Dataset Information

Sepsis assessment and management in critically Ill adults: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Early assessment and management of patients with sepsis can significantly reduce its high mortality rates and improve patient outcomes and quality of life.

Objectives

The purposes of this review are to: (1) explore nurses' knowledge, attitude, practice, and perceived barriers and facilitators related to early recognition and management of sepsis, (2) explore different interventions directed at nurses to improve sepsis management.

Methods

A systematic review method according to the PRISMA guidelines was used. An electronic search was conducted in March 2021 on several databases using combinations of keywords. Two researchers independently selected and screened the articles according to the eligibility criteria.

Results

Nurses reported an adequate of knowledge in certain areas of sepsis assessment and management in critically ill adult patients. Also, nurses' attitudes toward sepsis assessment and management were positive in general, but they reported some misconceptions regarding antibiotic use for patients with sepsis, and that sepsis was inevitable for critically ill adult patients. Furthermore, nurses reported they either were not well-prepared or confident enough to effectively recognize and promptly manage sepsis. Also, there are different kinds of nurses' perceived barriers and facilitators related to sepsis assessment and management: nurse, patient, physician, and system-related. There are different interventions directed at nurses to help in improving nurses' knowledge, attitudes, and practice of sepsis assessment and management. These interventions include education sessions, simulation, decision support or screening tools for sepsis, and evidence-based treatment protocols/guidelines.

Discussion

Our findings could help hospital managers in developing continuous education and staff development training programs on assessing and managing sepsis in critical care patients.

Conclusion

Nurses have poor to good knowledge, practices, and attitudes toward sepsis as well as report many barriers related to sepsis management in adult critically ill patients. Despite all education interventions, no study has collectively targeted critical care nurses' knowledge, attitudes, and practice of sepsis management.

SUBMITTER: Rababa M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9249173 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Systemic inflammation is a whole body reaction that can have an infection-positive (i.e. sepsis) or infection-negative origin. It is important to distinguish between septic and non-septic presentations early and reliably, because this has significant therapeutic implications for critically ill patients. We hypothesized that a molecular classifier based on a small number of RNAs expressed in peripheral blood could be discovered that would: 1) determine which patients with systemic inflammation had sepsis; 2) be robust across independent patient cohorts; 3) be insensitive to disease severity; and 4) provide diagnostic utility. The overall goal of this study was to identify and validate such a molecular classifier. Methods and Findings: We conducted an observational, non-interventional study of adult patients recruited from tertiary intensive care units (ICU). Biomarker discovery was conducted with an Australian cohort (n = 105) consisting of sepsis patients and post -surgical patients with infection-negative systemic inflammation. Using this cohort, a four-gene classifier consisting of a combination of CEACAM4, LAMP1, PLA2G7 and PLAC8 RNA biomarkers was identified. This classifier, designated SeptiCyteÂ® Lab, was externally validated using RT-qPCR and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis in five cohorts (n = 345) from the Netherlands. Cohort 1 (n=59) consisted of unambiguous septic cases and infection-negative systemic inflammation controls; SeptiCyteÂ® Lab gave an area under curve (AUC) of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91-1.00). ROC analysis of a more heterogeneous group of patients (Cohorts 2-5; 249 patients after excluding 37 patients with infection likelihood possible) gave an AUC of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85-0.93). Disease severity, as measured by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score or the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV score, was not a significant confounding variable. The diagnostic utility o f SeptiCyteÂ® Lab was evaluated by comparison to various clinical and laboratory parameters that would be available to a clinician within 24 hours of ICU admission. SeptiCyteÂ® Lab was significantly better at differentiating sepsis from infection-negative systemic inflammation than all tested parameters, both singly and in various logistic combinations. SeptiCyteÂ® Lab more than halved the diagnostic error rate compared to PCT in all tested cohorts or cohort combinations. Conclusions: SeptiCyteÂ® Lab is a rapid molecular assay that may be clinically useful in the management of ICU patients with systemic inflammation. SIRS and Sepsis ICU patients, admission samples Retrospective, mutli-site sutdy using retrospective physician adjudication as a comparator

