The UK Sepsis Trust

Identifying clinical deterioration is a global health priority. Sepsis is a leading cause of deterioration, responsible for around 46,000 deaths annually in the United Kingdom. Early warning scores based on patients' vital signs can be embedded into electronic patient records to digitally alert clinicians to those at risk. Rapid identification and treatment - particularly with targeted intravenous antibiotics - are critical to improving outcomes in sepsis patients. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of digital alerts in improving outcomes for patients with sepsis. Using routine electronic patient record data from four United Kingdom National Health Service acute trusts, we investigated how digital alert systems influence patient outcomes and explored mechanisms and mediators of their effectiveness. Map the types of digital alerts currently in use across United Kingdom hospitals for identifying patients at risk of sepsis (Workstream 1). Evaluate the impact of digital alerts on patient outcomes (Workstream 2). Examine how the implementation process affects alert performance, guided by the consolidated framework for implementation research (Workstream 3). Provide recommendations on alert effectiveness and implementation strategies using systems modelling and mediation analysis (Workstream 4). A mixed-methods approach was employed. A national survey assessed the use of digital sepsis alerts in English National Health Survey hospitals (Workstream 1). Qualitative interviews and focus groups explored the implementation process and its influence on alert performance (Workstream 3). A natural experiment with multilevel interrupted time series analysis examined the impact of sepsis screening tools and digital alerts on outcomes, primarily in-hospital mortality (Workstream 2). Routinely collected clinical data were processed following National Institute for Health Research-Health Information Collaborative standards. Combining quantitative and qualitative data enabled us to link implementation processes with patient outcomes. All four trusts experienced reduced mortality rates among patients with serious infections following the introduction of digital sepsis screening tools. After adjustment for patient case-mix, admission patterns and pre-existing trends, one trust showed a statistically significant decrease in mortality linked to digital alert implementation. In two trusts, older patients experienced greater mortality reduction than younger ones following alert introduction. Qualitative findings highlighted factors contributing to more effective use of digital alerts: deployment in general wards rather than intensive care units; use by clinicians familiar with similar technologies; availability of 24/7 emergency outreach teams; robust technological infrastructure and alerts that were user-friendly, non-intrusive and not part of multiple competing alert systems. The effectiveness of digital sepsis screening tools varies and may depend on patient's age and care setting. Our findings suggest that digital alerts should leverage a wider range of electronic patient record data and be tailored to specific patient groups. Different trusts and patient populations may require distinct indicators, thresholds and treatment protocols. These findings align with healthcare practitioners' calls for more sophisticated, patient-centred sepsis screening tools targeted at relevant clinical teams. The study involved four National Health Service Trusts with strong data collaboration, but noted limitations include reliance on simple algorithms and varied case-mix and implementation processes. Future research should focus on robust evaluation methods, leveraging granular electronic patient record data and establishing a public registry of digital alert tools. This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme as award number NIHR129082.

Clinical research in emergency and critical care is vital, but recruitment and consent are complex. Research may be conducted without prior consent when patients are critically ill, and interventions are time critical. Some patients may die before research participation can be discussed with relatives, leaving the bereaved unaware of their involvement. This study explored potential communication strategies for informing bereaved relatives when a patient has died following enrolment into an emergency or critical care study without prior consent. A mixed-methods study using a telephone survey and semi-structured interviews conducted simultaneously. The survey was conducted within a National Health Service Trust in North West England with relatives of deceased study participants. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with bereaved relatives and research and clinical staff across the UK, and medical examiner (ME)/ME officers based in England and Wales. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, and qualitative data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Data were synthesised using a constant comparison approach. 11 bereaved relatives completed the survey. 53 individuals (21 research and clinical staff, 18 relatives and 14 MEs/officers) participated in semi-structured interviews. Although many trials do not include a process for notifying bereaved relatives about research participation, most relatives valued the opportunity to learn about their family member's participation, emphasising the importance of transparency and trust. However, some raised concerns over the potential burden of automatic disclosure by the ME service. Offering bereaved relatives the option to receive sensitively worded information about research involvement at an appropriate time, soon after death, was recommended. Bereaved relatives should have the choice to be informed about research participation without prior consent. Our findings support the need for transparent and sensitive communication and will contribute to future guidance for the design and conduct of adult emergency and critical care studies.

