Introduction
The early detection of sepsis among adult patients in the emergency department is a critical concern for advanced practice nurses (APNs) like myself, especially those specializing in family and emergency care. Prompt identification of sepsis is paramount as it directly correlates with improved patient outcomes and survival rates. Implementing a computer-based alert system within the emergency department setting can significantly aid in the timely recognition of sepsis cases, allowing for early intervention and treatment. This aligns with evidence-based practice (EBP) principles and underscores the importance of utilizing technology to enhance patient care (Hall & Roussel, 2017).
In this paper, I will delve into the significance of early sepsis detection within the context of the emergency department, emphasizing the role of APNs in facilitating timely interventions. By analyzing relevant literature and guidelines, I aim to evaluate the effectiveness of computer-based alert systems in reducing sepsis identification time and improving patient outcomes. Through this exploration, I hope to advance best practices in sepsis management and enhance the quality of care provided to adult emergency department patients, as this forms my POI.
Appraisal of the Position Statement
The guideline under appraisal aims to provide recommendations for the early detection of sepsis in adult emergency department patients by implementing a computer-based alert system. This guideline impacts advanced practice nurses, emergency department staff, and healthcare organizations responsible for caring for adult patients presenting with signs and symptoms of sepsis. The guideline aims to improve patient outcomes and survival rates in this high-risk population by facilitating early recognition and intervention.
The guideline was developed by nationally recognized groups of experts in emergency medicine, critical care, infectious diseases, and sepsis management. These experts possess extensive clinical experience and expertise in their respective fields, often holding leadership positions in professional organizations or academic institutions. Their significance to practice lies in their collective knowledge and experience, ensuring that the recommendations are based on the best available evidence and clinical practice standards. Additionally, the developers may have conducted research, contributed to peer-reviewed literature, and participated in guideline development processes, further enhancing their credibility and expertise.
In developing the recommendations, the guideline utilized a variety of levels of evidence, ranging from high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to expert opinion or consensus statements. The hierarchy of evidence ensures that recommendations are grounded in rigorous research methodology and validity, enhancing their reliability and applicability to clinical practice. Higher levels of evidence, such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses of RCTs, provide stronger support for the recommendations than lower levels of evidence, such as case reports or expert opinion. The guideline ensures a comprehensive and robust approach to sepsis detection and management by incorporating evidence from diverse sources.
Upon review of the levels of evidence used to support the recommendations, most of the studies were high-level, well-designed studies, such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This indicates a rigorous approach to evidence synthesis and recommendation development, enhancing the credibility and validity of the guideline. However, there may be opportunities to include additional studies or different types of evidence to strengthen certain recommendations further. For instance, incorporating observational studies or qualitative research could provide insights into patient experiences or contextual factors influencing sepsis management in the emergency department.
In terms of being current, the guideline is up-to-date within the last five years, aligning with the requirement for contemporary evidence in clinical practice guidelines. However, continuous literature monitoring for new evidence is essential to ensure that the guideline remains relevant and reflects the latest advancements in sepsis management. To address this, the authors should establish a systematic process for regularly reviewing and updating the guideline, incorporating new evidence as it becomes available.
Considering the robustness of the evidence base and the expertise of the guideline developers, the guideline is a valuable resource for informing practice in the early detection of sepsis. Incorporating high-level evidence, coupled with expert consensus where necessary, enhances the credibility and applicability of the recommendations. Therefore, I would consider utilizing this guideline in practice, recognizing its strengths and benefits in guiding clinical decision-making in the emergency department (Singer et al., 2016; Evans et al., 2021).
Institute of Medical Claims
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has articulated six fundamental aims to enhance healthcare quality, among which safety, effectiveness, and patient-centeredness are particularly relevant to the early detection of sepsis in adult emergency department patients and the role of Advanced Practice Nurses (APNs). As defined by the IOM, safety underscores the imperative of preventing harm to patients, a principle intricately linked to timely sepsis identification to avert adverse outcomes like septic shock or organ failure (Braun, 2019). APNs, leveraging their clinical expertise and advanced assessment skills, play a pivotal role in ensuring patient safety by conducting comprehensive evaluations, implementing evidence-based screening protocols, and facilitating prompt interventions for individuals at risk of sepsis.
Effectiveness, another crucial aim outlined by the IOM, pertains to delivering services rooted in scientific knowledge to all who stand to benefit while refraining from interventions unlikely to yield positive outcomes (Arulappen et al., 2022). In sepsis detection, effectiveness translates into the judicious utilization of evidence-based screening tools and interventions to promptly identify and manage septic patients. APNs contribute significantly to effectiveness through their commitment to evidence-based practice, staying updated on the latest research and guidelines about sepsis management, and advocating for adopting best practices within the emergency department.
Patient-centeredness, the third aim, accentuates the necessity of tailoring healthcare delivery to align with individual patients’ unique needs, preferences, and values (Walters, 2019). In sepsis detection, patient-centered care encompasses engaging patients in shared decision-making, communicating clearly about sepsis signs and symptoms, and addressing patient concerns and preferences throughout the care continuum. APNs champion patient-centered care by fostering therapeutic relationships, actively involving patients in decision-making, and advocating for their preferences and values.
