My SciELO
Services on Demand
Journal
Article
Indicators
-
Cited by SciELO
-
Access statistics
Related links
-
Cited by Google
-
Similars in SciELO
-
Similars in Google
Share
Enfermería Global
On-line version ISSN 1695-6141
Enferm. glob. vol.21 n.67 Murcia Jul. 2022 Epub Sep 19, 2022
https://dx.doi.org/10.6018/eglobal.503441
Originals
Improving the quality of care for patients with sepsis in the context of an emergency service
1Department of Collective Health, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil
2Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil
3Sergio Arouca National School of Public Health/FIOCRUZ, Manguinhos, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Objective:
To describe the process of implementing a participatory and multifaceted intervention to improve sepsis care and its effects on improving the quality of care.
Materials and methods:
This is a before-after quasi-experimental study conducted in 2017/2018 in the emergency service of a hospital in Northeast Brazil. The quality of care of 564 patients diagnosed with sepsis was assessed using nine process criteria and one result criterion. The intervention was participatory and multifaceted, being applied for 10 months.
Results:
After the intervention, the number of non-conformities decreased by 67% (843 vs 506), and all 10 criteria improved, with a significant improvement (p<0.05) in eight of them. Lethality decreased by 10% (p=0.005).
Conclusion:
The intervention model presented was effective in improving the quality of care for sepsis in the emergency service, with the possibility of scaling up its use in Brazilian hospitals.
Keywords: Sepsis; Quality Improvement; Emergency Medical Services; Risk Management; Safety Management
INTRODUCTION
Despite advances in the medical field, sepsis remains a serious public health problem. Epidemiological studies have shown that this disease causes countless deaths around the world and places a heavy burden on public and private health systems 1,2. Although global Figures on sepsis are scarce, and sometimes controversial, it is estimated that about 30 million new cases of the disease may be diagnosed each year, with the potential to cause more than 5 million deaths 3.
In Brazil, the incidence of hospitalizations for sepsis increased by more than 50% between 2006 and 2015, with a lethality rate of around 46%, being higher in public hospitals (55%) than in private hospitals (37%) 4. According to the SPREAD study 5, which assessed 229 Intensive Care Units (ICUs) in the country in 2014, almost 30% of this type of bed was occupied by patients with sepsis or septic shock, and the associated mortality was 55.4%. This high lethality is even more evident when comparing national data with those from other countries, as did the PROGRESS study 6, which found that hospital mortality from sepsis in Brazil was 67.4%, higher than countries like Argentina (56.6%), India (39.0%), the United States (42.9%) and Australia (32.6%).
Some factors related to the quality of health care may be associated with this high mortality. In part, it can be attributed to the lack of knowledge on the part of health professionals about the signs of severity associated with the disease and the lack of standardization of conducts on the part of many organizations, which leads to a late diagnosis and a consequent delay in starting therapeutic measures 7,8. Additionally, problems related to safety culture, unavailability of resources, as well as barriers to access health services, can also influence these numbers.
In recent decades, the recognition of sepsis as one of the main prevenTable causes of morbidity and mortality in the world 9has led to the emergence of quality improvement initiatives based on managed protocols, focused on early diagnosis and appropriate and timely treatment of the disease. A meta-analysis identified that quality improvement programs increase compliance with treatment packages and decrease mortality 10. In the meantime, the Campanha de Sobrevivência à Sepse(CSS, as per its Portuguese acronym, being translated into Sepsis Survival Campaign), together with the Institute for Healthcare Improvement(IHI), has developed educational programs and sepsis treatment packages every four years, that is, evidence-based measures that, when carried out together, produce good results 7,11.
In South American countries, the Latin American Sepsis Institute (LASI) has been proposing to assist organizations that intend to improve the quality of care for septic patients, through the implementation of educational programs and the generation and dissemination of knowledge, based on the protocols of the CSS 5,11. Despite this knowledge, there is a lack of publications on initiatives to improve the quality of sepsis in emerging and low-income countries 3, especially in emergency departments, which are the gateway for most septic patients.
In this context, the present study aimed to describe the process of implementing a participatory and multifaceted intervention to improve sepsis care and its effects on improving the quality of care.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In order to carry out this study, the SQUIRE guidelines (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) 12were followed, which provide a model for reporting new knowledge on how to improve the quality of health care.