Project description:Background: Systemic inflammation is a whole body reaction that can have an infection-positive (i.e. sepsis) or infection-negative origin. It is important to distinguish between septic and non-septic presentations early and reliably, because this has significant therapeutic implications for critically ill patients. We hypothesized that a molecular classifier based on a small number of RNAs expressed in peripheral blood could be discovered that would: 1) determine which patients with systemic inflammation had sepsis; 2) be robust across independent patient cohorts; 3) be insensitive to disease severity; and 4) provide diagnostic utility. The overall goal of this study was to identify and validate such a molecular classifier. Methods and Findings: We conducted an observational, non-interventional study of adult patients recruited from tertiary intensive care units (ICU). Biomarker discovery was conducted with an Australian cohort (n = 105) consisting of sepsis patients and post -surgical patients with infection-negative systemic inflammation. Using this cohort, a four-gene classifier consisting of a combination of CEACAM4, LAMP1, PLA2G7 and PLAC8 RNA biomarkers was identified. This classifier, designated SeptiCyte® Lab, was externally validated using RT-qPCR and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis in five cohorts (n = 345) from the Netherlands. Cohort 1 (n=59) consisted of unambiguous septic cases and infection-negative systemic inflammation controls; SeptiCyte® Lab gave an area under curve (AUC) of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91-1.00). ROC analysis of a more heterogeneous group of patients (Cohorts 2-5; 249 patients after excluding 37 patients with infection likelihood possible) gave an AUC of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85-0.93). Disease severity, as measured by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score or the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV score, was not a significant confounding variable. The diagnostic utility o f SeptiCyte® Lab was evaluated by comparison to various clinical and laboratory parameters that would be available to a clinician within 24 hours of ICU admission. SeptiCyte® Lab was significantly better at differentiating sepsis from infection-negative systemic inflammation than all tested parameters, both singly and in various logistic combinations. SeptiCyte® Lab more than halved the diagnostic error rate compared to PCT in all tested cohorts or cohort combinations. Conclusions: SeptiCyte® Lab is a rapid molecular assay that may be clinically useful in the management of ICU patients with systemic inflammation. SIRS and Sepsis ICU patients, admission samples

Project description:Objective: It is unclear whether the host response of gram-positive sepsis differs from gram-negative sepsis at a transcriptome level. Using microarray technology, we compared the gene-expression profiles of gram-positive sepsis and gram-negative sepsis in critically ill patients. Design: A prospective cross-sectional study. Setting: A 20-bed general intensive care unit of a tertiary referral hospital. Patients: Seventy-two patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Interventions: Intravenous blood was collected for leukocyte separation and RNA extraction. Microarray experiements were then performed examing the expression level of 19,232 genes in each sample. Measurements and Main Results: There was no difference in the expression profile between gram-positive and gram-negative sepsis. The finding remained unchanged even when genes with lower expression level were included or after statistical stringency was lowered. There were, however, ninety-four genes differentially expressed between sepsis and control patients. These genes included those involved in immune regulation, inflammation and mitochondrial function. Hierarchical cluster analysis confirmed that the difference in gene expression profile existed between sepsis and control patients, but not between gram-positive and gram-negative patients. Conclusion: Gram-positive and gram-negative sepsis share a common host response at a transcriptome level. These findings support the hypothesis that the septic response is non-specific and is designed to provide a more general response that can be elicited by a wide range of different micro-organisms. The study included seventy-two critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of Nepean Hospital, Sydney, Australia. Of these, fifty-five patients were diagnosed to have sepsis, as confirmed by microbiological culture. The remaining seventeen patients did not have sepsis and were therefore used as controls. The study was approved by the hospital ethics committee and informed consent was obtained from all patients or their relatives. Patient Samples. Whole blood was taken from each patient on admission to ICU. Neutrophils were separated from whole blood using density-gradient separation with Ficoll-PaqueP P(Amersham). Subsequent neutrophil RNA extraction was performed using guanidinium thiocyanate (Ambion). Microarray Experiment. The neutrophil RNA was converted to cDNA, fluorescently labeled and hybridized to its complimentary sequences on the microarray (Invitrogen). The fluorescent signals on each micrroarray were captured using the GenePix 4000B laser scanner (Axon Instruments). Expression level of each gene was represented by the intensity of its fluorescent signal. Data Extraction. All signal intensity values were processed using background-subtraction method. Prior to analysis, all values were log-transformed and normalized by fitting a print-tip group Lowess curve. Normalization minimizes bias due to dye chemistry, signal intensity or location of a gene on the array. It ensures the detection of genes that are truly differentially expressed, instead of those caused by experimental artifacts or variation in the hybridization process. After normalization, genes that had more than 50% of data missing were removed. We then selected genes that had at least 80% of the data showing two-fold changes from the geneâs median values. After filtering, 1617 genes were available for further analysis.