. 2014;97 Suppl 8:S182-93.
Simpson A, Long D, Fleischmann-Struzek C, Minogue J, Venkatesh B, Hammond NE, et al. Long-term functional outcomes after sepsis for adult and pediatric critical care patients-protocol for a systematic review. Front Pediatr. 2021;9:734205.
Bradshaw C, Goodman I, Rosenberg R, Bandera C, Fierman A, Rudy b. Implementation of an inpatient pediatric sepsis identification pathway. Pediatrics. 2016;137:e20144082.
Harley A, Lister P, Gilholm P, Rice M, Venkatesh B, Johnston ANB, et al. Queensland Pediatric Sepsis Breakthrough Collaborative: multicenter observational study to evaluate the implementation of a pediatric sepsis pathway within the emergency department. Crit Care Explor. 2021;3:e0573.
Ferrer R, Artigas A, Levy MM, Blanco J, González-Díaz G, Garnacho-Montero J, et al. Improvement in process of care and outcome after a multicenter severe sepsis educational program in Spain. JAMA. 2008;299:2294–303.
Noritomi DT, Ranzani OT, Monteiro MB, Ferreira EM, Santos SR, Leibel F, et al. Implementation of a multifaceted sepsis education program in an emerging country setting: clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness in a long-term follow-up study. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40:182–91.
Levy MM, Rhodes A, Phillips GS, Townsend SR, Schorr CA, Beale R, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: association between performance metrics and outcomes in a 7.5-year study. Crit Care Med. 2015;43:3–12.
Baghdadi JD, Brook RH, Uslan DZ, Needleman J, Bell DS, Cunningham WE, et al. Association of a care bundle for early sepsis management with mortality among patients with hospital-onset or community-onset sepsis. JAMA Intern Med. 2020; 180:707–716
Garza M, Graetz DE, Kaye EC, Ferrara G, Rodriguez M, Soberanis Vásquez DJ, et al. Impact of PEWS on perceived quality of care during deterioration in children with cancer hospitalized in different resource-settings. Front Oncol. 2021;11:660051.
Mills D, Schmid A, Najajreh A, Al Nasser A, Awwad Y, Qattush K, et al. Implementation of a pediatric early warning score tool in a pediatric oncology ward in Palestine. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21:1159.
Arabi YM, Alsaawi A, Al Zahrani M, Al Khathaami AM, AlHazme RH, Al Mutrafy A, et al. Electronic early notification of sepsis in hospitalized ward patients: a study protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2021;22:695.
Arabi YM, Pickering BW, Al-Dorzi HM, Alsaawi A, Al-Qahtani SM, Hay AW. Information technology to improve patient safety: a round table discussion from the 5(th) International Patient Safety Forum, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, April 14–16, 2015. Ann Thorac Med. 2016;11:219–23.
Alsolamy S, Al Salamah M, Al Thagafi M, Al-Dorzi HM, Marini AM, Aljerian N, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of a screening electronic alert tool for severe sepsis and septic shock in the emergency department. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2014;14:105.
Balamuth G, Alpern ER, Abbadessa MK, Hayes K, Schast A, Lavelle J, et al. Improving recognition of pediatric severe sepsis in the emergency department: contributions of a vital sign-based electronic alert and bedside clinician identification. Ann Emerg Med. 2017;70:759 – 68.e752.
Emmanuel J, Torres A. The impact of automated electronic surveillance of electronic medical records on pediatric inpatient care. Cureus. 2018;10:e3395.
Narayanan N, Gross AK, Pintens M, Fee C, MacDougall C. Effect of an electronic medical record alert for severe sepsis among ED patients. Am J Emerg Med. 2016;34:185–8.
Rolnick J, Downing NL, Shepard J, Chu W, Tam J, Wessels A, Li R, et al. Validation of test performance and clinical time zero for an electronic health record embedded severe sepsis alert. Appl Clin Inform. 2016;7:560–72.
Westphal GA, Pereira AB, Fachin SM, Sperotto G, Gonçalves M, Albino L, et al. An electronic warning system helps reduce the time to diagnosis of sepsis. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2018;30:414–22.
