A Clinical Syndrome

Septic shock is the leading cause of death for patients in intensive care units and is the final stage in a continuum of infectious and inflammatory processes. This continuum begins with bacteremia, which is the presence of bacteria in the blood. Normally the body’s immune system can fight off a localized infection caused by a small amount of bacteria in the blood and the person will remain asymptomatic. However, a hospitalized patient could be immunocompromised, have a

Finally, one article was found by conducting a search of the identified article’s reference section. This article was searched by title on the Cochrane database and was found useful to the clinical

The number of documented cases has been rising every year. “This may be due to the aging population, the increased longevity of people with chronic disease, the spread of antibiotic-resistant organisms, an upsurge in invasive procedures and broader use of immunosuppressive and chemotherapeutic agents” (National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 2014). The mortality rate for sepsis ranges from about thirty percent for patients with sepsis to fifty percent in patients who develop septic shock. Mortality rate varies as to how many organs have been affected. Twenty percent mortality for one organ failure, forty percent for two organs failing, sixty-five to seventy percent for three failed organs, and seventy-five to eighty-five percent when four or more organs have failed. The cost related to sepsis is about seventeen billion dollars per year (about twenty-two thousand dollars per patient), which is six times greater than the cost of patients without sepsis.

There is a disease continuum with increasing severity if not treated or not responsive to treatment o Sepsis

Under the Core measures, Sepsis is one of the problem-focused trigger for systemic infection and if untreated which can lead to death. In United States, it is the 11th leading cause of death and consumes the large amount of costs about $20.3 billion in 2011 (Jones et al.,2016). According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than 1.5 million people diagnosed with sepsis, and at least 250,000 patients die from that yearly (CDC, 2017). The evidence-based research revealed with results of certain pre existing conditions, pathophysiological studies, preventive measures and sepsis bundle for treating and preventing sepsis to save the life of the patients.

et al., 2008). Sepsis is a frequent cause of admission to intensive care units (ICUs) and it

A methodical search was undertaken of the databases – PubMed, CINAHL and ScienceDirect to ascertain the most appropriate evidence. Search terms used were “Sepsis Prevention”, “Sepsis Management” “Sepsis Early Recognition” and “Sepsis Detection” and merged using Boolean Logic (Glasper and Rees,

Education interventions are very significant in the understanding of different stages of sepsis such as septic shock, uncomplicated sepsis, and severe sepsis. The progression of this disease varies from one person to another, and it can occur to some people through the three stages. Therefore, having a clear understanding of all the three phases that sepsis exists can help in the diagnosis of the diseases effectively. Additionally, education will provide an avenue and strategy of providing optimal care to the patient, and that will contribute to managing their condition. Sometimes the patients may not respond to the treatment administered, and as a result, they can develop multiple organ diseases. Hence, education will provide all the required knowledge to understand and know the various dynamic of the diseases and how it progress in a patient.

The word “sepsis” is derived from the ancient Greek word for rotten flesh and putrefaction. Since then, a wide variety of definitions have been applied to sepsis, including sepsis syndrome, severe sepsis, bacteremia, septicemia and septic shock In 1991, the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) developed a new set of terms and definitions to define sepsis in a more “precise manner” [1, 2]. These definitions take into account the findings that sepsis may result from a multitude of infectious agents and microbial mediators and may not be associated with detectable bloodstream infection. The term “systemic inflammatory response syndrome” (SIRS) was coined to describe the com- mon systemic response to a wide variety of insults. When SIRS was the result of a suspected or confirmed infectious process, it is termed “sepsis”.

Thirty to 50 percent of the 400,000 to 500,000 cases of sepsis in the United States each year are fatal, emphasizing the seriousness of this public health concern [2]. Recent research into possible alternative treatment options indicates that patients being treated with statin therapy are less likely to develop sepsis from a serious infection, die from sepsis or develop serious complications due to sepsis; however, the mechanism of action is unknown and therefore is the focus of this study [2, 6, 10-12]. Possible mechanisms of action include a direct interaction of the statin with the sepsis-causing organism, an interaction between the statin and the host immune system or a combination of the two [9, 14, 16-17]. Additionally, recent studies indicate that statins may have a direct antimicrobial effect and has suggested that statins may diminish the replication and infectivity of some pathogens responsible for sepsis [11, 14, 16-17]. Thus, we hypothesized that statins could benefit septic patients by

Sepsis is a phenomenon in which an infective agent results in a physiological response in excess of the pathogenic insult. Efforts to define and investigate sepsis have been somewhat fruitful in elucidating the nuances of this phenomenon. Yet, gaps exist in identifying and investigating sepsis. Recent efforts have streamlined the definition and identification criteria of sepsis and septic shock. The treatment of sepsis is based on the elements of identification, hemodynamic interventions (fluid and vasopressor resuscitation), and antimicrobial therapy/source control. A two-tiered approach employing the qSOFA (Quick Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment) and SOFA (Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment) tools now provide a succinct criteria for sepsis and septic shock. Various approaches may be taken to assess fluid responsiveness, provide fluid resuscitation, and determine the need for vasopressor support. Early, aggressive antimicrobial therapy is essential to the treatment of sepsis. Obtaining source control and considering early surgical

Sepsis, a potentially life-threatening complication of an infection, occurs when chemicals are released into the bloodstream to fight infection. These chemicals trigger inflammatory responses throughout the body (Mayo Clinic Staff, 2016). Sepsis can be triggered by any type of infection: bacterial, viral, or fungal. Contrary to popular belief, sepsis is responsible for a great number of deaths in the United States alone. Sepsis kills more than 258,000 Americans per year, is the number one cause of death in hospitals, and kills more Americans than prostate cancer, breast cancer, and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) combined. (Rory Staunton Foundation for Sepsis Prevention, n.d.) As cited in nursing journal, “Sepsis: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Challenges,” ‘One of the

Sepsis still represents a major cause of morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients despite the use of modern antibiotics and resuscitation therapies. There is a lack of early diagnosis and timely intervention for sepsis in the emergency department (ED), and recent interest has focused on biomarkers for early diagnosis, risk stratification, and evaluation of prognosis of sepsis.

Sepsis is a systemic response to infection that leads to severe sepsis and septic shock (Dellinger et al., 2013). Severe sepsis and septic shock are major health concerns, affecting millions of people, and killing one in four (Dellinger et al., 2013). Multisystem organ failure (MOF) is one of the leading causes of death of hospitalized patients with the underlying condition of sepsis (Rittirsch, Redl, & Huber-Lang, 2012).

Evaluating the eight papers for quality evidence was critical when selecting the two papers to utilise. The evidence hierarchy was considered, aiming to use the highest evidence possible, such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses; and randomized, controlled, double-blind studies, to ensure the most accurate evidence informed the clinical decision for the patient (Bloom, Olinzock, Radjenoic & Trice, 2013). When sorting the results, other various factors were also taken into consideration; credibility, reputability, reasonability and support. With these factors taken into account, the two papers selected are highly esteemed in regards to evidence, and are most relevant to the patient (Stichler, 2010).