【24h】

Surviving the Sepsis Campaign

机译:在败血症运动中生存

获取原文
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

H ealth P olicy Surviving the Sepsis Campaign Alexis Lieser, MD CAL/ACEP Advocacy Fellow, Sacramento, CA Scenario: A 20-month-old male presents to your emergency department with a two day history of fever, nasal congestion and cough. Parents are concerned about the fever. He is well- appearing, fully immunized and is taking fluids in the emergency department (ED). The child screens positive for systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) on your hospital’s required sepsis screening forms in triage due to a fever of 38.5°C and tachycardia. The nurse requests you document the child does not need a lactate and blood cultures drawn as part of a sepsis protocol. This case is an increasing familiar situation for a lot of emergency physicians leading to frustration and wondering why you went to medical school in the first place. Words like “protocol” and “bundle” makes the average naturally independent thinking emergency physician want to make a bonfire out of all the sepsis screening documents in your hospital. We are strong clinicians who take ownership of our patients and feel the need to protect them from unnecessary testing. Sometimes it is time to take a step back and an objective look – what has led up to the scenario described above? What makes sense and how can we advocate for our patients? Protocols and/or bundles in medicine are not going away and will likely become even more prevalent with healthcare reform legislation undergoing implementation over the next several years. Physicians have a high level of medical training for a reason and need to be involved in when they should be used and what items they contain. Surviving Sepsis Campaign Background The “surviving sepsis” campaign started with an international survey of 1,050 physicians regarding sepsis, which was conducted by the European Society of Critical Care Medicine and the Society of Critical Care 1 . Generally, physicians were frustrated at the lack of a common medical definition of sepsis and eager for breakthroughs making it easier to differentiate sepsis from other conditions which may present in a similar manner. In the same year, the Rivers et al. 2 paper regarding early goal-directed therapy in the ED for sepsis was published further pushing sepsis into the spotlight 2 . The campaign founders acknowledged physicians were generally managing severe sepsis well but improvements could be made. A goal was set of reducing mortality from sepsis by 25% over a five year period. ACEP has been involved as a sponsor of the campaign helping to provide guidelines and appropriate implementation for the ED setting. 3-6 Since the Volume XII, no . 1 : February 2011 implementation of the campaign, there have been many articles assessing the clinical effectiveness of a more standardized approach to defining and treating the septic patient. 7-13 There have also been questions concerning costs, pharmaceutical involvement and a one size fits all approach. 