Context and identification of the opportunity for improvement
This study was carried out in the 2017/2018 biennium in the Emergency Sector of the Cariri Regional Hospital (CRH), located in Juazeiro do Norte, Ceará, in Northeast Brazil. The hospital has a tertiary, public and state character and has 219 hospital beds and 90 emergency beds, with monthly care of about 2,500 patients. CRH is part of the network of hospitals managed by the Institute of Health and Hospital Management, a private non-profit institution qualified as a Social Health Organization (SHO). Inaugurated in 2011, it has a level three accreditation certificate from the National Accreditation Organization and its strategic lines are the care of patients with acute ischemic stroke, multiple traumas and sepsis.
With a view to favoring an organizational climate of change, a multidisciplinary leadership team was created with professionals with relevant knowledge, credibility and authority to drive process improvements. This group was formed by a physician and three nurses (coordinators of the emergency sector), a business administrator, a quality advisor, in addition to the risk manager, the general coordinator of nursing and the general director of the hospital (n=9). After performing a nominal group technique 13, the septic patient care was participatively selected as an improvement target to be implemented in the Emergency Department of CRH.
Intervention
The planning of the intervention followed three main guidelines: 1) participatory design, which was ensured by involving a multidisciplinary team directly related to the problem; 2) based on data, because the intervention actions were directed to the quality criteria of the worst conformity in the first assessment of the quality level after analysis using a Pareto diagram; 3) and multifaceted, considering that a sum of interventions is more effective for improvement 14.
Considering a structured qualitative analysis with a cause-and-effect diagram and an initial assessment based on quality criteria, an affinity diagram was elaborated (Table 1), aimed to order and systematize the interventions proposed by the group in four strategic lines: managerial actions, educational actions, information systems and work reorganization.
From then on, an action plan for the implementation of the proposed actions was elaborated, presented in a Gantt diagram. Change initiatives were socialized within the institution based on training, discussions of clinical cases, on-site visits and individual approaches to collaborators, following the CSS and LASI guidelines.
Until the implementation of quality improvement measures, there was no risk classification, i.e., the indication that the patient could be a carrier of sepsis. Considering that this is the first contact of the user with a health professional, the nurse acting in risk classification became responsible for signaling a possible sepsis, based on the alteration of vital signs or the presence of organic dysfunction. As soon as this occurred, the patient should undergo immediate medical care and, if the suspicion was confirmed, the sepsis protocol would be opened.
Consequently, the patient’s name would be marked with red color in the electronic medical record, indicating the priority of care, and the patient would follow with a sign indicating that he/she had sepsis, containing the time limits for reassessment. The pharmacy performed the release of the antimicrobial as soon as possible and the laboratory streamlined the collection of blood and the release of test results.
Performance data were assessed monthly by the sepsis committee, which used the quality criteria built to assess compliance; and, from these data, indicators were generated. The results were presented monthly at the meetings with the teams.
Intervention study
In order to study the effect of the intervention, this improvement project included a before-after type quasi-experimental design.
The population of this study included all medical records of patients diagnosed with sepsis in the emergency sector of CRH. Sepsis is considered to be a potentially fatal condition caused by a dysregulated response of the human organism to infection 15. All patients who met this criterion, during the period in question, were analyzed in this study. The study units were the daily census spreadsheets of the patients who had the sepsis protocol opened. Medical records of patients who did not show signs of infection, patients with unavailable or non-existent data, those who died within 3 hours of sepsis diagnosis and those in end-of-life care were excluded.
Data collection from the first assessment was carried out between September and November 2017, the intervention took place between December 2017 and March 2018 and the reassessment between April and June 2018. To this end, a self-elaborated instrument was used based on the 10 developed criteria. The sources for data collection were the medical records and the screening forms of the sepsis protocol. The data were collected by a previously trained physician and a previously trained nurse, who assessed the level of compliance with the criteria. For this study, only one sepsis event was considered for each patient’s hospitalization.
Measures
A list with 10 criteria was elaborated (Table 2), which defined the quality of the assessed service. Each criterion was detailed in terms of its definition, exceptions and clarifications so that they could be interpreted in the same way by different assessors.
Table 2: Criteria for assessing the quality of the care process for patients with sepsis. Juazeiro do Norte, CE, 2017
![](/img/revistas/eg/v21n67//1695-6141-eg-21-67-1-gt5.png)
Regarding the type of data, the first nine criteria analyzed were related to process, and the last was related to result, being that all had assessed the validity of face, content and criterion (scientific evidence).
