• Pediatric emergency care · Aug 2022

    Sepsis Electronic Decision Support Screen in High-Risk Patients Across Age Groups in a Pediatric Emergency Department.

    • Celeste S Witting, Norma-Jean E Simon, Doug Lorenz, Julia S Murphy, Jill Nelson, Katherine Lehnig, and Elizabeth R Alpern.
    • Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital, Chicago, IL.
    • Pediatr Emerg Care. 2022 Aug 1; 38 (8): e1479e1484e1479-e1484.

    ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the performance of a pediatric decision support algorithm to detect severe sepsis between high-risk pediatric and adult patients in a pediatric emergency department (PED).MethodsThis is a retrospective cohort study of patients presenting from March 2017 to February 2018 to a tertiary care PED. Patients were identified as high risk for sepsis based on a priori defined criteria and were considered adult if 18 years or older. The 2-step decision support algorithm consists of (1) an electronic health record best-practice alert (BPA) with age-adjusted vital sign ranges, and (2) physician screen. The difference in test characteristics of the intervention for the detection of severe sepsis between pediatric and adult patients was assessed at 0.05 statistical significance.ResultsThe 2358 enrolled subjects included 2125 children (90.1%) and 233 adults (9.9%). The median ages for children and adults were 3.8 (interquartile range, 1.2-8.6) and 20.1 (interquartile range, 18.2-22.0) years, respectively. In adults, compared with children, the BPA alone had significantly higher sensitivity (0.83 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.74-0.89] vs 0.72 [95% CI, 0.69-0.75]; P = 0.02) and lower specificity (0.11 [95% CI, 0.07-0.19] vs 0.48 [95% CI, 0.45-0.51; P < 0.001). With the addition of provider screen, sensitivity and specificity were comparable across age groups, with a lower negative predictive value in adults compared with children (0.66 [95% CI, 0.58-0.74] vs 0.77 [95% CI, 0.75-0.79]; P = 0.005).ConclusionsThe BPA was less specific in adults compared with children. With the addition of provider screen, specificity improved; however, the lower negative predictive value suggests that providers may be less likely to suspect sepsis even after automated screen in adult patients. This study invites further research aimed at improving screening algorithms, particularly across the diverse age spectrum presenting to a PED.Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…