订单集的使用与脓毒症患者较低的住院死亡率相关

Christopher R Dale, Shelley Schoepflin Sanders, Shu Ching Chang, Omar Pandhair, Naomi G Diggs, Whitney Woodruff, David N Selander, Nicholas M Mark, Sarah Nurse, Mark Sullivan, Liga Mezaraups, D Shane O'Mahony
{"title":"订单集的使用与脓毒症患者较低的住院死亡率相关","authors":"Christopher R Dale,&nbsp;Shelley Schoepflin Sanders,&nbsp;Shu Ching Chang,&nbsp;Omar Pandhair,&nbsp;Naomi G Diggs,&nbsp;Whitney Woodruff,&nbsp;David N Selander,&nbsp;Nicholas M Mark,&nbsp;Sarah Nurse,&nbsp;Mark Sullivan,&nbsp;Liga Mezaraups,&nbsp;D Shane O'Mahony","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000000918","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommends standard operating procedures for patients with sepsis. Real-world evidence about sepsis order set implementation is limited.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To estimate the effect of sepsis order set usage on hospital mortality.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting and participants: </strong>Fifty-four acute care hospitals in the United States from December 1, 2020 to November 30, 2022 involving 104,662 patients hospitalized for sepsis.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Hospital mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sepsis order set was used in 58,091 (55.5%) patients with sepsis. Initial mean sequential organ failure assessment score was 0.3 lower in patients for whom the order set was used than in those for whom it was not used (2.9 sd [2.8] vs 3.2 [3.1], <i>p</i> < 0.01). In bivariate analysis, hospital mortality was 6.3% lower in patients for whom the sepsis order set was used (9.7% vs 16.0%, <i>p</i> < 0.01), median time from emergency department triage to antibiotics was 54 minutes less (125 interquartile range [IQR, 68-221] vs 179 [98-379], <i>p</i> < 0.01), and median total time hypotensive was 2.1 hours less (5.5 IQR [2.0-15.0] vs 7.6 [2.5-21.8], <i>p</i> < 0.01) and septic shock was 3.2% less common (22.0% vs 25.4%, <i>p</i> < 0.01). Order set use was associated with 1.1 fewer median days of hospitalization (4.9 [2.8-9.0] vs 6.0 [3.2-12.1], <i>p</i> < 0.01), and 6.6% more patients discharged to home (61.4% vs 54.8%, <i>p</i> < 0.01). In the multivariable model, sepsis order set use was independently associated with lower hospital mortality (odds ratio 0.70; 95% CI, 0.66-0.73).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In a cohort of patients hospitalized with sepsis, order set use was independently associated with lower hospital mortality. Order sets can impact large-scale quality improvement efforts.</p>","PeriodicalId":10759,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Explorations","volume":"5 5","pages":"e0918"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/56/58/cc9-5-e0918.PMC10191554.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Order Set Usage is Associated With Lower Hospital Mortality in Patients With Sepsis.\",\"authors\":\"Christopher R Dale,&nbsp;Shelley Schoepflin Sanders,&nbsp;Shu Ching Chang,&nbsp;Omar Pandhair,&nbsp;Naomi G Diggs,&nbsp;Whitney Woodruff,&nbsp;David N Selander,&nbsp;Nicholas M Mark,&nbsp;Sarah Nurse,&nbsp;Mark Sullivan,&nbsp;Liga Mezaraups,&nbsp;D Shane O'Mahony\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/CCE.0000000000000918\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommends standard operating procedures for patients with sepsis. Real-world evidence about sepsis order set implementation is limited.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To estimate the effect of sepsis order set usage on hospital mortality.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting and participants: </strong>Fifty-four acute care hospitals in the United States from December 1, 2020 to November 30, 2022 involving 104,662 patients hospitalized for sepsis.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Hospital mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sepsis order set was used in 58,091 (55.5%) patients with sepsis. Initial mean sequential organ failure assessment score was 0.3 lower in patients for whom the order set was used than in those for whom it was not used (2.9 sd [2.8] vs 3.2 [3.1], <i>p</i> < 0.01). In bivariate analysis, hospital mortality was 6.3% lower in patients for whom the sepsis order set was used (9.7% vs 16.0%, <i>p</i> < 0.01), median time from emergency department triage to antibiotics was 54 minutes less (125 interquartile range [IQR, 68-221] vs 179 [98-379], <i>p</i> < 0.01), and median total time hypotensive was 2.1 hours less (5.5 IQR [2.0-15.0] vs 7.6 [2.5-21.8], <i>p</i> < 0.01) and septic shock was 3.2% less common (22.0% vs 25.4%, <i>p</i> < 0.01). Order set use was associated with 1.1 fewer median days of hospitalization (4.9 [2.8-9.0] vs 6.0 [3.2-12.1], <i>p</i> < 0.01), and 6.6% more patients discharged to home (61.4% vs 54.8%, <i>p</i> < 0.01). In the multivariable model, sepsis order set use was independently associated with lower hospital mortality (odds ratio 0.70; 95% CI, 0.66-0.73).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In a cohort of patients hospitalized with sepsis, order set use was independently associated with lower hospital mortality. Order sets can impact large-scale quality improvement efforts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10759,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Care Explorations\",\"volume\":\"5 5\",\"pages\":\"e0918\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/56/58/cc9-5-e0918.PMC10191554.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Care Explorations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000918\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Explorations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000918","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

