Cargando…

Recognition of sepsis in primary care: a survey among GPs

BACKGROUND: Early recognition and treatment of sepsis are important to reduce morbidity and mortality. Screening tools using vital signs are effective in emergency departments. It is not known how the decision to refer a patient to the hospital with a possible serious infection is made in primary ca...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Loots, Feike J, Arpots, Roeland, van den Berg, Rick, Hopstaken, Rogier M, Giesen, Paul, Smits, Marleen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Royal College of General Practitioners 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6169959/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30564668
http://dx.doi.org/10.3399/bjgpopen17X100965
_version_ 1783360594775113728
author Loots, Feike J
Arpots, Roeland
van den Berg, Rick
Hopstaken, Rogier M
Giesen, Paul
Smits, Marleen
author_facet Loots, Feike J
Arpots, Roeland
van den Berg, Rick
Hopstaken, Rogier M
Giesen, Paul
Smits, Marleen
author_sort Loots, Feike J
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Early recognition and treatment of sepsis are important to reduce morbidity and mortality. Screening tools using vital signs are effective in emergency departments. It is not known how the decision to refer a patient to the hospital with a possible serious infection is made in primary care. AIM: To gain insight into the clinical decision-making process of GPs in patients with possible sepsis infections. DESIGN & SETTING: Survey among a random sample of 800 GPs in the Netherlands. METHOD: Quantitative questionnaire using Likert scales. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty (20.3%) of questionnaires were eligible for analysis. Based on self-reported cases of possible serious infections, the factors most often indicated as important for the decision to refer patients to the hospital were: general appearance (94.1%), gut feeling (92.1%), history (92.0%), and physical examination (89.3%). Temperature (88.7%), heart rate (88.7%), and blood pressure (82.1%), were the most frequently measured vital signs. In general, GPs more likely referred patients in case of: altered mental status (98.7%), systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg (93.7%), unable to stand (89.3%), insufficient effect of previous antibiotic treatment (87.4%), and respiratory rate ≥22/minute (86.1%). CONCLUSION: The GPs' assessment of patients with possible serious infection is a complex process, in which besides checking vital signs, many other aspects of the consultation guide the decision to refer a patient to the hospital. To improve care for patients with sepsis, the diagnostic and prognostic value of assessing the vital signs and symptoms, GPs' gut feeling, and additional diagnostic tests, should be prospectively studied in the primary care setting.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6169959
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Royal College of General Practitioners
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61699592018-12-18 Recognition of sepsis in primary care: a survey among GPs Loots, Feike J Arpots, Roeland van den Berg, Rick Hopstaken, Rogier M Giesen, Paul Smits, Marleen BJGP Open Research BACKGROUND: Early recognition and treatment of sepsis are important to reduce morbidity and mortality. Screening tools using vital signs are effective in emergency departments. It is not known how the decision to refer a patient to the hospital with a possible serious infection is made in primary care. AIM: To gain insight into the clinical decision-making process of GPs in patients with possible sepsis infections. DESIGN & SETTING: Survey among a random sample of 800 GPs in the Netherlands. METHOD: Quantitative questionnaire using Likert scales. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty (20.3%) of questionnaires were eligible for analysis. Based on self-reported cases of possible serious infections, the factors most often indicated as important for the decision to refer patients to the hospital were: general appearance (94.1%), gut feeling (92.1%), history (92.0%), and physical examination (89.3%). Temperature (88.7%), heart rate (88.7%), and blood pressure (82.1%), were the most frequently measured vital signs. In general, GPs more likely referred patients in case of: altered mental status (98.7%), systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg (93.7%), unable to stand (89.3%), insufficient effect of previous antibiotic treatment (87.4%), and respiratory rate ≥22/minute (86.1%). CONCLUSION: The GPs' assessment of patients with possible serious infection is a complex process, in which besides checking vital signs, many other aspects of the consultation guide the decision to refer a patient to the hospital. To improve care for patients with sepsis, the diagnostic and prognostic value of assessing the vital signs and symptoms, GPs' gut feeling, and additional diagnostic tests, should be prospectively studied in the primary care setting. Royal College of General Practitioners 2017-05-03 /pmc/articles/PMC6169959/ /pubmed/30564668 http://dx.doi.org/10.3399/bjgpopen17X100965 Text en Copyright © The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This article is Open Access: CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
spellingShingle Research
Loots, Feike J
Arpots, Roeland
van den Berg, Rick
Hopstaken, Rogier M
Giesen, Paul
Smits, Marleen
Recognition of sepsis in primary care: a survey among GPs
title Recognition of sepsis in primary care: a survey among GPs
title_full Recognition of sepsis in primary care: a survey among GPs
title_fullStr Recognition of sepsis in primary care: a survey among GPs
title_full_unstemmed Recognition of sepsis in primary care: a survey among GPs
title_short Recognition of sepsis in primary care: a survey among GPs
title_sort recognition of sepsis in primary care: a survey among gps
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6169959/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30564668
http://dx.doi.org/10.3399/bjgpopen17X100965
work_keys_str_mv AT lootsfeikej recognitionofsepsisinprimarycareasurveyamonggps
AT arpotsroeland recognitionofsepsisinprimarycareasurveyamonggps
AT vandenbergrick recognitionofsepsisinprimarycareasurveyamonggps
AT hopstakenrogierm recognitionofsepsisinprimarycareasurveyamonggps
AT giesenpaul recognitionofsepsisinprimarycareasurveyamonggps
AT smitsmarleen recognitionofsepsisinprimarycareasurveyamonggps