Anesthesiology, Pain and Intensive Care Department, Federal University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Latin American Sepsis Institute, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Crit Care. 2017 Oct 31;21(1):268. doi: 10.1186/s13054-017-1858-z.
Public hospitals in emerging countries pose a challenge to quality improvement initiatives in sepsis. Our objective was to evaluate the results of a quality improvement initiative in sepsis in a network of public institutions and to assess potential differences between institutions that did or did not achieve a reduction in mortality.
We conducted a prospective study of patients with sepsis or septic shock. We collected baseline data on compliance with the Surviving Sepsis Campaign 6-h bundles and mortality. Afterward, we initiated a multifaceted quality improvement initiative for patients with sepsis or septic shock in all hospital sectors. The primary outcome was hospital mortality over time. The secondary outcomes were the time to sepsis diagnosis and compliance with the entire 6-h bundles throughout the intervention. We defined successful institutions as those where the mortality rates decreased significantly over time, using a logistic regression model. We analyzed differences over time in the secondary outcomes by comparing the successful institutions with the nonsuccessful ones. We assessed the predictors of in-hospital mortality using logistic regression models. All tests were two-sided, and a p value less than 0.05 indicated statistical significance.
We included 3435 patients from the emergency departments (50.7%), wards (34.1%), and intensive care units (15.2%) of 9 institutions. Throughout the intervention, there was an overall reduction in the risk of death, in the proportion of septic shock, and the time to sepsis diagnosis, as well as an improvement in compliance with the 6-h bundle. The time to sepsis diagnosis, but not the compliance with bundles, was associated with a reduction in the risk of death. However, there was a significant reduction in mortality in only two institutions. The reduction in the time to sepsis diagnosis was greater in the successful institutions. By contrast, the nonsuccessful sites had a greater increase in compliance with the 6-h bundle.
Quality improvement initiatives reduced sepsis mortality in public Brazilian institutions, although not in all of them. Early recognition seems to be a more relevant factor than compliance with the 6-h bundle.
新兴国家的公立医院在脓毒症质量改进举措方面带来了挑战。我们的目的是评估公共机构网络中脓毒症质量改进举措的结果,并评估那些死亡率降低和未降低的机构之间的潜在差异。
我们对脓毒症或感染性休克患者进行了前瞻性研究。我们收集了符合 6 小时集束化治疗方案的基线数据以及死亡率。随后,我们对所有医院科室的脓毒症或感染性休克患者启动了一项多方面的质量改进举措。主要结局是随时间推移的医院死亡率。次要结局是脓毒症诊断时间和整个干预过程中对整个 6 小时集束化治疗方案的依从性。我们使用逻辑回归模型将死亡率显著降低的机构定义为成功机构。我们通过比较成功机构和不成功机构来分析次要结局随时间的差异。我们使用逻辑回归模型评估院内死亡率的预测因素。所有检验均为双侧检验,p 值小于 0.05 表示具有统计学意义。
我们纳入了来自 9 家机构的急诊科(50.7%)、病房(34.1%)和重症监护病房(15.2%)的 3435 名患者。在整个干预过程中,死亡风险、脓毒性休克比例和脓毒症诊断时间均整体降低,并且 6 小时集束化治疗方案的依从性也有所提高。只有在两个机构中观察到死亡率降低,且仅在这两个机构中观察到时间到脓毒症诊断时间的缩短与死亡风险降低相关,而对 6 小时集束化治疗方案的依从性与死亡风险降低无关。在成功机构中,脓毒症诊断时间的缩短更为明显。相比之下,不成功机构的 6 小时集束化治疗方案的依从性提高幅度更大。
质量改进举措降低了巴西公立医院的脓毒症死亡率,但并非所有机构都如此。早期识别似乎比遵守 6 小时集束化治疗方案更为重要。