The fight against sepsis is an ongoing healthcare challenge, where digital tools are increasingly used with some promising results. The experience of survivors and their family members can help optimize digital alerts for sepsis/deterioration. This study pairs the experiences of survivors of their sepsis journey and family members with their knowledge and views on the role of digital alerts. A qualitative study with online, semi-structured interviews and focus groups with sepsis survivors and family members in England. Data were analyzed inductively using thematic analysis. We included 11 survivors, and 5 family members recruited via sepsis charities and other social media, for a total of 15 sepsis cases. Identified categories correspond to the three stages of the sepsis journey: 1. Pre-hospital, onset symptoms and help-seeking; 2. Hospital admission and stay; 3. Post-sepsis syndrome. The role of digital alerts at each stage of the sepsis journey is discussed. Participants' experiences were varied, previous sepsis awareness scant, and knowledge of digital alerts minimal. However, participants were confident in the potential of alerts contributing along the sepsis journey. They perceived digital alerts as important in healthcare professionals' decision-making to expedite identification and treatment of sepsis and suggested their expansion across healthcare services. Participants expressed that awareness should be increased among the general public about digital alerts for sepsis/deterioration. In light of sepsis' insidious and variable manifestation, the involvement of patients and family members in the development of digital alerts is crucial to optimize their design and deployment towards improving outcomes. Digital alerts should enhance the connection across healthcare services as well as the care quality. They should also enhance the communication between patients and healthcare professionals. The ClinicalTrials.gov registration identifier for this study is NCT05741801; the protocol ID is 16347.

Sepsis is a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. It is a major health concern and causes substantial morbidity and mortality. It is imperative that the signs of sepsis are identified early in both adult and paediatric patients and appropriately escalated to initiate early treatment and improve prognosis. This paper aims to discuss the change in classification from the previous systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria to the current definition in adults and also the unchanged definition in children. The hallmark signs of sepsis (both red and amber flags) are discussed in relation to their underlying cellular mechanisms to provide a comprehensive overview for clinicians in primary care, hospital and community settings. The rise of antimicrobial resistance is also an increasing global health concern with resistant bacteria from common infections likely to result in greater patient morbidity and worse outcomes.A literature search identified reported sepsis cases in dentistry through searches in Ovid Medline and Embase from January 1990 to December 2019. Only primary studies were included with no restrictions on languages. Four articles were identified which reported sepsis associated with tooth extractions, dental abscess and submental/submandibular cellulitis. It is well known that locoregional infections of dental origin have the potential to cause sepsis. Therefore, dental healthcare professionals need to be vigilant and understand the specific signs and escalation protocols to ensure patient safety.

Evidence-based interventions may reduce mortality in surgical patients. This study documented the prevalence of sepsis, adherence to guidelines in its management, and timing of source control in general surgical patients presenting as an emergency. Patients aged 16 years or more presenting with emergency general surgery problems were identified over a 7-day period and then screened for sepsis compliance (using the Sepsis Six standards, devised for severe sepsis) and the timing of source control (whether radiological or surgical). Exploratory analyses examined associations between the mode (emergency department or general practitioner) and time of admission, adherence to the sepsis guidelines, and outcomes (complications or death within 30 days). Of a total of 5067 patients from 97 hospitals across the UK, 911 (18·0 per cent) fulfilled the criteria for sepsis, 165 (3·3 per cent) for severe sepsis and 24 (0·5 per cent) for septic shock. Timely delivery of all Sepsis Six guidelines for patients with severe sepsis was achieved in four patients. For patients with severe sepsis, 17·6-94·5 per cent of individual guidelines within the Sepsis Six were delivered. Oxygen was the criterion most likely to be missed, followed by blood cultures in all sepsis severity categories. Surgery for source control occurred a median of 19·8 (i.q.r. 10·0-35·4) h after diagnosis. Omission of Sepsis Six parameters did not appear to be associated with an increase in morbidity or mortality. Although sepsis was common in general surgical patients presenting as an emergency, adherence to severe sepsis guidelines was incomplete in the majority. Despite this, no evidence of harm was apparent.