Electronic health record-based clinical decision support alert for severe sepsis: a randomised evaluation

Norman Lance Downing, Joshua Rolnick, Sarah F Poole, Evan Hall, Alexander J Wessels, Paul Heidenreich, Lisa Shieh, Norman Lance Downing, Joshua Rolnick, Sarah F Poole, Evan Hall, Alexander J Wessels, Paul Heidenreich, Lisa Shieh

Abstract

Background: Sepsis remains the top cause of morbidity and mortality of hospitalised patients despite concerted efforts. Clinical decision support for sepsis has shown mixed results reflecting heterogeneous populations, methodologies and interventions.

Objectives: To determine whether the addition of a real-time electronic health record (EHR)-based clinical decision support alert improves adherence to treatment guidelines and clinical outcomes in hospitalised patients with suspected severe sepsis.

Design: Patient-level randomisation, single blinded.

Setting: Medical and surgical inpatient units of an academic, tertiary care medical centre.

Patients: 1123 adults over the age of 18 admitted to inpatient wards (intensive care units (ICU) excluded) at an academic teaching hospital between November 2014 and March 2015.

Interventions: Patients were randomised to either usual care or the addition of an EHR-generated alert in response to a set of modified severe sepsis criteria that included vital signs, laboratory values and physician orders.

Measurements and main results: There was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups in primary outcome of the percentage of patients with new antibiotic orders at 3 hours after the alert (35% vs 37%, p=0.53). There was no difference in secondary outcomes of in-hospital mortality at 30 days, length of stay greater than 72 hours, rate of transfer to ICU within 48 hours of alert, or proportion of patients receiving at least 30 mL/kg of intravenous fluids.

Conclusions: An EHR-based severe sepsis alert did not result in a statistically significant improvement in several sepsis treatment performance measures.

Keywords: alert; clinical decision support; electronic health record; protocol; sepsis.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Enrolment and randomisation.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Primary and secondary outcomes. ICU, intensive care unit.

References

    1. Angus DC, Linde-Zwirble WT, Lidicker J, et al. . Epidemiology of severe sepsis in the United States: analysis of incidence, outcome, and associated costs of care. Crit Care Med 2001;29:1303–10. 10.1097/00003246-200107000-00002
    1. Gaieski DF, Edwards JM, Kallan MJ, et al. . Benchmarking the incidence and mortality of severe sepsis in the United States. Crit Care Med 2013;41:1167–74. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31827c09f8
    1. Dombrovskiy VY, Martin AA, Sunderram J, et al. . Rapid increase in hospitalization and mortality rates for severe sepsis in the United States: a trend analysis from 1993 to 2003. Crit Care Med 2007;35:1244–50. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000261890.41311.E9
    1. Sterling SA, Miller WR, Pryor J, et al. . The impact of timing of antibiotics on outcomes in severe sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 2015;43:1907–15. 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001142
    1. Makam AN, Nguyen OK, Auerbach AD. Diagnostic accuracy and effectiveness of automated electronic sepsis alert systems: a systematic review. J Hosp Med 2015;10:396–402. 10.1002/jhm.2347
    1. Nelson JL, Smith BL, Jared JD, et al. . Prospective trial of real-time electronic surveillance to expedite early care of severe sepsis. Ann Emerg Med 2011;57:500–4. 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.12.008
    1. Semler MW, Weavind L, Hooper MH, et al. . An electronic tool for the evaluation and treatment of sepsis in the ICU. Crit Care Med 2015;43:1595–602. 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001020
    1. Hooper MH, Weavind L, Wheeler AP, et al. . Randomized trial of automated, electronic monitoring to facilitate early detection of sepsis in the intensive care unit*. Crit Care Med 2012;40:2096–101. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318250a887
    1. Sawyer AM, Deal EN, Labelle AJ, et al. . Implementation of a real-time computerized sepsis alert in nonintensive care unit patients. Crit Care Med 2011;39:469–73. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318205df85
    1. Umscheid CA, Betesh J, VanZandbergen C, et al. . Development, implementation, and impact of an automated early warning and response system for sepsis. J Hosp Med 2015;10:26–31. 10.1002/jhm.2259
    1. Narayanan N, Gross AK, Pintens M, et al. . Effect of an electronic medical record alert for severe sepsis among ED patients. Am J Emerg Med 2016;34:185–8. 10.1016/j.ajem.2015.10.005
    1. Manaktala S, Claypool SR. Evaluating the impact of a computerized surveillance algorithm and decision support system on sepsis mortality. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017;24:88–95. 10.1093/jamia/ocw056
    1. Nguyen SQ, Mwakalindile E, Booth JS, et al. . Automated electronic medical record sepsis detection in the emergency department. PeerJ 2014;2:e343 10.7717/peerj.343
    1. Meurer WJ, Smith BL, Losman ED, et al. . Real-time identification of serious infection in geriatric patients using clinical information system surveillance. J Am Geriatr Soc 2009;57:40–5. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.02094.x
    1. Lowe HJ, Ferris TA, Hernandez PM, et al. . STRIDE--An integrated standards-based translational research informatics platform. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2009;2009:391–5.
    1. McRee L, Thanavaro JL, Moore K, et al. . The impact of an electronic medical record surveillance program on outcomes for patients with sepsis. Heart Lung 2014;43:546–9. 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2014.05.009
    1. Evans RS, Kuttler KG, Simpson KJ, et al. . Automated detection of physiologic deterioration in hospitalized patients. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015;22:350–60. 10.1136/amiajnl-2014-002816
    1. Shankar-Hari M, Phillips GS, Levy ML, et al. . Developing a new definition and assessing new clinical criteria for septic shock: for the third International consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA 2016;315:775–87. 10.1001/jama.2016.0289
    1. Roshanov PS, Fernandes N, Wilczynski JM, et al. . Features of effective computerised clinical decision support systems: meta-regression of 162 randomised trials. BMJ 2013;346 10.1136/bmj.f657
    1. Garg AX, Adhikari NKJ, McDonald H, et al. . Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA 2005;293:1223–38. 10.1001/jama.293.10.1223
    1. Bright TJ, Wong A, Dhurjati R, et al. . Effect of clinical decision-support systems: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2012;157:29–43. 10.7326/0003-4819-157-1-201207030-00450
    1. Kawamoto K, Houlihan CA, Balas EA, et al. . Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success. BMJ 2005;330 10.1136/bmj.38398.500764.8F
    1. Bonafide CP, Localio AR, Holmes JH, et al. . Video analysis of factors associated with response time to physiologic monitor alarms in a children's Hospital. JAMA Pediatr 2017;171:524–31. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.5123

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa