ABSTRACT
Introduction
As sepsis is a life-threatening disease, appropriate measures should be started as soon as possible after diagnosis. Duration until first therapy affects survival. However, guideline adherence of primary sepsis care is often low. Dedicated sepsis response teams (SRT) may improve primary sepsis care.
Areas covered
PubMed was searched for studies investigating the effect of an implementation of SRTs. This review discusses the results of five studies presenting results before and after implementation of SRTs. The importance of choosing the alert and the right team composition of the SRT is also discussed.
Expert opinion
Implementing SRTs is associated with a better compliance with guidelines regarding primary sepsis care and with a reduction in hospital mortality. However, scientific evidence of the studies is limited due to chosen study design. SRTs can be a strong method to improve primary sepsis care in specific hospital settings if the pros and cons against the other measures of quality improvement are considered and the technical details such as alerts and team members are customized to the individual hospital setting.
Article highlights
Guideline adherence of primary sepsis care is often low.
Implementing sepsis response teams is associated with improved primary sepsis care and reduction in mortality.
Technical implementation (staff composition, SRT alert) was very different between the studies.
qSOFA or scores such as the Modified Early Warning Scores may be better alert triggers than a complete sepsis diagnosis.
The SRT should consist of ICU personnel. Early consultation of an infectious disease specialist could further improve care.
SRT implementation needs to be carefully considered and weighed against other quality measures given the limited evidence based on chosen study designs and the high amount of resources.
Declaration of interest
The author has no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.
Reviewer disclosures
Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.