Skip to content

Implementation and Evaluations of Sepsis Watch

Implementation and Evaluations of Previously Developed Novel Early Warning System to Detect and Treat Sepsis

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03655626
Enrollment
32003
Registered
2018-08-31
Start date
2018-11-05
Completion date
2019-07-05
Last updated
2019-08-01

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Sepsis, Septic Shock, Severe Sepsis

Keywords

Machine Learning, Sepsis, Implementation Science, Health Information Technology

Brief summary

The purpose of this study is to study the implementation and impact of an early warning system to detect and treat sepsis in the emergency room. We are observing the implementation of a Sepsis Machine Learning Model on all Adult patients. All data (observations field notes, interview recording & transcripts, and survey responses) will be stored on HIPAA-compliant Duke servers behind the Duke firewall, and requiring password-protected user authentication to access. The risk to patients is minimal. The two risks to interviewed clinical staff we have identified involve loss of work time and anonymity.

Detailed description

Sepsis represents a significant burden to the healthcare system. National predictions estimate 751,000 cases of severe sepsis per annum which will increase at a rate of 1.5%. Sepsis accounts for \>$23 billion in aggregate hospital costs across all payers and represents nearly 4% of all hospital stays. Six percent of all deaths in the US can be attributed to sepsis. Protocol driven care bundles improve clinical outcomes but require early and accurate detection of sepsis. Unfortunately, identifying sepsis early remains elusive even for experienced clinicians leading to diagnostic uncertainty. To improve diagnostic consensus, a task force in 2016 agreed upon a new sepsis definition. The task force also included a new risk stratification tool to improve early identification, the quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) model, which was more accurate than the older Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) in predicting adverse clinical outcomes. However, due to the reliance of end organ dysfunction, the new definition has been criticized for its detection of sepsis late in the clinical course. Clinical decision support tools based on predictive analytics can provide actionable information and improve diagnostic accuracy particularly in sepsis. Several early warning tools have been described in the published literature based upon predictive analytics and large datasets. One example is the National Early Warning Score (NEWS), which was developed to discriminate patients at risk of cardiac arrest, unplanned intensive care admission, or death. Scores such as NEWS are typically broad in scope and not designed to specifically target sepsis. They are also conceptually simple, as they use only a small number of variables and compare them to normal ranges to generate a composite score. In assigning independent scores to each variable and using only the most recent value, they both ignore complex relationships between the variables and their evolution in time. In previous work, our group developed a framework to model multivariate time series using multitask Gaussian processes, accounting for the high uncertainty, frequent missing values, and irregular sampling rates typically associated with real clinical data can be read in our prior work. Our machine learning approach is superior to other sepsis detection models that use traditional analytics and machine learning techniques. A custom web application, Sepsis Watch, presents the risk score along with relevant patient information and prompts the user to further evaluate the patient and begin treatment, if appropriate. The Sepsis Watch system is now being implemented by clinical operations at Duke University Hospital. Our study employs a sequential roll-out study design in the Emergency Department at Duke University Hospital. Our study will involve pods A, B, C, and the Resuscitation Bay. The operational project is not being implemented on the psychiatry wing, fast track, triage or any inpatient encounters. The operational project and thus our study period is based upon a two-phase roll out: * 1st phase: The predictive model notifies the rapid response team through a dashboard. Nurse notifies team of the risk for sepsis and provides treatment recommendation to primary team and primary team will place orders. Rapid response team nurse documents assessment and actions taken in electronic health record. * 2nd phase: Improvement and optimization of the workflow integrated in phase 1. One workflow improvement includes the development of an ordering protocol and process whereby the rapid response team can place orders for patients who are deemed appropriate for sepsis treatment. A second workflow improvement includes the development of a clinician feedback and auditing report that would be sent to front-line staff with sepsis bundle compliance performance measures. In addition to observing patient outcome measures, we propose an additional mixed-methods study component to obtain richer information about the effects of the early warning system on clinicians' situational awareness, decision-making, and workflow. This part of our research will involve (1) gathering data from clinicians through a series of semi-structured interviews, surveys, and observations (2) analysis of this data and identification of relevant patterns and insights. Relevant clinicians include include rapid response team nurses, emergency department (ED) nurses, and ED physicians. These interviews will be conducted in three rounds over the implementation period: before the 1st arm, after the 1st arm, and after the 2nd arm. Electronic surveys will be administered at the end of the 1st arm and the 2nd arm to clinicians. The observations will take place during the 1st and 2nd arms. The goal of the interviews, surveys, and observations will be to (1) evaluate the effect of the early warning system on the clinicians' situational awareness and decision-making, (2) understand how the early warning system fits into clinician workflow, and, (3) identify opportunities to improve the implementation of the early warning system for future scale-up. We will be structuring interviews according to the situational awareness model which differentiates between 3 levels of situational awareness: 1) perception of relevant information, 2) comprehension of that information, and 3) anticipation of future events based on that information. Through the interviews, observations, and surveys, we also hope to learn more about clinicians' perceptions of and interactions with the early warning system, and its change on the existing Emergency Department workflow for sepsis diagnosis and management. Data analysis will be conducted with the help of trained qualitative researchers from Data & Society, a research institute in New York City that is focused on the social and cultural issues arising from data-centric technological development.

