A Multicenter Survey of House Staff Knowledge About Sepsis and the “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock”

Author:

Watkins Richard R.12,Haller Nairmeen3,Wayde Melinda4,Armitage Keith B.5

Affiliation:

1. Department of Medicine, Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown, OH, USA

2. Division of Infectious Diseases, Cleveland Clinic Akron General, Akron, OH, USA

3. Department of Research, Cleveland Clinic Akron General, Akron, OH, USA

4. Department of Medicine, Boonshoft School of Medicine, Wright State University, Dayton, OH, USA

5. University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA

Abstract

Background: We aimed to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of resident physicians regarding sepsis in general and the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines in particular. Methods: After institutional review board approval, we surveyed internal medicine (IM) and emergency medicine (EM) house staff from 3 separate institutions. House staff were notified of the survey via e-mail from their residency director or chief resident. The survey was Internet-based (using http://www.surveymonkey.com ), voluntary, and anonymous. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines were used to develop the survey. The survey was open between December 2015 and April 2016. No incentives for participation were given. Reminder e-mails were sent approximately every 3 to 4 weeks to all eligible participants. Comparisons of responses were evaluated using the N-1 2-proportion test. Results: A total of 133 responses were received. These included 84 from IM house staff, 27 from EM house staff, and 22 who selected “other.” Eighty (101/126) percent reported managing at least 1 patient with sepsis in the preceding 30 days, 85% (97/114) rated their knowledge of the Surviving Sepsis Guidelines as “very familiar” or at least “somewhat familiar,” and 84% (91/108) believed their training in the diagnosis and management of sepsis was “excellent” or at least “good.” However, 43% (47/108) reported not receiving any feedback on their treatment of patients with sepsis in the last 30 days, while 24% (26/108) received feedback once. Both IM and EM house staff received comparable rates of feedback (62% vs 48%, respectively; P = .21). For the 3 questions that directly tested knowledge of the guidelines, the scores of the IM and EM house staff were similar. Notably, <20% of both groups correctly identified diagnostic criteria for sepsis. Conclusion: Additional education of IM and EM house staff on the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines is warranted, along with more consistent feedback regarding their diagnosis and management of sepsis.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cited by 11 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3