Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSmyth, Michael A.
dc.contributor.authorBrace-McDonnell, Samantha J.
dc.contributor.authorPerkins, Gavin D.
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-16T13:42:07Z
dc.date.available2019-10-16T13:42:07Z
dc.date.issued2016-08
dc.identifier.citationSmyth, M.A. and Brace-McDonnell, S.J. and Perkins, G.D., 2016. Identification of adults with sepsis in the prehospital environment: a systematic review. BMJ Open, 6 (8), e011218.en_US
dc.identifier.issn2044-6055
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011218
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12417/379
dc.description.abstractObjective: Early identification of sepsis could enable prompt delivery of key interventions such as fluid resuscitation and antibiotic administration which, in turn, may lead to improved patient outcomes. Limited data indicate that recognition of sepsis by paramedics is often poor. We systematically reviewed the literature on prehospital sepsis screening tools to determine whether they improved sepsis recognition. Design: Systematic review. The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library and PubMed were systematically searched up to June 2015. In addition, subject experts were contacted. Setting: Prehospital/emergency medical services (EMS). Study selection: All studies addressing identification of sepsis (including severe sepsis and septic shock) among adult patients managed by EMS. Outcome measures: Recognition of sepsis by EMS clinicians. Results: Owing to considerable variation in the methodological approach adopted and outcome measures reported, a narrative approach to data synthesis was adopted. Three studies addressed development of prehospital sepsis screening tools. Six studies addressed paramedic diagnosis of sepsis with or without use of a prehospital sepsis screening tool. Conclusions: Recognition of sepsis by ambulance clinicians is poor. The use of screening tools, based on the Surviving Sepsis Campaign diagnostic criteria, improves prehospital sepsis recognition. Screening tools derived from EMS data have been developed, but they have not yet been validated in clinical practice. There is a need to undertake validation studies to determine whether prehospital sepsis screening tools confer any clinical benefit. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/6/8/e011218.full.pdf This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011218
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectEmergency Medical Servicesen_US
dc.subjectFluid Therapyen_US
dc.subjectSepsisen_US
dc.subjectEarly Diagnosisen_US
dc.titleIdentification of adults with sepsis in the prehospital environment: a systematic reviewen_US
dc.typeJournal Article/Review
dc.source.journaltitleBMJ Openen_US
dcterms.dateAccepted2019-07-24
rioxxterms.versionNAen_US
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserveden_US
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2019-07-24
refterms.panelUnspecifieden_US
refterms.dateFirstOnline2016-08
html.description.abstractObjective: Early identification of sepsis could enable prompt delivery of key interventions such as fluid resuscitation and antibiotic administration which, in turn, may lead to improved patient outcomes. Limited data indicate that recognition of sepsis by paramedics is often poor. We systematically reviewed the literature on prehospital sepsis screening tools to determine whether they improved sepsis recognition. Design: Systematic review. The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library and PubMed were systematically searched up to June 2015. In addition, subject experts were contacted. Setting: Prehospital/emergency medical services (EMS). Study selection: All studies addressing identification of sepsis (including severe sepsis and septic shock) among adult patients managed by EMS. Outcome measures: Recognition of sepsis by EMS clinicians. Results: Owing to considerable variation in the methodological approach adopted and outcome measures reported, a narrative approach to data synthesis was adopted. Three studies addressed development of prehospital sepsis screening tools. Six studies addressed paramedic diagnosis of sepsis with or without use of a prehospital sepsis screening tool. Conclusions: Recognition of sepsis by ambulance clinicians is poor. The use of screening tools, based on the Surviving Sepsis Campaign diagnostic criteria, improves prehospital sepsis recognition. Screening tools derived from EMS data have been developed, but they have not yet been validated in clinical practice. There is a need to undertake validation studies to determine whether prehospital sepsis screening tools confer any clinical benefit. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/6/8/e011218.full.pdf This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011218en_US


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record