After that, reliability was analyzed through a pilot study with 30 patients and two assessors. The agreement of the indicators was considered strong or perfect in all cases, considering that they had a Kappa index greater than or equal to 0.8.
Data analysis
In order to assess quality, before and after the intervention, the point estimate and the confidence interval (CI: 95%) of the level of compliance with the 10 adopted quality criteria were calculated.
With a view to assessing the effect of the intervention, the absolute and relative improvement of each criterion was estimated. In order to check the statistical significance of the detected improvement, a unilateral hypothesis test was performed by calculating the z-value, considering the absence of improvement as a null hypothesis, which was rejected when the p-value was less than 0.05. The choice of the unilateral test was because the hypothesis is clearly unidirectional (in the sense of improvement), and therefore the bidirectional test would be more restrictive.
Additionally, a graphic representation of the main quality problems identified in the assessments was elaborated. Initially, from a Table of absolute and relative frequencies of non-compliance, a before-after Pareto chart was later designed, where it was possible to assess the achieved absolute improvement and compare the level of quality between the assessments. In order to facilitate the visualization of this chart, the data from the second assessment were standardized for a sample compatible with the first.
RESULTS
Process of implementing the intervention
The description of the intervention implementation process is recommended to understand the effects of a study aimed to improve health care 12. The intervention process lasted approximately ten months, from its conception to the second data collection in June 2018. In the initial phases, a sepsis committee was created and a leadership was appointed to improve this process. The first actions involved updating the sepsis protocol according to the most current scientific evidence, followed by the review of documents used to care for these patients (screening form and antimicrobial guide) and the assessment of the level of quality of care between September and November 2017. After analyzing the data of the quality criteria, the assessment was presented to the responsible teams and the restructuring of the sepsis care line took place. Permanent awareness actions for adherence to the protocol, definition of goals, presentation of monthly indicators, among others, were included. The details of the chronological sequence of the implementation of the intervention can be seen in Figure 1.
Improving the quality of care for patients with sepsis
There was an absolute improvement in all process criteria (criteria 1-9) and lethality (criterion 10), which decreased from 36% to 26% (p=0.005), according to Table 3. In the pre-intervention, seven criteria had compliance values of less than 75%, with special emphasis on the reassessment within 3 hours (criterion 2) and correct reclassification (criterion 4), which had compliance percentages of 23% and 48%, respectively. After the intervention, the improvement was significant (p<0.05) in eight of the 10 criteria, and only two of them remained with a level of compliance below 75%. At this point, it is worth mentioning that the criteria “Reassessment within 3 hours” and “Collection of blood cultures before antimicrobials” obtained a relative improvement above 50%, achieving the highest rates observed. The total fulfillment of the criteria varied from 0 to 17.5%.
Table 3: Compliance with quality criteria and improvement estimates. Juazeiro do Norte, CE, 2018
![](/img/revistas/eg/v21n67//1695-6141-eg-21-67-1-gt6.png)
NS: Not significant, that is, p>0.05; * One-sided z-value test.
Source: Self-elaborated.
The initial assessment showed an absolute frequency of 843 non-conformities, which were reduced to 506 after the implementation of the proposed measures. In the chart of the second assessment, it was possible to observe that the improvement achieved was 67% and that there was a reduction in the number of non-conformities of all criteria, which illustrates the effectiveness of the project (Figure 2).
Despite the evident improvement, the results achieved by the criteria “Correct antimicrobial administered in the first hour” and “Adequate volume replacement” did not obtain statistical significance, represented by a p-value above 0.05.
Unintended consequences of the intervention
An unexpected beneficial result was the reduction in the rate of hospital stay of patients admitted with sepsis, which fell from an average of 16 to 13.7 days.
Although a constant improvement in the performance of care for septic patients has been observed, there has been great resistance on the part of surgeons and orthopedists to adhere to the proposed measures, despite the sensitization carried out. Another difficulty faced was the high degree of turnover of professionals.
