METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted in a tertiary teaching hospital and recruited all emergency personnel. A validated questionnaire on knowledge and attitude towards identification and management of SIRS/sepsis was distributed among 120 emergency personnel. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics.
RESULTS: Overall finding founds emergency nurses and assistant medical officer appeared to have moderate knowledge in several important areas of SIRS/sepsis identification and management. Majority of the emergency personnel have neutral attitudes, as they do not give enough importance towards identification of patients with SIRS and sepsis. The present study finding found that knowledge of clinical criteria and management of SIRS/sepsis was highest among assistant medical officers (p=0.02) and bachelor's degree holders (p=0.02) with emergency experience more than 5 years (p=0.03). A trend toward an increase in knowledge of SIRS and sepsis is significantly correlated with positive attitudes.
CONCLUSION: The emergency personnel demonstrated a moderate knowledge and neutral attitude toward identification and management of SIRS and sepsis. Therefore, the awareness and knowledge of SIRS and sepsis should be enhanced among emergency personnel in order to improve outcome.
METHODS: Patients with an admission diagnosis of suspected or confirmed infection and fulfilling at least two criteria for severe inflammatory response syndrome were included in this study. Patients' characteristics, vital signs, and laboratory values were used to identify prognostic factors for mortality. A scoring system was derived and validated. The primary outcome was the 28-day mortality rate.
RESULTS: A total of 440 patients were included in the study. The 28-day hospital mortality rate was 32.4 and 25.2% for the derivation (293 patients) and validation (147 patients) sets, respectively. Factors associated with a higher mortality were immune-suppressed state (odds ratio 4.7; 95% confidence interval 2.0-11.4), systolic blood pressure on arrival less than 90 mmHg (3.8; 1.7-8.3), body temperature less than 36.0°C (4.1; 1.3-12.9), oxygen saturation less than 90% (2.3; 1.1-4.8), hematocrit less than 0.38 (3.1; 1.6-5.9), blood pH less than 7.35 (2.0; 1.04-3.9), lactate level more than 2.4 mmol/l (2.27; 1.2-4.2), and pneumonia as the source of infection (2.7; 1.5-5.0). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.81 (0.75-0.86) in the derivation and 0.81 (0.73-0.90) in the validation set. The SPEED (sepsis patient evaluation in the emergency department) score performed better (P=0.02) than the Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis score when applied to the complete study population with an area under the curve of 0.81 (0.76-0.85) as compared with 0.74 (0.70-0.79).
CONCLUSION: The SPEED score predicts 28-day mortality in septic patients. It is simple and its predictive value is comparable to that of other scoring systems.
METHODS: Full and partial economic evaluations, published in English, associated with the management of neonatal systemic infections in South Asia will be included. Any intervention related to management of neonatal systemic infections will be eligible for inclusion. Comparison can include a placebo or alternative standard of care. Interventions without any comparators will also be eligible for inclusion. Outcomes of this review will include measures related to resource use, costs and cost-effectiveness. Electronic searches will be conducted on PubMed, CINAHL, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Web of Science, EconLit, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Library (CRD) Database, Popline, IndMed, MedKnow, IMSEAR, the Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry and Pediatric Economic Database Evaluation (PEDE). Conference proceedings and grey literature will be searched in addition to performing back referencing of bibliographies of included studies. Two authors will independently screen studies (in title, abstract and full-text stages), extract data and assess risk of bias. A narrative summary and tables will be used to summarize the characteristics and results of included studies.
DISCUSSION: Neonatal systemic infections can have significant economic repercussions on the families, health care providers and, cumulatively, the nation. Pediatric economic evaluations have focused on the under-five age group, and published consolidated economic evidence for neonates is missing in the developing world context. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first review of economic evidence on neonatal systemic infections in the South Asian context. Further, this protocol provides an underst anding of the methods used to design and evaluate economic evidence for methodological quality, transparency and focus on health equity. This review will also highlight existing gaps in research and identify scope for further research.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017047275.
Methods: This worldwide multicentre observational study included 153 surgical departments across 56 countries over a 4-month study period between February 1, 2018, and May 31, 2018.
Results: A total of 3137 patients were included, with 1815 (57.9%) men and 1322 (42.1%) women, with a median age of 47 years (interquartile range [IQR] 28-66). The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 8.9%, with a median length of stay of 6 days (IQR 4-10). Using multivariable logistic regression, independent variables associated with in-hospital mortality were identified: age > 80 years, malignancy, severe cardiovascular disease, severe chronic kidney disease, respiratory rate ≥ 22 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure < 100 mmHg, AVPU responsiveness scale (voice and unresponsive), blood oxygen saturation level (SpO2) < 90% in air, platelet count < 50,000 cells/mm3, and lactate > 4 mmol/l. These variables were used to create the PIPAS Severity Score, a bedside early warning score for patients with acute peritonitis. The overall mortality was 2.9% for patients who had scores of 0-1, 22.7% for those who had scores of 2-3, 46.8% for those who had scores of 4-5, and 86.7% for those who have scores of 7-8.
Conclusions: The simple PIPAS Severity Score can be used on a global level and can help clinicians to identify patients at high risk for treatment failure and mortality.