Department of Medicine, Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown, OH, USA.
Division of Infectious Diseases, Cleveland Clinic Akron General, Akron, OH, USA.
J Intensive Care Med. 2020 Feb;35(2):187-190. doi: 10.1177/0885066617737304. Epub 2017 Oct 31.
We aimed to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of resident physicians regarding sepsis in general and the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines in particular.
After institutional review board approval, we surveyed internal medicine (IM) and emergency medicine (EM) house staff from 3 separate institutions. House staff were notified of the survey via e-mail from their residency director or chief resident. The survey was Internet-based (using http://www.surveymonkey.com ), voluntary, and anonymous. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines were used to develop the survey. The survey was open between December 2015 and April 2016. No incentives for participation were given. Reminder e-mails were sent approximately every 3 to 4 weeks to all eligible participants. Comparisons of responses were evaluated using the N-1 2-proportion test.
A total of 133 responses were received. These included 84 from IM house staff, 27 from EM house staff, and 22 who selected "other." Eighty (101/126) percent reported managing at least 1 patient with sepsis in the preceding 30 days, 85% (97/114) rated their knowledge of the Surviving Sepsis Guidelines as "very familiar" or at least "somewhat familiar," and 84% (91/108) believed their training in the diagnosis and management of sepsis was "excellent" or at least "good." However, 43% (47/108) reported not receiving any feedback on their treatment of patients with sepsis in the last 30 days, while 24% (26/108) received feedback once. Both IM and EM house staff received comparable rates of feedback (62% vs 48%, respectively; = .21). For the 3 questions that directly tested knowledge of the guidelines, the scores of the IM and EM house staff were similar. Notably, <20% of both groups correctly identified diagnostic criteria for sepsis.
Additional education of IM and EM house staff on the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines is warranted, along with more consistent feedback regarding their diagnosis and management of sepsis.
我们旨在评估住院医师对脓毒症的一般知识、态度和看法，以及对《拯救脓毒症运动指南》的具体了解。
在机构审查委员会批准后，我们调查了来自 3 家不同机构的内科（IM）和急诊医学（EM）住院医师。住院医师通过住院医师主任或首席住院医师的电子邮件收到调查通知。该调查是基于互联网的（使用 http://www.surveymonkey.com），自愿且匿名。调查使用了《拯救脓毒症运动指南》。调查于 2015 年 12 月至 2016 年 4 月开放。没有参与的奖励。大约每 3 到 4 周向所有符合条件的参与者发送提醒电子邮件。使用 N-1 2 比例检验评估反应的比较。
共收到 133 份回复。其中 84 份来自 IM 住院医师，27 份来自 EM 住院医师，22 份来自其他。80（101/126）%报告在过去 30 天内至少管理了 1 例脓毒症患者，85%（97/114）认为他们对《拯救脓毒症指南》的了解程度为“非常熟悉”或至少为“有些熟悉”，84%（91/108）认为他们在脓毒症的诊断和管理方面的培训是“优秀”或至少是“良好”。然而，43%（47/108）报告在过去 30 天内没有收到任何关于他们治疗脓毒症患者的反馈，而 24%（26/108）仅收到过一次反馈。内科和急诊医学住院医师获得的反馈率相当（分别为 62%和 48%； =.21）。对于直接测试指南知识的 3 个问题，内科和急诊医学住院医师的得分相似。值得注意的是，两组中都不到 20%的人正确识别出脓毒症的诊断标准。
需要对内科和急诊医学住院医师进行《拯救脓毒症运动指南》的额外教育，以及更一致的反馈，以了解他们对脓毒症的诊断和管理。
