Retrospective single-centre descriptive study of the characteristics, management and outcomes of adult patients with suspected sepsis in the emergency department

11Citations
Citations of this article
44Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background Guidelines for adults presenting to the emergency department (ED) with suspected sepsis recommend protocols and bundles that promote rapid and potentially intensive treatment, but give little consideration of how patient characteristics, such as age, functional status and comorbidities, might influence management. This study aimed to describe the characteristics, management and outcomes of adults attending the ED with suspected sepsis, and specifically describe the prevalence of comorbidities, functional impairment and escalations of care. Methods We undertook a single-centre retrospective observational study involving medical record review of a random sample of adults admitted to an ED between February 2018 and January 2019 with suspected sepsis. Descriptive statistics were used with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for key proportions. Results We included 509 patients (median age 74 years), of whom 49.3% met the Sepsis-3 criteria. Less than half of the patients were living at home independently (42.5%) or could walk independently (41.5%), 19.3% were care home residents and 89.2% of patients had one or more comorbidity. 22% had a pre-existing do not attempt resuscitation order. 6.5% were referred to intensive care, and 34.3% of the 13.2% who died in-hospital had an escalation plan explicitly documented. Conclusion Adults with suspected sepsis have substantial functional limitations, comorbidities and treatment directives that should be considered in guidelines, especially recommendations for escalation of care.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sabir, L., Wharton, L., & Goodacre, S. (2022). Retrospective single-centre descriptive study of the characteristics, management and outcomes of adult patients with suspected sepsis in the emergency department. Emergency Medicine Journal, 39(4), 272–278. https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2020-211111

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