Assessing the Effect of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Treatment Guidelines on Clinical Outcomes in a Community Hospital

Abstract

Spanish

French

Background:

Bundles yield a reduction in mortality in patients with sepsis, but the majority of the data is from large academic centers. The ability of a community hospital to implement a sepsis bundle successfully, however, has not been investigated.

Objective:

To examine the effect of a collaborative 2-part sepsis bundle on clinical outcomes and mortality at a community hospital.

Methods:

The study included all patients with severe sepsis/septic shock over the age of 18 years admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) from 2006 to 2007 who were not treated with a bundle (n = 53) and those who were treated with a bundle (n = 59). Data collected included demographics; initiation of vasopressors; days on vasopressors; blood glucose; use of drotrecogin alfa (activated), steroids, and ventilator; ICU/hospital lengths of stay; ventilator days; time to culture; time to first dose of antibiotics; time to transfer from emergency department to ICU; fluid resuscitation in the first 24 hours; percentage of patients started on dialysis; and mortality.

Results:

Demographics; blood glucose; use of drolrecogin alfa (activated), steroids and ventilator; ICU/hospital lengths of stay; and ventilator days were statistically similar between groups. Median time to cultures, first dose of antibiotics, and transfer to ICU were all reduced with the bundle. Percentage of non-bundle patients on vasopressors was 87% versus 66.7% of bundle patients (p = 0.011) and number of median days on vasopressors was reduced. Fewer bundle patients were initiated on dialysis (0%) versus non-bundle patients (14.8%) (p = 0.02). Median fluid administered in the first 24 hours was 2200 mL (10-13,996 mL) for non-bundle patients and 7143 mL (1000-19,104 mL) for bundle patients (p < 0.001). Mortality was 61.1% in the non-bundle group versus 20% with the bundle (p < 0.001).

Conclusions:

Implementation of a 2-part sepsis bundle based on the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines can yield a positive impact on clinical outcome and mortality in a nonacademic, community hospital setting.

Keywords

bundles outcomes sepsis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Leading causes of death. www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/Lcod.htm (accessed 2008 Oct 5).

Nguyen

, Rivers

. The clinical practice of early goal-directed therapy in severe sepsis and septic shock. Adv Sepsis 2005; 4:126–33.

Russell

. Management of sepsis. N Engl J Med 2006; 355:1699–713.

Kortgen

, Niederprum

, Bauer

. Implementation of an evidence-based “standard operating procedure” and outcome in septic shock. Crit Care Med 2006; 34:943–9.

Dellinger

, Carlet

, Masur

. Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med 2004; 32:858–73.

Rivers

, Nguyen

, Havstad

. Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med 2001; 345:1368–77.

Micek

, Roubinian

, Heuring

. Before-after study of a standardized hospital order set for the management of septic shock. Crit Care Med 2006; 34:2707–13.

Kumar

, Roberts

, Wood

. Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock. Crit Care Med 2006; 34:1589–96.

Shapiro

, Howell

, Talmor

. A blueprint for a sepsis protocol. Acad Emerg Med 2005; 12:352–9.

10.

Nguyen

, Rivers

, Abrahamian

. Severe sepsis and septic shock: review of the literature and emergency department management guidelines. Ann Emerg Med 2006; 48:28–55.

11.

Osborn

, Nguyen

, Rivers

. Emergency medicine and the surviving sepsis campaign: an international approach to managing severe sepsis and septic shock. Ann Emerg Med 2005; 46:228–31.

12.

Shapiro

, Howell

, Talmor

. Implementation and outcomes of the Multiple Urgent Sepsis Therapies (MUST) protocol. Crit Care Med 2006; 34:1025–32.

13.

Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Surviving Sepsis Campaign. www.ihi.org/IHI/Topics/CriticalCare/Sepsis (accessed 2008 Jan 3).

14.

Rivers

, Coba

, Whitmill

. Early goal directed therapy in severe sepsis and septic shock: a contemporary review of the literature. Curr Opin Anesthesiol 2008; 21:128–40.

15.

Levy

, Dellinger

, Townsend

. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: results of an international guideline-based performance improvement program targeting severe sepsis. Intensive Care Med 2010; 36:222–31.

16.

Otero

, Nguyen

, Huang

. Early goal-directed therapy in severe sepsis and septic shock revisited. Chest 2006; 130:1579–95.

17.

Trzeciak

, Dellinger

, Abate

. Translating research to clinical practice: a 1-year experience with implementing early goal-directed therapy for septic shock in the emergency department. Chest 2006; 129:225–32.