Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://dora.health.qld.gov.au/qldresearchjspui/handle/1/1413
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorAlberto, Lauraen_US
dc.contributor.authorAitken, Leanne Men_US
dc.contributor.authorWalker, Rachel Men_US
dc.contributor.authorPálizas, Fernandoen_US
dc.contributor.authorMarshall, Andreaen_US
dc.date.accessioned2021-08-12T02:27:27Z-
dc.date.available2021-08-12T02:27:27Z-
dc.date.issued2020-07-20-
dc.identifier.citationLaura Alberto, Leanne M Aitken, Rachel M Walker, Fernando Pálizas, Andrea P Marshall, Implementing a quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment sepsis screening tool: an interrupted times series study, International Journal for Quality in Health Care, Volume 32, Issue 6, July 2020, Pages 388–395, https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzaa059en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://dora.health.qld.gov.au/qldresearchjspui/handle/1/1413-
dc.description.abstractThe aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of implementing a sepsis screening (SS) tool based on the quick Sequential [Sepsis-Related] Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) and the presence of confirmed/suspected infection. The implementation of the 6-h bundle was also evaluated. Interrupted times series with prospective data collection. Five hospital wards in a developing nation, Argentina. A total of 1151 patients (≥18 years) recruited within 24-48 h of hospital admission. The qSOFA-based SS tool and the 6-h bundle. The primary outcome was the timing of implementation of the first 6-h bundle element. Secondary outcomes were related to the adherence to the screening procedures. Of 1151 patients, 145 (12.6%) met the qSOFA-based SS tool criteria, among them intervention (39/64) patients received the first 6-h bundle element earlier (median 8 h; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.1-16) than baseline (48/81) patients (median 22 h; 95% CI: 3-41); these times, however, did not differ significantly (P = 0.525). Overall, 47 (4.1%) patients had sepsis; intervention patients (18/25) received the first 6-h bundle element sooner (median 5 h; 95% CI: 4-6) than baseline patients (15/22) did (median 12 h; 95% CI: 0-33); however, times were not significantly different (P = 0.470). While intervention patients were screened regularly, only one-third of patients who required sepsis alerts had them activated. The implementation of the qSOFA-based SS tool resulted in early, but not significantly improved, provision of 6-h bundle care. Screening procedures were regularly conducted, but sepsis alerts rarely activated. Further research is needed to better understand the implementation of sepsis care in developing settings.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherOxford University Pressen_US
dc.relation.ispartofInternational journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Careen_US
dc.subjectSepsisen_US
dc.subjectScreeningen_US
dc.subjectqSOFAen_US
dc.subjectInterrupted time series analysisen_US
dc.titleImplementing a quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment sepsis screening tool: an interrupted times series studyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/intqhc/mzaa059-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.openairetypeArticle-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
Appears in Sites:Gold Coast Health Publications
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

140
checked on Nov 28, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DORA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.