English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Introduction:  Early recognition of sepsis is key in delivering timely life-saving interventions. The role of paramedics in recognition of these patients is understudied. It is not known if the usual prehospital information gathered is sufficient for severe sepsis recognition. We sought to: 1) evaluate the paramedic medical records (PMRs) of severe sepsis patients to describe epidemiologic characteristics; 2) determine which severe sepsis recognition and prediction scores are routinely captured by paramedics; and 3) determine how these scores perform in the prehospital setting.  Methods:  We performed a retrospective review of patients ≥18 years who met the definition of severe sepsis in one of two urban Emergency Departments (ED) and had arrived by ambulance over an eighteen-month period. PMRs were evaluated for demographic, physiologic and clinical variables. The information was entered into a database, which auto-filled a tool that determined SIRS criteria, shock index, prehospital critical illness score, NEWS, MEWS, HEWS, MEDS and qSOFA. Descriptive statistics were calculated.  Results:  We enrolled 298 eligible sepsis patients: male 50.3%, mean age 73 years, and mean prehospital transportation time 30 minutes. Hospital mortality was 37.5%. PMRs captured initial: respiratory rate 88.6%, heart rate 90%, systolic blood pressure 83.2%, oxygen saturation 59%, temperature 18.7%, and Glasgow Coma Scale 89%. Although complete MEWS and HEWS data capture rate was &amp;lt;17%, 98% and 68% patients met the cut-point defining “critically-unwell” (MEWS ≥3) and “trigger score” (HEWS ≥5), respectively. The qSOFA criteria were completely captured in 82% of patients; however, it was positive in only 36%. It performed similarly to SIRS, which was positive in only 34% of patients. The other scores were interim in having complete data captured and performance for sepsis recognition.  Conclusion:  Patients transported by ambulance with severe sepsis have high mortality. Despite the variable rate of data capture, PMRs include sufficient data points to recognize prehospital severe sepsis. A validated screening tool that can be applied by paramedics is still lacking. qSOFA does not appear to be sensitive enough to be used as a prehospital screening tool for deadly sepsis, however, MEWS or HEWS may be appropriate to evaluate in a large prospective study.

P007: A comparative analysis of qSOFA, SIRS and Early Warning Scores Criteria to identify sepsis in the prehospital setting