IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0167230.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sepsis Prevalence and Outcome on the General Wards and Emergency Departments in Wales: Results of a Multi-Centre, Observational, Point Prevalence Study

Author

Listed:
  • Tamas Szakmany
  • Robert M Lundin
  • Ben Sharif
  • Gemma Ellis
  • Paul Morgan
  • Maja Kopczynska
  • Amrit Dhadda
  • Charlotte Mann
  • Danielle Donoghue
  • Sarah Rollason
  • Emma Brownlow
  • Francesca Hill
  • Grace Carr
  • Hannah Turley
  • James Hassall
  • James Lloyd
  • Llywela Davies
  • Michael Atkinson
  • Molly Jones
  • Nerys Jones
  • Rhodri Martin
  • Yousef Ibrahim
  • Judith E Hall
  • On behalf of Welsh Digital Data Collection Platform Collaborators

Abstract

Data on sepsis prevalence on the general wards is lacking on the UK and in the developed world. We conducted a multicentre, prospective, observational study of the prevalence of patients with sepsis or severe sepsis on the general wards and Emergency Departments (ED) in Wales. During the 24-hour study period all patients with NEWS≥3 were screened for presence of 2 or more SIRS criteria. To be eligible for inclusion, patients had to have a high clinical suspicion of an infection, together with a systemic inflammatory response (sepsis) and evidence of acute organ dysfunction and/or shock (severe sepsis). There were 5317 in-patients in the 24-hour study period. Data were returned on 1198 digital data collection forms on patients with NEWS≥3 of which 87 were removed, leaving 1111 for analysis. 146 patients had sepsis and 144 patients had severe sepsis. Combined prevalence of sepsis and severe sepsis was 5.5% amongst all in-patients. Patients with sepsis had significantly higher NEWS scores (3 IQR 3–4 for non-sepsis and 4 IQR 3–6 for sepsis patients, respectively). Common organ dysfunctions in severe sepsis were hypoxia (47%), hypoperfusion (40%) and acute kidney injury (25%). Mortality at 90 days was 31% with a median (IQR) hospital free stay of 78 (36–85) days. Screening for sepsis, referral to Critical Care and completion of Sepsis 6 bundle was low: 26%, 16% and 12% in the sepsis group. Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified higher National Early Warning Score, diabetes, COPD, heart failure, malignancy and current or previous smoking habits as independent variables suggesting the diagnosis of sepsis. We observed that sepsis is more prevalent in the general ward and ED than previously suggested before and that screening and effective treatment for sepsis and severe sepsis is far from being operationalized in this environment, leading to high 90 days mortality.

Suggested Citation

  • Tamas Szakmany & Robert M Lundin & Ben Sharif & Gemma Ellis & Paul Morgan & Maja Kopczynska & Amrit Dhadda & Charlotte Mann & Danielle Donoghue & Sarah Rollason & Emma Brownlow & Francesca Hill & Grac, 2016. "Sepsis Prevalence and Outcome on the General Wards and Emergency Departments in Wales: Results of a Multi-Centre, Observational, Point Prevalence Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-12, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0167230
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0167230
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0167230
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0167230&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0167230?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0167230. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.