DISCUSSION
Study contributions
This study contributed to improving the quality of care for patients with sepsis as it presented an intervention model capable of successfully increasing the compliance of the proposed quality indicators and decreasing the lethality in this group of patients considered a priority for hospital care. From the comparison with previous studies, this study stands out for having built indicators and specific intervention for patients cared for in the emergency department, a critical setting for the timely care of patients with sepsis, when most of the available studies address the ICU setting 5 14 17 18. Moreover, the study included all patients in the analyzed period, without being affected by random errors in the sampling process.
There are few studies in low- and middle-income countries that assess the issue of quality improvement related to sepsis. In Brazil, these publications are practically restricted to those made by LASI, notably in the southeastern region of the country, in such a way that this study, in addition to being part of a select and restricted group of national publications, is probably unprecedented in the northeast region, especially in emergency departments.
One of the particularities of this study was to describe the use of participatory and multifaceted improvement cycles as a management tool to change contexts. Improvement cycles are systematic and scientifically rigorous procedures to address quality objectives in the field of clinical governance and in the science of improving the quality of health care, where different models developed in the industry can be used, such as those proposed by Deming and Juran 13. The participatory and multifaceted approach has been described and has shown excellent results 8 14 19 20.
Quality of care improvement
The improvement identified in this study can be explained by intrinsic components of the implemented multifaceted intervention, among which we can highlight the engagement of senior and middle management. Leadership is the central domain of quality improvement initiatives that underpin the development of all other actions, and it would be unlikely that any strategic intervention would be successful with no support of strong and consistent leadership 21. This was the management model found in the CRH setting, which was involved in all phases of the project, including supporting intervention actions and collecting results.
In addition, the intervention setting was developed in a place where the health care team is used to working with a protocolized approach, and the organizational capacity is directed to the development of actions that facilitate the continuous improvement of quality. Within this context, collaborators received continuing education, aiming to bring the latest evidence on the management of septic patients, since staff training is among the main strategies associated with improvements in the outcome of these patients 8,19. It is known that, in developing countries, there is a big gap between the provision of health care based on evidence and the treatment carried out at the bedside 22. Concerning sepsis, this low awareness leads to late recognition of the disease and a consequent delay in therapeutic measures.
Another probable factor associated with the achieved result was the use of continuous auditing and feedback to professionals as instruments to boost adherence to the indicators. Setting standards, monitoring them, identifying and solving problems as they arise are strategies to increase compliance with indicators 7,23.
As an essential factor for the identified improvement, it is also possible to cite the restructuring of the clinical protocol for the care of septic patients in such a way that the screening tool started to be guided by nurses. The involvement of nursing in hospital processes is a known practice 7 20 24, where the initial screening performed by a nurse increased the compliance of criterion 1, which dealt with the early diagnosis of the disease, corroborating other publications 20,25, being this a key factor in reducing mortality 19.
The 10% reduction in lethality due to sepsis identified in this study is reinforced by other studies that aimed to increase adherence to treatment packages 17,18. A study carried out on three continents showed that, for every 10% in the increase in compliance with good practices, there was a reduction in the lethality rate in the order of 3 to 5% 17. In Brazil, a study 26)that assessed 25 public institutions demonstrated an 8.3% increase in compliance with treatment packages and a 6.8% reduction in lethality. The greater reduction in lethality identified in the present study can be explained by the early identification of these patients, since the majority had the disease still recognized in the risk classification, the gateway of the emergency department, as well as by the lower severity of the patients and the initial level of compliance with good practices developed at the institution.
Although there is a divergence in the literature on the importance of using protocols for sepsis care, we believe that the protocolized approach was essential for the identified improvement. Some studies say that bedside treatment with timely use of fluids and antimicrobials is sufficient for the treatment of sepsis, with no need for guiding documents 27 28 29. However, the trials were conducted with a more severe patient profile and in centers of excellence, where the usual treatment at the bedside can be comparable with the protocolized approach, a reality that is still far from many Brazilian hospitals and the target population of this study.
The intervention had a lesser effect for two quality criteria. Regarding the administration of the correct antibiotic, we believe that the high turnover of medical professionals in the emergency department, the lack of knowledge and lack of interest in seeking the institutional antimicrobial guide, as well as the low safety culture of some collaborators may have influenced this result. This may have limited the reduction in lethality, since the adequate choice of antibiotics in the first hour is associated with a survival rate of almost 80% 30. The non-significant improvement in the release of the lactate result within 60 minutes may have occurred because the compliance of this criterion was high in the first assessment, due to the reduced number of collaborators in the laboratory sector, their non-involvement in the continuing education processes, as well as the distance of this sector to the emergency department. The increase in this parameter is considered the best marker of hypoperfusion available at the bedside and its result directly influences therapeutic measures 7. It is suggested that these points are a priority in future improvement interventions.