生存败血症运动推荐败血症患者的标准操作程序。关于脓毒症顺序集实施的真实证据有限。目的:评估脓毒症医嘱使用对医院死亡率的影响。设计:回顾性队列研究。环境和参与者:2020年12月1日至2022年11月30日,美国54家急症护理医院,涉及104,662名因败血症住院的患者。主要结局和措施:医院死亡率。结果:58091例(55.5%)脓毒症患者使用了脓毒顺序集。使用排序集的患者的初始平均序贯器官衰竭评估评分比未使用排序集的患者低0.3 (2.9 sd [2.8] vs 3.2 [3.1], p < 0.01)。在双变量分析中,使用脓毒症顺序组患者的住院死亡率降低6.3%(9.7%对16.0%,p < 0.01),从急诊科分诊到使用抗生素的中位数时间减少54分钟(125四分位数范围[IQR, 68-221]对179 [98-379],p < 0.01),降压总时间中位数减少2.1小时(5.5 IQR[2.0-15.0]对7.6 [2.5-21.8],p < 0.01),脓毒症休克发生率减少3.2%(22.0%对25.4%,p < 0.01)。顺序组的使用与中位住院天数减少1.1天(4.9 [2.8-9.0]vs 6.0 [3.2-12.1], p < 0.01)和出院回家的患者增加6.6% (61.4% vs 54.8%, p < 0.01)相关。在多变量模型中,脓毒症顺序集的使用与较低的住院死亡率独立相关(优势比0.70;95% ci, 0.66-0.73)。结论和相关性:在脓毒症住院患者队列中,顺序组的使用与较低的住院死亡率独立相关。订单集可以影响大规模的质量改进工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Order Set Usage is Associated With Lower Hospital Mortality in Patients With Sepsis.

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommends standard operating procedures for patients with sepsis. Real-world evidence about sepsis order set implementation is limited.

Objectives: To estimate the effect of sepsis order set usage on hospital mortality.

Design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting and participants: Fifty-four acute care hospitals in the United States from December 1, 2020 to November 30, 2022 involving 104,662 patients hospitalized for sepsis.

Main outcomes and measures: Hospital mortality.

Results: The sepsis order set was used in 58,091 (55.5%) patients with sepsis. Initial mean sequential organ failure assessment score was 0.3 lower in patients for whom the order set was used than in those for whom it was not used (2.9 sd [2.8] vs 3.2 [3.1], p < 0.01). In bivariate analysis, hospital mortality was 6.3% lower in patients for whom the sepsis order set was used (9.7% vs 16.0%, p < 0.01), median time from emergency department triage to antibiotics was 54 minutes less (125 interquartile range [IQR, 68-221] vs 179 [98-379], p < 0.01), and median total time hypotensive was 2.1 hours less (5.5 IQR [2.0-15.0] vs 7.6 [2.5-21.8], p < 0.01) and septic shock was 3.2% less common (22.0% vs 25.4%, p < 0.01). Order set use was associated with 1.1 fewer median days of hospitalization (4.9 [2.8-9.0] vs 6.0 [3.2-12.1], p < 0.01), and 6.6% more patients discharged to home (61.4% vs 54.8%, p < 0.01). In the multivariable model, sepsis order set use was independently associated with lower hospital mortality (odds ratio 0.70; 95% CI, 0.66-0.73).

Conclusions and relevance: In a cohort of patients hospitalized with sepsis, order set use was independently associated with lower hospital mortality. Order sets can impact large-scale quality improvement efforts.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A New Dosing Frontier: Retrospective Assessment of Effluent Flow Rates and Residual Renal Function Among Critically Ill Patients Receiving Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy Hemodynamic Determinants of Cardiac Surgery-Associated Acute Kidney Injury Racial Differences in Accuracy of Predictive Models for High-Flow Nasal Cannula Failure in COVID-19 Knowledge and Practice Gaps in Pediatric Neurocritical Care Nursing: Lessons Learned From a Specialized Educational Boot Camp Unifying Fluid Responsiveness and Tolerance With Physiology: A Dynamic Interpretation of the Diamond–Forrester Classification
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1