首页> 外文期刊>Western Journal of Emergency Medicine >Physician Documentation of Sepsis Syndrome Is Associated with More Aggressive Treatment
【24h】

Physician Documentation of Sepsis Syndrome Is Associated with More Aggressive Treatment

机译:脓毒症综合征的医师文献与更积极的治疗相关

获取原文
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Introduction: Timely recognition and treatment of sepsis improves survival. The objective is to examine the association between recognition of sepsis and timeliness of treatments. Methods: We identified a retrospective cohort of emergency department (ED) patients with positive blood cultures from May 2007 to January 2009, and reviewed vital signs, imaging, laboratory data, and physicianursing charts. Patients who met systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria and had evidence of infection available to the treating clinician at the time of the encounter were classified as having sepsis. Patients were dichotomized as RECOGNIZED if sepsis was explicitly articulated in the patient record or if a sepsis order set was launched, or as UNRECOGNIZED if neither of these two criteria were met. We used median regression to compare time to antibiotic administration and total volume of fluid resuscitation between groups, controlling for age, sex, and sepsis severity. Results: SIRS criteria were present in 228/315 (72.4%) cases. Our record review identified sepsis syndromes in 214 (67.9%) cases of which 118 (55.1%) had sepsis, 64 (29.9%) had severe sepsis, and 32 (15.0%) had septic shock. The treating team contemplated sepsis (RECOGNIZED) in 123 (57.6%) patients. Compared to the UNRECOGNIZED group, the RECOGNIZED group had a higher use of antibiotics in the ED (91.9 vs.75.8%, p=0.002), more patients aged 60 years or older (56.9 vs. 33.0%, p=0.001), and more severe cases (septic shock: 18.7 vs. 9.9%, severe sepsis: 39.0 vs.17.6%, sepsis: 42.3 vs.72.5%; p<0.001). The median time to antibiotic (minutes) was lower in the RECOGNIZED (142) versus UNRECOGNIZED (229) group, with an adjusted median difference of -74 minutes (95% CI [-128 to -19]). The median total volume of fluid resuscitation (mL) was higher in the RECOGNIZED (1,600 mL) compared to the UNRECOGNIZED (1,000 mL) group. However, the adjusted median difference was not statistically significant: 262 mL (95% CI [ -171 to 694 mL]). Conclusion: Patients whose emergency physicians articulated sepsis syndrome in their documentation or who launched the sepsis order set received antibiotics sooner and received more total volume of fluid. Age <60 and absence of fever are factors associated with lack of recognition of sepsis cases. [West J Emerg Med. 2015;16(3):401–407.].
机译:简介:及时识别和治疗败血症可提高生存率。目的是检查败血症的认识与治疗及时性之间的联系。方法:我们从2007年5月至2009年1月,对急诊科(ED)血液培养呈阳性的患者进行回顾性研究,并回顾了生命体征,影像学,实验室数据和医师/护理图表。符合系统性炎症反应综合征(SIRS)标准并在遭遇时具有治疗主治医生可用感染证据的患者被分类为败血症。如果败血症在患者病历中明确阐明或启动了败血症命令集,则将患者分为“已确认”,如果这两个标准均未得到满足,则将患者分为“不认可”。我们使用中位数回归比较两组之间的抗生素使用时间和液体复苏的总体积,控制年龄,性别和败血症的严重程度。结果:228/315(72.4%)病例符合SIRS标准。我们的记录审查确定了214例(67.9%)败血症综合征,其中118例(55.1%)患有败血症,64例(29.9%)患有严重败血症,32例(15.0%)患有败血性休克。治疗小组考虑对123名(57.6%)患者进行败血症治疗(重新确认)。与UNRECOGNIZED组相比,RECOGNIZED组在ED中使用抗生素的比例更高(91.9 vs.75.8%,p = 0.002),年龄在60岁以上的患者更多(56.9 vs. 33.0%,p = 0.001),并且更严重的病例(败血症性休克:18.7 vs. 9.9%,严重败血症:39.0 vs.17.6%,败血症:42.3 vs.72.5%; p <0.001)。 RECOGNIZED(142)组与UNRECOGNIZED(229)组的平均抗生素使用时间(分钟)相比更短,调整后的中位数差异为-74分钟(95%CI [-128至-19])。与未确认组(1,000 mL)相比,已确认组(1,600 mL)的液体复苏总中位数(mL)高。但是,调整后的中位数差异无统计学意义:262毫升(95%CI [-171至694毫升])。结论:急诊医师在其文档中明确指出败血症综合征的患者或启动败血症命令集的患者较早接受抗生素治疗,并接受更多的液体。年龄<60岁和没有发烧是与败血症病例认识不足有关的因素。 [西急救医学杂志。 2015; 16(3):401-407。]。

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