Search

Background: The World Health Organization has adopted a resolution on sepsis and urged member states to develop national processes to improve sepsis care. In Sweden, sepsis was selected as one of the ten first diagnoses to be addressed, when the Swedish government in 2019 allocated funds for patient-centred clinical pathways in healthcare. A national multidisciplinary working group, including a patient representative, was appointed to develop the patient-centred clinical pathway for sepsis., Methods: The working group mapped challenges and needs surrounding sepsis care and included a survey sent to all emergency departments (ED) in Sweden, and then designed a patient-centred clinical pathway for sepsis., Results: The working group decided to focus on the following four areas: (1) sepsis alert for early detection and management optimisation for the most severely ill sepsis patients in the ED; (2) accurate sepsis diagnosis coding; (3) structured information to patients at discharge after sepsis care and (4) structured telephone follow-up after sepsis care. A health-economic analysis indicated that the implementation of the clinical pathway for sepsis will most likely not drive costs. An important aspect of the clinical pathway is implementing continuous monitoring of performance and process indicators. A national working group is currently building up such a system for monitoring, focusing on extraction of this information from the electronic health records systems., Conclusion: A national patient-centred clinical pathway for sepsis has been developed and is currently being implemented in Swedish healthcare. We believe that the clinical pathway and the accompanying monitoring will provide a more efficient and equal sepsis care and improved possibilities to monitor and further develop sepsis care in Sweden.

Background: COVID-19 can cause severe disease with need of treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU) for several weeks. Increased knowledge is needed about the long-term consequences., Methods: This is a single-center prospective follow-up study of COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU for respiratory organ support between March and July 2020. Patients with invasive ventilation were compared with those with high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) or non-invasive ventilation (NIV) regarding functional outcome and health-related qualify of life. The mean follow-up time was 5 months after ICU discharge and included clinical history, three well-validated questionnaires about health-related quality of life and psychological health, pulmonary function test, 6-minute walk test (6MWT) and work ability. Data were analyzed with multivariable general linear and logistic regression models with 95% confidence intervals., Results: Among 248 ICU patients, 200 patients survived. Of these, 113 patients came for follow-up. Seventy patients (62%) had received invasive ventilation. Most patients reported impaired health-related quality of life. Approximately one-third suffered from post-traumatic stress, anxiety and depression. Twenty-six percent had reduced total lung capacity, 34% had reduced 6MWT and 50% worked fulltime. The outcomes were similar regardless of ventilatory support, but invasive ventilation was associated with more bodily pain (MSD -19, 95% CI: -32 to -5) and <80% total lung capacity (OR 4.1, 95% CI: 1.3-16.5)., Conclusion: Among survivors of COVID-19 who required respiratory organ support, outcomes 5 months after discharge from ICU were largely similar among those requiring invasive compared to non-invasive ventilation., (© 2021 The Authors. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Objectives: To study the prognostic value of fever in the emergency department in septic patients subsequently admitted to the ICU., Design: Observational cohort study from the Swedish national quality register for sepsis., Setting: Thirty ICU's in Sweden., Patients: Two thousand two hundred twenty-five adults who were admitted to an ICU within 24 hours of hospital arrival with a diagnosis of severe sepsis or septic shock were included., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: Body temperature was measured and classified according to four categories (< 37°C, 37-38.29°C, 38.3-39.5°C, ≥ 39.5°C). The main outcome was in-hospital mortality. Odds ratios for mortality according to body temperature were estimated using multivariable logistic regression. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to age, sex, underlying comorbidity, and time to given antibiotics. Overall mortality was 25%. More than half of patients had a body temperature below 38.3°C. Mortality was inversely correlated with temperature and decreased, on average, more than 5% points per °C increase, from 50% in those with the lowest temperatures to 9% in those with the highest. Increased body temperature in survivors was also associated with shorter hospital stays. Patients with fever received better quality of care, but the inverse association between body temperature and mortality was robust and remained consistent after adjustment for quality of care measures and other factors that could have confounded the association. Among vital signs, body temperature was best at predicting mortality., Conclusions: Contrary to common perceptions and current guidelines for care of critically ill septic patients, increased body temperature in the emergency department was strongly associated with lower mortality and shorter hospital stays in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock subsequently admitted to the ICU.