Abstract
Background:
This study aimed to investigate the relationship between patients with severe sepsis or septic shock being transported to the Emergency Department (ED) by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and the compliance with the 3-h sepsis resuscitation bundle [Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC)], and to compare the management and laboratory results of patients transported by EMS or non-EMS transport.
Methods:
A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from a quality-improvement project at King Abdulaziz Medical City in Riyadh. The data for patients who presented to ED with sepsis (severe sepsis or septic shock) was categorized as being transported with EMS or non-EMS. The two groups were compared in terms of compliance with the SSC bundle and 30-day mortality.
Results:
In a sample of 436 patients with severe sepsis or septic shock presented at the ED during the study period, EMS transported almost one-third of the patients (134, 31%) and 302 patients (69%) used non-EMS transport. For the EMS group, adherence to intravenous fluid was 91.4% compared with 87% for the non-EMS group (
p
= 0.19), antibiotics (EMS 50.7% vs non-EMS 52%,
p
= 0.81), blood cultures before antibiotics (EMS 53% vs non-EMS 47.4%,
p
= 0.21), and measuring lactate levels (EMS 73.1% vs non-EMS 57%,
p
= <0.01). The mortality rate was 48.5% for the EMS group and 54% for the non-EMS group, which was not statistically significant.
Conclusion:
Whether transported with or without EMS did not result in a statistically significant difference in patients presenting with sepsis, in terms of the adherence to the SSC bundle elements or the 30-day hospital mortality rate. The only statistically significant difference was the time to lactate measurement.