Comparison of Two Sepsis Recognition Methods in a Pediatric Emergency Department

被引:57
|
作者
Balamuth, Fran [1 ,5 ,6 ]
Alpern, Elizabeth R. [9 ,10 ]
Grundmeier, Robert W. [1 ,7 ]
Chilutti, Marianne [7 ]
Weiss, Scott L. [2 ,8 ]
Fitzgerald, Julie C. [2 ,8 ]
Hayes, Katie [5 ,6 ]
Bilker, Warren [3 ]
Lautenbach, Ebbing [3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Penn, Perelman Sch Med, Dept Pediat, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[2] Univ Penn, Perelman Sch Med, Dept Anesthesia & Crit Care, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[3] Univ Penn, Perelman Sch Med, Ctr Clin Epidemiol & Biostat, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[4] Univ Penn, Perelman Sch Med, Dept Med, Div Infect Dis, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[5] Childrens Hosp Philadelphia, Div Emergency Med, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[6] Childrens Hosp Philadelphia, Ctr Pediat Clin Effectiveness, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[7] Childrens Hosp Philadelphia, Ctr Biomed Informat, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[8] Childrens Hosp Philadelphia, Div Crit Care, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[9] Northwestern Univ, Dept Pediat, Feinberg Sch Med, Chicago, IL 60611 USA
[10] Ann & Robert H Lurie Childrens Hosp Chicago, Div Emergency Med, Chicago, IL 60611 USA
关键词
SEPTIC SHOCK; HEMODYNAMIC SUPPORT; CARE; UTILITY; TRIAL; ALERT;
D O I
10.1111/acem.12814
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
Objectives: The objective was to compare the effectiveness of physician judgment and an electronic algorithmic alert to identify pediatric patients with severe sepsis/septic shock in a pediatric emergency department (ED). Methods: This was an observational cohort study of patients older than 56 days with fever or hypothermia. All patients were evaluated for potential sepsis in real time by the ED clinical team. An electronic algorithmic alert was retrospectively applied to identify patients with potential sepsis independent of physician judgment. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients correctly identified with severe sepsis/septic shock defined by consensus criteria. Test characteristics were determined and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were compared. Results: Of 19,524 eligible patient visits, 88 patients developed consensus-confirmed severe sepsis or septic shock. Physician judgment identified 159 and the algorithmic alert identified 3,301 patients with potential sepsis. Physician judgment had sensitivity of 72.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 72.1% to 73.4%) and specificity of 99.5% (95% CI = 99.4% to 99.6%); the algorithmic alert had sensitivity of 92.1% (95% CI = 91.7% to 92.4%) and specificity of 83.4% (95% CI = 82.9% to 83.9%) for severe sepsis/septic shock. There was no significant difference in the area under the ROC curve for physician judgment (0.86, 95% CI = 0.81 to 0.91) or the algorithm (0.88, 95% CI = 0.85 to 0.91; p = 0.54). A combination method using either positive physician judgment or an algorithmic alert improved sensitivity to 96.6% and specificity to 83.3%. A sequential approach, in which positive identification by the algorithmic alert was then confirmed by physician judgment, achieved 68.2% sensitivity and 99.6% specificity. Positive and negative predictive values for physician judgment versus algorithmic alert were 40.3% versus 2.5% and 99.88% versus 99.96%, respectively. Conclusions: The electronic algorithmic alert was more sensitive but less specific than physician judgment for recognition of pediatric severe sepsis and septic shock. These findings can help to guide institutions in selecting pediatric sepsis recognition methods based on institutional needs and priorities. (C) 2015 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine
引用
收藏
页码:1298 / 1306
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A Comparison of Two Methods for Measuring Pediatric CPR Quality in a Pediatric Emergency Department
    Hsieh, Ting-Chang
    Wolfe, Heather
    Hoyte, Natasha
    Sutton, Robert
    Nadkarni, Vinay
    Donoghue, Aaron
    [J]. CIRCULATION, 2013, 128 (22)
  • [2] Comparison of Manual and Automated Sepsis Screening Tools in a Pediatric Emergency Department
    Eisenberg, Matthew
    Freiman, Eli
    Capraro, Andrew
    Madden, Kate
    Monuteaux, Michael C.
    Hudgins, Joel
    Harper, Marvin
    [J]. PEDIATRICS, 2021, 147 (02)
  • [3] Recognition, Diagnostics, and Management of Pediatric Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock in the Emergency Department
    Paul, Raina
    [J]. PEDIATRIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2018, 65 (06) : 1107 - +
  • [4] The Cost of a Learner in the Pediatric Emergency Department A Comparison Across Two Pediatric Emergency Departments
    Corey, Patrick
    Jadhav, Nagesh
    Grams, Keith
    Sigal, Adam
    Babineau, Ryan
    Alweis, Richard
    [J]. PEDIATRIC EMERGENCY CARE, 2022, 38 (12) : E1688 - E1691
  • [5] An estimate of missed pediatric sepsis in the emergency department
    Cifra, Christina L.
    Westlund, Erik
    Ten Eyck, Patrick
    Ward, Marcia M.
    Mohr, Nicholas M.
    Katz, David A.
    [J]. DIAGNOSIS, 2021, 8 (02) : 193 - 198
  • [6] Racial Differences in Sepsis Recognition in the Emergency Department
    Raman, Jenny
    Johnson, Tiffani J.
    Hayes, Katie
    Balamuth, Fran
    [J]. PEDIATRICS, 2019, 144 (04)
  • [7] Tonometry Methods in the Pediatric Emergency Department
    Yamamoto, Loren G.
    Young, David A.
    [J]. PEDIATRIC EMERGENCY CARE, 2010, 26 (09) : 678 - 683
  • [8] Lactate as a Predictor of Admission In Emergency Department Pediatric Sepsis
    Elie-Turenne, M.
    Sahari, I
    Baricella, R.
    Kondamudi, N.
    Rosania, A.
    Sinquee, D.
    Shahidi, H.
    [J]. ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2010, 56 (03) : S47 - S48
  • [9] Epidemiology and treatment of sepsis at a public pediatric emergency department
    Monteiro Medeiros, Daniela Nasu
    Cintra Nunes Mafra, Ana Carolina
    de Souza, Daniela Carla
    Troster, Eduardo Juan
    [J]. EINSTEIN-SAO PAULO, 2022, 20 : eAO6131
  • [10] Respiratory Diseases in Pediatric Triage A Comparison Between a General Emergency Department and a Pediatric Emergency Department
    Tromba, Valeria
    Moretti, Matteo
    Massaccesi, Valerio
    Peparini, Ilaria
    Pistoletti, Chiara
    Salerno, Viviana
    [J]. PEDIATRIC EMERGENCY CARE, 2014, 30 (02) : 81 - 83