Limitations
The study was conducted at a single center, as is the case with most quality improvement studies, so caution should be exercised when extrapolating the quality level estimates found to other centers. Another implication was the absence of a parallel control group, which does not allow us to say whether the mere availability of national recommendations had no effect on improving processes and results. The analysis of the lethality rate and length of hospital stay was crude, with no standardization for possible confounding variables that could have a different prevalence in the periods before and after the intervention. However, the result of the intervention is consistent with the reports of other studies, both for the health care concerning sepsis and for other clinical issues, suggesting that the improvement method was decisive in changing the local reality.
CONCLUSION
The intervention model presented was effective in improving the quality of care for sepsis in an emerging country, especially in the emergency department, and was associated with a reduction in the lethality rate. The presented findings have implications for researchers, health professionals and managers as an initiative to change realities, since the method is feasible and possibly sustainable in the long term. Future studies can identify the reasons for the lack of adherence by health professionals to some criteria, as well as appoint this model for emergency hospitals in the country, in an attempt to intervene in this important public health problem.
Acknowledgements
We thank CAPES and UFRN for funding the translation of this study and the professionals of the Cariri Regional Hospital who participated in this study.
REFERENCES
1. Shankar-Hari M, Phillips GS, Levy ML, Seymour CW, Liu VX, Deutschman CS, et al. Developing a New Definition and Assessing New Clinical Criteria for Septic Shock: For the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):775. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.0289 [ Links ]
2. Tiru B, DiNino EK, Orenstein A, Mailloux PT, Pesaturo A, Gupta A, et al. The Economic and Humanistic Burden of Severe Sepsis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(9):925-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0282-y [ Links ]
3. Fleischmann C, Scherag A, Adhikari NKJ, Hartog CS, Tsaganos T, Schlattmann P, et al. Assessment of Global Incidence and Mortality of Hospital-treated Sepsis. Current Estimates and Limitations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;193(3):259-72. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201504-0781oc [ Links ]
4. Quintano Neira RA, Hamacher S, Japiassú AM. Epidemiology of sepsis in Brazil: Incidence, lethality, costs, and other indicators for Brazilian Unified Health System hospitalizations from 2006 to 2015. Dal Pizzol F, editor. PLoS One. 2018;13(4):e0195873. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195873 [ Links ]
5. Machado FR, Cavalcanti AB, Bozza FA, Ferreira EM, Angotti Carrara FS, Sousa JL, et al. The epidemiology of sepsis in Brazilian intensive care units (the Sepsis PREvalence Assessment Database, SPREAD): an observational study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017;17(11):1180-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-3099(17)30322-5 [ Links ]
6. Beale R, Reinhart K, Brunkhorst FM, Dobb G, Levy M, Martin G, et al. Promoting Global Research Excellence in Severe Sepsis (PROGRESS): Lessons from an International Sepsis Registry. Infection. 2009;37(3):222-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-008-8203-z [ Links ]
7. ILAS. Instituto Latino-Americano para Estudos da Sepse. Sepse: um problema de saúde pública. 2015;90. Available from: https://ilas.org.br/assets/arquivos/upload/Livro-ILAS(Sepse-CFM-ILAS).pdf [ Links ]
8. Assunção M, Akamine N, Cardoso GS, Mello PVC, Teles JMM, Nunes ALB, et al. Survey on physicians' knowledge of sepsis: Do they recognize it promptly? J Crit Care. 2010;25(4):545-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2010.03.012 [ Links ]
9. WHO. World Health Organization. Improving the prevention, diagnosis and clinical management of sepsis. Seventieth World Heal Assem. 2017. Available from: http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA70/A70_R7-en.pdf?ua=1 [ Links ]
10. Damiani E, Donati A, Serafini G, Rinaldi L, Adrario E, Pelaia P, et al. Effect of performance improvement programs on compliance with sepsis bundles and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Efron PA, editor. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0125827. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125827 [ Links ]
11. Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, Levy MM, Antonelli M, Ferrer R, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(3):304-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-017-4683-6 [ Links ]
12. Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence - SQUIRE. Available from: http://www.squire-statement.org/ [ Links ]