14-17 As part of the campaign, guidelines were developed by evaluating this research with a GRADE approach, a structured system for rating quality of evidence that also takes into account an assessment of the balance between benefits versus risks, burden, and cost. 18 The Bundle Defined The campaign also advocates for sepsis bundles for patients with severe sepsis/septic shock. A bundle attempts to match our everyday practice with current research. 19-21 Bundles are defined as a “group of therapies for a given disease that, when implemented together, may result in better outcomes than if implemented individually” and “science supporting the individual treatment strategies in a bundle is sufficiently mature such that implementation of the approach should be considered either best practice or a reasonable and generally accepted practice” 22 . As an example, the recommended sepsis bundle elements are: ? Measure serum lactate ? Obtain blood cultures prior to antibiotic administration ? Administer broad-spectrum antibiotic within 3 hours of ED admission and within 1 hour of non-ED admission ? Treat hypotension and/or elevated lactate with fluids, apply vasopressors for ongoing hypotension ? Maintain adequate central venous pressure and central venous oxygen saturation Arguments can be made about each specific item above for the case of sepsis but at the end of the day two principles are true which must be followed for success. First, placing items in protocols and/or bundles have potential to assist in patient care and we need to be open minded to this possibility. Second, standardized approaches must always allow room for clinical decisions and the art of medicine to be practiced. Clinical decision making is one of the issues many physicians feel are being lost in the rapidly changing healthcare environment and without this element patient care can be compromised by a robotic approach. Application of Protocols and Bundles in the ED Enormous amounts of time and research effort can be spent developing protocols
机译:在脓毒症运动中幸存的健康政策加利福尼亚州萨克拉门托市CAL / ACEP医师Alexis Lieser场景:一名20个月大的男性出现在您的急诊科,有两天的发烧,鼻充血和咳嗽史。父母担心发烧。他的容貌很好,已经接受了充分的免疫接种,并且正在急诊室(ED)进行输液。该孩子因发烧38.5°C和心动过速而按医院要求的败血症筛查形式筛查了系统性炎症反应综合征(SIRS)阳性。护士要求您提供文件,证明该孩子不需要脓毒症流程中抽取的乳酸和血液培养物。对于许多急诊医师而言,这种情况越来越常见,这导致他们感到沮丧,并想知道为什么您首先要去医学院。诸如“协议”和“捆绑”之类的词使急诊医师通常会自然而然地独立思考,希望从您医院的所有败血症筛查文件中篝火。我们是强大的临床医生,他们拥有病人的所有权,并感到有必要保护他们免受不必要的检查。有时是时候退后一步,客观地看一下–导致上述情况的原因是什么?有什么道理,我们如何为患者提倡?医学中的协议和/或捆绑协议并没有消失,并且随着未来几年医疗保健改革立法的实施,这种协议和/或捆绑协议可能会变得更加普遍。医师出于某种原因需要接受高水平的医学培训,因此需要参与何时使用以及其包含哪些物品。存活脓毒症运动背景“存活脓毒症”运动首先由欧洲重症医学会和重症医学会对1,050名脓毒症医生进行了一项国际调查。通常,医生对脓毒症缺乏统一的医学定义感到沮丧,并渴望获得突破,这使得脓毒症与其他可能以类似方式出现的疾病更加容易区分。同年,里弗斯等人。发表了2篇有关ED中针对脓毒症的早期目标导向治疗的论文,进一步将败血症推向了人们的关注2。该运动的创建者承认,医生通常对严重的败血症的治疗效果很好,但可以改善。设定的目标是在五年内将败血症死亡率降低25%。 ACEP作为活动的赞助商参与其中,为ED环境提供指导和适当实施。 3-6自第十二卷以来,没有。 2011年2月1日:该运动的实施,已有许多文章评估了定义和治疗脓毒症患者的更标准化方法的临床效果。 7-13还存在有关成本,药品投入和一种适用于所有方法的问题。 14-17作为运动的一部分,通过使用GRADE方法评估研究来制定指南,GRADE方法是一种结构化的证据质量评级系统,还考虑了对收益与风险,负担和成本之间的平衡的评估。 18捆绑的定义该运动还提倡为严重脓毒症/脓毒性休克患者提供脓毒症捆绑。捆绑软件试图将我们的日常实践与当前的研究相匹配。 19-21组合定义为“针对特定疾病的一组疗法,与单独实施相比,这些组合在一起实施可能会产生更好的结果”和“在组合中支持单个治疗策略的科学已经足够成熟,因此实施该方法应被视为最佳实践或合理且普遍接受的实践” 22。例如,推荐的败血症包元素为:测量血清乳酸盐?在服用抗生​​素之前获得血液培养物? ED入院后3小时内和非ED入院后1小时内使用广谱抗生素?用液体治疗低血压和/或乳酸升高,对持续的低血压应用血管加压药?保持足够的中心静脉压和中心静脉血氧饱和度对于败血症,可以对上述每个具体项目进行论证,但最终要遵循的两个原则是成功的。首先,将物品放置在协议和/或捆绑物中有可能有助于患者护理,我们需要对此保持开放的态度。其次,标准化方法必须始终为临床决策和医学技术实践留出空间。临床决策是许多医生认为在瞬息万变的医疗环境中迷失的问题之一,如果没有这一要素,则机器人方法可能会危及患者的护理。协议和捆绑软件在ED中的应用花费大量时间和精力进行协议开发

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号