Gibbs KD, Shi Y, Sanders N, Bodnar A, Brown T, Shah MD, et al. Evaluation of a sepsis alert in the pediatric acute care setting. Appl Clin Inform. 2021; 12:469–78.
Harrison AM, Gajic O, Pickering BW, Herasevich V. Development and implementation of sepsis alert systems. Clin Chest Med. 2016;37:219–29.
Hwang MI, Bond WF, Powell ES. Sepsis alerts in emergency departments: a systematic review of accuracy and quality measure impact. West J Emerg Med. 2020;21:1201–10.
Joshi M, Ashrafian H, Arora S, Khan S, Cooke G, Darzi A. Digital alerting and outcomes in patients with sepsis: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21:e15166.
Long D, Capan M, Mascioli S, Weldon D, Arnold R, Miller K. Evaluation of user-interface alert displays for clinical decision support systems for sepsis. Crit Care Nurse. 2018;38:46–54
Brakenridge SC, Starostik P, Ghita G, Midic U, Darden D, Fenner B, et al. A transcriptomic severity metric that predicts clinical outcomes in critically ill surgical sepsis patients. Crit Care Explor. 2021;3:e0554.
Horton DJ, Graves KK, Kukhareva PV, Johnson SA, Cedillo M, Sanford M, et al. Modified early warning score-based clinical decision support: cost impact and clinical outcomes in sepsis. JAMIA Open. 2020;3:261–8.
Eisenberg MA, Balamuth F. Pediatric sepsis screening in US hospitals. Pediatr Res. 2021:1–8.
Sepanski RJ, Godambe SA, Zaritsky AL. Pediatric vital sign distribution derived from a multi-centered emergency department database. Front Pediatr. 2018; 6:66.
Lin PC, Chen KT, Chen HC, Islam MM, Lin MC: Machine learning model to identify sepsis patients in the emergency department: algorithm development and validation. J Pers Med. 2021;11.
Lipatov K, Daniels CE, Park JG, Elmer J, Hanson AC, Madsen BE, et al. Implementation and evaluation of sepsis surveillance and decision support in medical ICU and emergency department. Am J Emerg Med. 2022;51:378–83.
Skyttberg N, Chen R, Blomqvist H, Koch S. Exploring vital sign data quality in electronic health records with focus on emergency care warning scores. Appl Clin Inform. 2017;8:880–92.
Westra BL, Landman S, Yadav P, Steinbach M. Secondary analysis of an electronic surveillance system combined with multi-focal interventions for early detection of sepsis. Appl Clin Inform. 2017;8:47–66.
Bruns N, Dohna-Schwake C. Antibiotics in critically ill children-a narrative review on different aspects of a rational approach. Pediatr Res. 2021 Dec 6.doi: 10.1038/s41390-021-01878-9. Online ahead of print.
Rodrigues-Santos G, de Magalhães-Barbosa MC, Raymundo CE, Lima-Setta F, da Cunha AJLA, Prata-Barbosa A. Improvement of 1st -hour bundle compliance and sepsis mortality in pediatrics after the implementation of the surviving sepsis campaign guidelines. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2021;97:459–67.
Agulnik A, Antillon-Klussmann F, Soberanis Vasquez DJ, Arango R, Moran E, Lopez V, et al. Cost-benefit analysis of implementing a pediatric early warning system at a pediatric oncology hospital in a low-middle income country. Cancer. 2019;125:40524058.
Agulnik A, Nadkarni A, Mora Robles LN, Soberanis Vasquez DJ, Mack R, Antillon-Klussmann R, et al. Pediatric early warning systems aid in triage to intermediate versus intensive care for pediatric oncology patients in resource-limited hospitals. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2018;65:e27076.

No competing interests reported.

sepsissirsnewsletter.pdf

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Major revision
12 May, 2022
Reviews received at journal
27 Apr, 2022
Reviewers agreed at journal
19 Apr, 2022
Reviewers agreed at journal
19 Apr, 2022
Reviewers invited by journal
19 Apr, 2022
Editor assigned by journal
19 Apr, 2022
Editor invited by journal
07 Apr, 2022
Submission checks completed at journal
07 Apr, 2022
First submitted to journal
29 Mar, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

Impact of an electronic alert system for pediatric sepsis screening: a tertiary hospital experience

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Objectives

Method

Intervention

Results

Conclusion

Introduction

Materials And Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1