In summary, the IOM aims of safety, effectiveness, and patient-centeredness intersect seamlessly with the goals of early sepsis detection in adult emergency department patients. APNs, through their multifaceted role, serve as key drivers in advancing these aims by promoting patient safety through timely recognition and intervention, ensuring the effectiveness of sepsis detection and management through evidence-based practice, and delivering patient-centered care that respects individual preferences and values.
Barriers to Implementation
A computer-based alarm system for early sepsis detection in adult emergency department patients may face personnel and financial resistance.
Healthcare workers may need help implementing the system due to worries about additional burdens, workflow disruptions, or effectiveness. This obstacle can be overcome by engaging frontline personnel early, providing comprehensive training, pilot testing the system’s usability and benefits, and addressing comments to gain buy-in.
Another challenge is funding system procurement, deployment, maintenance, and support. Budget constraints or competing objectives may prevent technology investment. A cost-benefit analysis must demonstrate the system’s ability to improve patient outcomes, minimize sepsis-related expenses, and increase emergency department efficiency to gain financing and organizational leadership support.
In conclusion, overcoming financial constraints by demonstrating the system’s potential return on investment and addressing personnel resistance through education, training, and involvement are key to the successful implementation of the emergency department’s computer-based alert system for early sepsis detection (Gabutti et al., 2023; Frazier et al., 2023).
Stakeholders
- Nurse Practitioners: Responsible for implementing sepsis detection protocols and initiating timely interventions.
- Physicians: Provide medical oversight and collaborate with nurse practitioners in sepsis management decisions.
- Nurses: Conduct regular patient assessments, administer treatments, and monitor patients for signs of sepsis.
- Hospital Administrators: Provide leadership, allocate resources, and support implementing the sepsis detection system.
- Information Technology (IT) Department: Integrate the computer-based alert system into the electronic health record and provide technical support.
- Quality Improvement Team: Monitor outcomes and effectiveness of the sepsis detection system, identifying areas for improvement and ensuring adherence to guidelines.
Conclusion
This paper explored the significance of early sepsis detection in adult emergency department patients, highlighting the critical role of advanced practice nurses (APNs) in facilitating timely interventions. Implementing a computer-based alert system aligns with evidence-based practice principles and aims to improve patient outcomes. The position statement provided valuable insights into the importance of early sepsis detection and outlined guidelines for implementation. Additionally, the appraisal of the position statement emphasized the rigor of the evidence used and its relevance to practice. Anticipated barriers to implementation, such as personnel resistance and financial constraints, were identified, with strategies proposed to overcome them. Finally, stakeholders involved in the implementation process were outlined, including nurse practitioners, physicians, nurses, hospital administrators, IT personnel, and quality improvement teams. Following this research in my POI, the goal of enhancing sepsis detection and improving patient outcomes in the emergency department can be achieved through collaborative efforts and effective implementation strategies.
References
Heather R. Hall, Linda A. Rousell. Evidence-based practice: an Integrative approach to research administration and practice (Second). (2017). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Singer, M., Deutschman, C. S., Seymour, C. W., Shankar-Hari, M., Annane, D., Bauer, M., Bellomo, R., Bernard, G. R., Chiche, D., Coopersmith, C. M., Hotchkiss, R. S., Levy, M. M., Marshall, J. C., Martin, G. S., Opal, S. M., Rubenfeld, G. D., Vincent, L., & Angus, D. C. (2016). The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA, 315(8), 801. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.0287
Evans, L., Rhodes, A., Alhazzani, W., Antonelli, M., Coopersmith, C., French, C. & Machado, F. & McIntyre, L. & Ostermann, M. & Prescott, H. & Schorr, C. & Simpson, S. & Wiersinga, W. & Alshamsi, F. & Angus, D. & Arabi, Y. & Azevedo, L. C. & Beale, R. & Beilman, G. & Levy, M. (2021). Executive Summary: Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Managing Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. Critical Care Medicine. 49. 1974-1982. 10.1097/CCM.0000000000005357.
Braun, D. (2019). A Retrospective Review of the Sepsis Definition after Publication of Sepsis-3. The American Journal of Medicine, 132(3), 382–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2018.11.003
Arulappen AL, Danial M, Ng LW, Teoh JC. The Impact of Antibiotics Administration on Mortality for Time in Sepsis and Septic Shock Patients, Including Possible Reasons for Delayed Administration in Malaysia. Antibiotics (Basel). 2022 Sep 5;11(9):1202. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics11091202. PMID: 36139981; PMCID: PMC9495043.
Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: a guide to best practice (Fourth). (2019). Wolters Kluwer.
Gabutti I, Colizzi C, Sanna T. Assessing Organizational Readiness to Change through a Framework Applied to Hospitals. Public Organiz Rev. 2023;23(1):1–22. doi: 10.1007/s11115-022-00628-7. Epub 2022 Apr 6. PMCID: PMC8984669.
Frazier TL, Lopez PM, Islam N, Wilson A, Earle K, Duliepre N, Zhong L, Bendik S, Drackett E, Manyindo N, Seidl L, Thorpe LE. Addressing Financial Barriers to Health Care Among People Who are Low-Income and Insured in New York City, 2014-2017. J Community Health. 2023 Apr;48(2):353-366. doi: 10.1007/s10900-022-01173-6. Epub 2022 Dec 3. PMID: 36462106; PMCID: PMC10060328.
write