2278. Housestaff Knowledge about Sepsis and the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines: A Multicenter Survey
Session: Poster Abstract Session: Teaching the Future: Education in Infectious Diseases
Saturday, October 29, 2016
Room: Poster Hall
Background: In many teaching hospitals, housestaff are responsible for diagnosing and initiating treatment of patients with sepsis. However, little is known about the knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of resident physicians regarding sepsis in general and the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines in particular.
Methods: After IRB approval, we surveyed Internal Medicine (IM) and Emergency Medicine (EM) housestaff from three separate institutions. Housestaff were notified of the survey via email 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 emails were sent approximately every 3-4 weeks to all eligible participants. Comparisons of responses were evaluated using the N-1 two-proportion test.
Results: A total of 133 responses were received. These included 84 from IM housestaff, 27 from EM housestaff and 22 who selected “other.” Eighty percent (101/126) reported managing at least one 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. IM and EM housestaff received comparable rates of feedback (62% vs. 48%, respectively; P = 0.21). For the three questions that directly tested knowledge of the guidelines, the scores of the IM and EM housestaff were similar. Notably, <20% of both groups correctly identified diagnostic criteria for sepsis.
Conclusion: Additional education of IM and EM housestaff on the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines is warranted, along with more consistent feedback regarding their diagnosis and management of sepsis.
Richard R. Watkins, MD, MS, FACP, Infectious Diseases, Akron General Medical Center, Akron, OH, Keith Armitage, MD, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, Nairmeen Haller, MS/PhD, Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown, OH and Melinda Wayde, MD, Wright State University Medical Center, Fairborn, OH
R. R. Watkins,