Interventions

OTHERSepsis Watch

The operational intervention comprises of a sepsis machine learning model, custom dashboard to present risk scores, and a rapid response team to monitor patients at-risk of sepsis and deliver sepsis treatment. Sepsis Watch was developed under operational management. The rapid response team will utilize information presented on the dashboard and follow a protocol that will enable them to support the primary teams of hospitalized patients.

Sponsors

Data & Society Research Institute
CollaboratorUNKNOWN
Duke Clinical Research Institute
CollaboratorOTHER
Duke University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
NA
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Arrival to Duke University Hospital emergency department pods A, B, and C, or resuscitation bay

Exclusion criteria

* Under 18 years old at time of emergency department arrival

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Rate of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) bundle completion for patients with sepsisWithin 96 hours of emergency department arrivalProportion of patients with sepsis that complete Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services treatment bundle

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Average number of patients who develop sepsis and are not treated per day and monthWithin 96 hours of emergency department arrivalNumber of patients daily who meet sepsis phenotype who are not treated for sepsis
Mean Inpatient mortality for patients with sepsisWithin 30 days of emergency department arrivalInpatient mortality for patients with sepsis
Mean ICU requirement rate for patients with sepsisWithin 30 days of emergency department arrivalIntensive care unit requirement rate for patients with sepsis
Mean time from sepsis onset to blood cultureWithin 96 hours of emergency department arrivalTime of sepsis to blood culture order and collection for patients with sepsis
Mean time from sepsis onset to lactateWithin 96 hours of emergency department arrivalTime of sepsis to lactate collection for patients with sepsis
Mean time from sepsis onset to CMS bundle completionWithin 96 hours of emergency department arrivalTime of sepsis to CMS bundle completion for patients with sepsis
Rate of lactate complete for patients with sepsisWithin 96 hours of emergency department arrivalProportion of lactate drawn within 3 hours and potentially re-drawn within 6 hours of sepsis for patients with sepsis
Number of sepsis diagnosis codes across Duke University Hospital patients per monthWithin 30 days of emergency department arrivalNumber of billing diagnosis codes for sepsis
Mean time from sepsis onset to IV fluidsWithin 96 hours of emergency department arrivalTime of sepsis to IV fluids order and administration for patients with sepsis
Mean time from sepsis onset to antibioticsWithin 96 hours of emergency department arrivalTime of sepsis to antibiotic order and administration for patients with sepsis
Mean time from ED arrival to sepsis for patients with sepsisWithin 96 hours of emergency department arrivalMean time from to ED arrival to sepsis
Average number of patients who develop sepsis per day and monthWithin 96 hours of emergency department arrivalNumber of patients daily who meet sepsis phenotype
Mean ED length of stay for patients with sepsisWithin 96 hours of emergency department arrivalEmergency department length of stay for patients with sepsis
Mean Hospital length of stay for patients with sepsisWithin 30 days of emergency department arrivalHospital length of stay for patients with sepsis

Other

MeasureTime frameDescription
Number of blood culture orders in Duke University Hospital emergency department per monthWithin 96 hours of emergency department arrivalTotal blood culture orders
Number of lactate orders in Duke University Hospital emergency department per monthWithin 96 hours of emergency department arrivalTotal lactate orders
Number of IV fluid orders in Duke University Hospital emergency department per monthWithin 96 hours of emergency department arrivalTotal IV fluid orders
Number of vasopressor orders in Duke University Hospital emergency department per monthWithin 96 hours of emergency department arrivalTotal vasopressor orders
Number of vasopressor days in Duke University Hospital emergency department per monthWithin 96 hours of emergency department arrivalNumber of vasopressor days
Number of antibiotic orders in Duke University Hospital emergency department per monthWithin 96 hours of emergency department arrivalNumber of antibiotic orders in Duke University Hospital emergency department per month
Number of antibiotic days in Duke University Hospital emergency department per monthWithin 96 hours of emergency department arrivalNumber of antibiotic days

Countries

United States

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026