Real world patterns of antimicrobial use and microbiology investigations in patients with sepsis outside the Critical Care Unit: Secondary analysis of three nation-wide point prevalence studies

Recent description of the microbiology of sepsis on the wards or information on the real-life antibiotic choices used in sepsis is lacking. There is growing concern of the indiscriminate use of antibiotics and omission of microbiological investigations in the management of septic patients. We performed a secondary analysis of three annual 24-h point-prevalence studies on the general wards across all Welsh acute hospitals in years 2016–2018. Data were collected on patient demographics, as well as radiological, laboratory and microbiological data within 48-h of the study. We screened 19,453 patients over the three 24 h study periods and recruited 1252 patients who fulfilled the entry criteria. 775 (64.9%) patients were treated with intravenous antibiotics. Only in 33.65% (421/1252) of all recruited patients did healthcare providers obtain blood cultures; in 25.64% (321/1252) urine cultures; in 8.63% (108/1252) sputum cultures; in 6.79% (85/1252) wound cultures; in 15.25% (191/1252) other cultures. Out of the recruited patients, 59.1% (740/1252) fulfilled SEPSIS-3 criteria. Patients with SEPSIS-3 criteria were significantly more likely to receive antibiotics than the non-septic cohort (p < 0.0001). In a multivariable regression analysis increase in SOFA score, increased number of SIRS criteria and the use of the official sepsis screening tool were associated with antibiotic administration, however obtaining microbiology cultures was not. Our study shows that antibiotics prescription practice is not accompanied by microbiological investigations. A significant proportion of sepsis patients are still at risk of not receiving appropriate antibiotics treatment and microbiological investigations; this may be improved by a more thorough implementation of sepsis screening tools

Defining sepsis on the wards: results of a multi-centre point-prevalence study comparing two sepsis definitions

Our aim was to prospectively determine the predictive capabilities of SEPSIS-1 and SEPSIS-3 definitions in the emergency departments and general wards. Patients with National Early Warning Score (NEWS) of 3 or above and suspected or proven infection were enrolled over a 24-h period in 13 Welsh hospitals. The primary outcome measure was mortality within 30 days. Out of the 5422 patients screened, 431 fulfilled inclusion criteria and 380 (88%) were recruited. Using the SEPSIS-1 definition, 212 patients had sepsis. When using the SEPSIS-3 definitions with Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score ≥ 2, there were 272 septic patients, whereas with quickSOFA score ≥ 2, 50 patients were identified. For the prediction of primary outcome, SEPSIS-1 criteria had a sensitivity (95%CI) of 65% (54–75%) and specificity of 47% (41–53%); SEPSIS-3 criteria had a sensitivity of 86% (76–92%) and specificity of 32% (27–38%). SEPSIS-3 and SEPSIS-1 definitions were associated with a hazard ratio (95%CI) 2.7 (1.5–5.6) and 1.6 (1.3–2.5), respectively. Scoring system discrimination evaluated by receiver operating characteristic curves was highest for Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (0.69 (95%CI 0.63–0.76)), followed by NEWS (0.58 (0.51–0.66)) (p < 0.001). Systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria (0.55 (0.49–0.61)) and quickSOFA score (0.56 (0.49–0.64)) could not predict outcome. The SEPSIS-3 definition identified patients with the highest risk. Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score and NEWS were better predictors of poor outcome. The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score appeared to be the best tool for identifying patients with high risk of death and sepsis-induced organ dysfunction