 |
|
Improvement in Process of Care and Outcome After a Multicenter Severe Sepsis Educational Program in Spain
Ricard Ferrer, MD;
Antonio Artigas, MD, PhD;
Mitchell M. Levy, MD, FCCM;
Jesús Blanco, MD, PhD;
Gumersindo González-Díaz, MD, PhD;
José Garnacho-Montero, MD, PhD;
Jordi Ibáñez, MD, PhD;
Eduardo Palencia, MD, PhD;
Manuel Quintana, MD;
María Victoria de la Torre-Prados, MD, PhD; for the Edusepsis Study Group
JAMA. 2008;299(19):2294-2303.
Context Concern exists that current guidelines for care of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock are followed variably, possibly due to a lack of adequate education.
Objective To determine whether a national educational program based on the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines affected processes of care and hospital mortality for severe sepsis.
Design, Setting, and Patients Before and after design in 59 medical-surgical intensive care units (ICUs) located throughout Spain. All ICU patients were screened daily and enrolled if they fulfilled severe sepsis or septic shock criteria. A total of 854 patients were enrolled in the preintervention period (November-December 2005), 1465 patients during the postintervention period (March-June 2006), and 247 patients during the long-term follow-up period 1 year later (November-December 2006) in a subset of 23 ICUs.
Intervention The educational program consisted of training physicians and nursing staff from the emergency department, wards, and ICU in the definition, recognition, and treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock as outlined in the guidelines. Treatment was organized in 2 bundles: a resuscitation bundle (6 tasks to begin immediately and be accomplished within 6 hours) and a management bundle (4 tasks to be completed within 24 hours).
Main Outcome Measures Hospital mortality, differences in adherence to the bundles' process-of-care variables, ICU mortality, 28-day mortality, hospital length of stay, and ICU length of stay.
Results Patients included before and after the intervention were similar in terms of age, sex, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score. At baseline, only 3 process-of-care measurements (blood cultures before antibiotics, early administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics, and mechanical ventilation with adequate inspiratory plateau pressure) we had compliance rates higher than 50%. Patients in the postintervention cohort had a lower risk of hospital mortality (44.0% vs 39.7%; P = .04). The compliance with process-of-care variables also improved after the intervention in the sepsis resuscitation bundle (5.3% [95% confidence interval [CI], 4%-7%] vs 10.0% [95% CI, 8%-12%]; P < .001) and in the sepsis management bundle (10.9% [95% CI, 9%-13%] vs 15.7% [95% CI, 14%-18%]; P = .001). Hospital length of stay and ICU length of stay did not change after the intervention. During long-term follow-up, compliance with the sepsis resuscitation bundle returned to baseline but compliance with the sepsis management bundle and mortality remained stable with respect to the postintervention period.
Conclusions A national educational effort to promote bundles of care for severe sepsis and septic shock was associated with improved guideline compliance and lower hospital mortality. However, compliance rates were still low, and the improvement in the resuscitation bundle lapsed by 1 year.
Author Affiliations: Centro de Críticos, Hospital de Sabadell, CIBER Enfermedades Respiratorias, Instituto Universitario Parc Tauli, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain (Drs Ferrer and Artigas); Medical Intensive Care Unit, Rhode Island Hospital, Brown University School of Medicine, Providence, Rhode Island (Dr Levy); Servicio de Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Universitario Rio Hortega, Valladolid, Spain (Dr Blanco); Servicio de Medicina Intensiva, Hospital General Universitario Morales Meseguer, Murcia, Spain (Dr González-Díaz); Servicio de Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocio, Sevilla, Spain (Dr Garnacho-Montero); Servicio de Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Universitario de Son Dureta, Palma de Mallorca, Spain (Dr Ibáñez); Servicio de Medicina Intensiva, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain (Dr Palencia); Servicio de Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Nuestra Señora del Prado, Talavera de la Reina, Toledo, Spain (Dr Quintana); and Servicio de Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Clínico Universitario Virgen de la Victoria, Málaga, Spain (Dr de la Torre-Prados).
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati
What's this?
RELATED LETTERS
Informed Consent and Studies of a Quality Improvement Program
JAMA. ;300():1762-1762.
FULL TEXT
Informed Consent and Studies of a Quality Improvement Program--Reply
, , and
JAMA. ;300():1762-1763.
FULL TEXT
RELATED ARTICLE
Improving Sepsis Care: The Road Ahead
and
JAMA. ;299():2322-2323.
FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Sepsis: a need for prehospital intervention?
Robson et al.
Emerg. Med. J. 2009;26:535-538.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Assessment of Pancreatic Cancer Care in the United States Based on Formally Developed Quality Indicators
Bilimoria et al.
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:848-859.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Update in Critical Care 2008
Fowler et al.
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2009;179:743-758.
FULL TEXT
Physician Staffing Models and Patient Safety in the ICU
Gajic and Afessa
Chest 2009;135:1038-1044.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Improving data quality control in quality improvement projects
Needham et al.
Int J Qual Health Care 2009;21:145-150.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Informed Consent and Studies of a Quality Improvement Program
Lemaire
JAMA 2008;300:1762-1762.
FULL TEXT
Improving Sepsis Outcome
JWatch Infect. Diseases 2008;2008:3-3.
FULL TEXT
Improving Sepsis Care: The Road Ahead
Kahn and Bates
JAMA 2008;299:2322-2323.
FULL TEXT
|
