ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2025
A program to improve sepsis management in the Emergency Department: a multicenter prospective study in France.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Implementation of a regional sepsis program to improve compliance with sepsis care bundles and optimize septic patient management and outcomes in the Emergency Department (ED). The program included a multifaceted intervention in 8 EDs: creation of a regional sepsis team, meetings, education (yearly 6-h course and site visits) and sepsis alert. Clinical practice was evaluated in each ED during 1 month every year over 3 years. The primary outcome was the initiation of all criteria of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) bundle within 3 h after triage. Secondary outcomes were the initiation of the 3-h bundle in patients with hypotension (SBP ≤ 100 mmHg), admission related to infection or not, proportion of organ supports, subsequent intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and early mortality (day 7). During the 3-month study period, 739 patients were identified with a sepsis including 8% with septic shock. Compliance with the SSC bundle improved during the three periods (P1: 28/176 (16%), P2: 42/272 (15%), P3:69/291 (24%), p = 0.023). In patients with hypotension (n = 142, 19%), no improvement was observed (P1:12/38 (32%), P2:18/46 (39%), P3: 28/58 (48%), p = 0.255). Mortality on day 7 was also similar (10% vs 11% vs 9%, p = 0.621). In multivariate analysis, age (OR = 1.03; 95% CI 1.01-1.05, p = 0.003) and confusion (OR = 2.37; 95% CI 1.37-4.14, p = 0.002) were independently associated with D7 mortality. Patients referred to ED for infection had a better prognosis compared to those with a non-specific reason (OR = 0.56; 95% CI 0.32-0.97, p = 0.038). A regional sepsis educational program appears to improve compliance with the SSC bundle. Pre-hospital identification of sepsis appears to improve further management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39888482What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.