The available criteria for different sepsis scoring systems in the emergency department— a retrospective assessment

2Citations
Citations of this article
34Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective: The goal of the study was to assess the criteria availability of eight sepsis scoring methods within 6 hours of triage in the emergency department (ED). Design: Retrospective data analysis study. Setting: ED of MedStar Washington Hospital Center (MWHC), a 912-bed urban, tertiary hospital. Patients: Adult (age ≥ 18 years) patients presenting to the MWHC ED between June 1, 2017 and May 31, 2018 and admitted with a diagnosis of severe sepsis with or without shock. Main Outcomes Measured: Availability of sepsis scoring criteria of eight different sepsis scoring methods at three time points—0 Hours (T0), 3 Hours (T1) and 6 Hours (T2) after arrival to the ED. Results: A total of 50 charts were reviewed, which included 23 (46%) males and 27 (54%) females. Forty-eight patients (96%) were Black or African American. Glasgow Coma Scale was available for all 50 patients at T0. Vital signs, except for temperature, were readily available (>90%) at T0. The majority of laboratory values relevant for sepsis scoring criteria were available (>90%) at T1, with exception to bilirubin (66%) and creatinine (80%). NEWS, PRESEP and qSOFA had greater than 90% criteria availability at triage. SOFA and SIRS consistently had the least percent of available criteria at all time points in the ED. Conclusion: The availability of patient data at different time points in a patient’s ED visit suggests that different scoring methods could be utilized to assess for sepsis as more patient information becomes available.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ramdeen, S., Ferrell, B., Bonk, C., Schubel, L., Littlejohn, R., Capan, M., … Miller, K. (2021). The available criteria for different sepsis scoring systems in the emergency department— a retrospective assessment. Open Access Emergency Medicine, 13, 91–96. https://doi.org/10.2147/OAEM.S280279

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free