13. Saturno-Hernández PJ. Métodos y herramientas para la realización de ciclos de mejora de la calidad en servicios de salud. Cuernavaca: Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública; 2015. Available from: https://www.insp.mx/images/stories/Produccion/pdf/160506_Metodos_Herramientas_SS.pdf [ Links ]
14. Siontis B, Elmer J, Dannielson R, Brown C, Park J, Surani S, et al. Multifaceted interventions to decrease mortality in patients with severe sepsis/septic shock - a quality improvement project. PeerJ. 2015;3:e1290. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1290 [ Links ]
15. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801-10. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.0287 [ Links ]
16. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, Annane D, Gerlach H, Opal SM, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(2):580-637. http://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e31827e83af [ Links ]
17. Ferrer R, Martin-Loeches I, Phillips G, Osborn TM, Townsend S, Dellinger RP, et al. Empiric Antibiotic Treatment Reduces Mortality in Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock From the First Hour. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(8):1749-55. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000000330 [ Links ]
18. Scheer CS, Fuchs C, Kuhn S-O, Vollmer M, Rehberg S, Friesecke S, et al. Quality Improvement Initiative for Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Reduces 90-Day Mortality. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(2):241-52. http://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000002069 [ Links ]
19. Machado FR, Ferreira EM, Schippers P, de Paula IC, Saes LSV, de Oliveira FI, et al. Implementation of sepsis bundles in public hospitals in Brazil: a prospective study with heterogeneous results. Crit Care. 2017;21(1):268. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-017-1858-z [ Links ]
20. Gatewood MO, Wemple M, Greco S, Kritek PA, Durvasula R. A quality improvement project to improve early sepsis care in the emergency department. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;24(12):787-95. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003552 [ Links ]
21. WHO. World Health Organization. Quality of care: a process for making strategic choices in health systems. World Health Organization; 2006. 40 p. Available from: https://www.who.int/management/quality/assurance/QualityCare_B.Def.pdf [ Links ]
22. Bozza FA, Salluh JI. An urban perspective on sepsis in developing countries. Lancet Infect Dis. 2010;10(5):290-1. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-3099(10)70074-8 [ Links ]
23. Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(6):CD000259. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000259.pub3 [ Links ]
24. McDonald CM, West S, Dushenski D, Lapinsky SE, Soong C, van den Broek K, et al. Sepsis now a priority: a quality improvement initiative for early sepsis recognition and care. Int J Qual Heal Care. 2018;30(10):802-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzy121 [ Links ]
25. Bruce HR, Maiden J, Fedullo PF, Kim SC. Impact of Nurse-Initiated ED Sepsis Protocol on Compliance With Sepsis Bundles, Time to Initial Antibiotic Administration, and In-Hospital Mortality. J Emerg Nurs. 2015;41(2):130-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen.2014.12.007 [ Links ]
26. Machado FR, Ferreira EM, Sousa JL, Silva C, Schippers P, Pereira A, et al. Quality Improvement Initiatives in Sepsis in an Emerging Country: Does the Institution's Main Source of Income Influence the Results? An Analysis of 21,103 Patients. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(10):1650-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000002585 [ Links ]
27. Yealy DM, Kellum JA, Huang DT, Barnato AE, Weissfeld LA, Pike F, et al. A Randomized Trial of Protocol-Based Care for Early Septic Shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(18):1683-93. http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1401602 [ Links ]
28. ARISE Investigators, ANZICS Clinical Trials Group, Peake SL, Delaney A, Bailey M, Bellomo R, et al. Goal-Directed Resuscitation for Patients with Early Septic Shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(16):1496-506. http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1404380 [ Links ]
29. Mouncey PR, Osborn TM, Power GS, Harrison DA, Sadique MZ, Grieve RD, et al. Protocolised Management In Sepsis (ProMISe): a multicentre randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of early, goal-directed, protocolised resuscitation for emerging septic shock. Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 2015;19(97):1-150. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta19970 [ Links ]
30. Kumar A, Roberts D, Wood KE, Light B, Parrillo JE, Sharma S, et al. Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(6):1589-96. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ccm.0000217961.75225.e9 [ Links ]
Received: December 04, 2021; Accepted: January 21, 2022