SepsisCRESTNCT01426711
Critical Care Excellence in Sepsis and Trauma
An observational study of Sepsis and Trauma, run by Medical University of South Carolina at 5 sites in United States.
Trial summary
The care of patients with sepsis and trauma requires the delivery of appropriate definitive care in the early stages of the illness. Hospitals with limited resources, those in rural and underserved areas of South Carolina, may be unable to consistently provide optimal care to these patients. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- How many people
- 26 participants
- Where
- 5 sitesUnited States
- Study dates
- Sep 2009to Mar 2012
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: The study population is adult patients presenting to rural community hospital's emergency departments wth possible sepsis or severe sepsis and/or blunt or penetrating trauma.
Who may be able to join
- Sepsis study patients are adult patients presenting to the rural hospital's EDs that meet the screening criteria for sepsis and two of four SIRS criteria.
- The screening criteria for possible sepsis are:
- known or suspected infection AND EITHER
- systolic blood pressure < 90mmHg after fluid challenge of 30mL/kg over 30 minutes OR
- lactate > 4mmol/L
- The screening criteria for possible SIRS are:
Show all 29Show fewer
- abnormal core body temperature (<36.5 C or > 38 C)
- heart rate > 90 bpm
- respiratory insufficiency (respiratory rate > 20 breaths/min or PaCO2 < 32 mmHg or mechanical ventilation)
- abnormal white blood count (>12,000/cumm or < 4000/cumm)
- Trauma study patients are adult patients presenting to the rural hospital's EDs with blunt or penetrating injury and one or more of the following criteria:
- Respiratory insufficiency and/or intubation
- Glasgow coma scale < 8 with mechanism attributed to trauma
- Systolic blood pressure of <90mmHg
- Paralysis
- Penetrating injury to the head/neck/torso
- Crush to torso/upper thighs
- Major amputations
- Loss of consciousness > 5 minutes
- Maxillo-facial trauma
- Significant subcutaneous air
- Evidence of pelvic instability
- Two or more long bone deformities
- Major lacerations involving fascia
- Ejection from vehicle
- Pedestrian struck > 15 mph
- Motorcycle Crash > 25 mph
- Motor Vehicle Collision > 35 mph
- Documented falls > 20 feet or 2 stories
Who cannot join
- The exclusion criteria for septic patients are:
- -Age < 18 years
- The exclusion criteria for trauma patients are:
- Age < 18 years
- Burn injury of greater than 10% total body surface area
- Traumatic asphyxiation
- Lightning strike/electrical shock
- Patients undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on arrival
Trial locations and contacts
5 sites in 1 country.
5 sites in 1 country
United States5 sites
Bamberg County Hospital
Bamberg, South Carolina, 29003
Barnwell County Hospital
Barnwell, South Carolina, 29812
Medical University of South Carolina
Charleston, South Carolina, 29425
Williamsburg Regional Medical Center
Kingstree, South Carolina, 29556
Regional Medical Center of Orangeburg
Orangeburg, South Carolina, 29118
About this study
The care of patients with sepsis and trauma requires the delivery of appropriate definitive care in the early stages of the illness. Hospitals with limited resources, those in rural and underserved areas of South Carolina, may be unable to consistently provide optimal care to these patients. In addition, the shortage of specialists nationally makes it more difficult for these hospitals to recruit and retain the specialists needed. Patients in these areas continue to pay the rural penalty of poorer outcomes. This study provides specialists' level care through telemedicine consults to rural emergency departments in rural areas of SC to improve outcomes for these patients.
The CREST study is a project that specifically addresses the need to bring health care to rural communities in SC, as well as evaluates methods and tests technology to implement this care in rural communities. The CREST study uses telemedicine remotely from MUSC to rural community hospitals to provide rural community physicians care from specialists for trauma and sepsis, which are both high acuity, difficult to treat conditions.
Read more
CREST is a multi-site trial of telemedicine services to meet rural patients' and providers' need for expert evaluation and management of sepsis and trauma. The specific aims of CREST are:
- To test the hypothesis that a telemedicine program including education and clinical consultation between a tertiary care academic medical center and rural, local hospitals will significantly improve key treatment decisions and outcome measures in sepsis and trauma.
- To test the hypothesis that the differences in ISS and time to antibiotics for trauma and sepsis patients exposed to telemedicine intervention and those without the intervention matched on propensity scores are not due to unmeasured confounders.
CREST seeks new solutions to rural health disparities, to advance technology, create and retain jobs and address important research opportunities by combining implementation of a novel, trans disciplinary clinical program with rigorous, mixed methods scientific evaluation including clinical, process, and economic outcome measures. The impact on both science and quality healthcare outcomes is broad and CREST has far reaching implications for addressing rural health disparities for acute, life-threatening illnesses.
Read the detailed description
The impetus for CREST derives from the observation that rural patients are unlikely to acquire on-site access to appropriate specialist care for high stakes, high acuity, crisis-mode conditions such as sepsis and trauma. Novel, collaborative approaches are necessary to provide rural patients with access to appropriate specialist care for sepsis and trauma. CREST is an innovative, technologically levering mechanism that provides the opportunity to lessen the inferior outcomes and "rural penalty" paid by patients in rural communities.
Rural patients are less likely to have onsite access to specialist care for sepsis and trauma for several reasons:
- Personnel: there is a nation-wide shortage of appropriate specialty providers including intensivists, trauma surgeons, and other critical care staff 1. Small, rural communities lack the economies of scale to support resource intense services and if a community has these specialties, there is often not around the clock coverage necessary for best quality care for these conditions 1.
- Physical and material resources: Sepsis and trauma patients require immediate availability of resources such as multidisciplinary ICU staff, large blood banks, operating rooms, and advanced radiological facilities.
- Availability of resources such as multidisciplinary ICU staff, large blood banks, operating rooms, and advanced radiological facilities.
- Location and distance: Patients in rural communities have inferior outcomes in sepsis and trauma 2, 3. This is likely multifactorial and includes delays in entry to the Emergency Medical System network, longer travel times to definitive care facilities and delays in definitive care delivery. Inter-hospital transfer may be limited both by severity of patient illness, acute care and ICU bed shortages in tertiary care centers. Additionally, the scarcity of tertiary care hospital beds increases the importance of initiating transfer for patients who will maximally benefit from tertiary care referral 4, 5.
The impact to rural patients with sepsis and trauma, due to lack of access to appropriate specialist care, is substantial. Sepsis is one of the most common serious critical illnesses. It kills 28-50% of patients diagnosed 6, 7 and is the 10th leading cause of death in the US 8. Furthermore, the incidence is increasing in conjunction with the aging of the US population 9. The impact of rurality on sepsis has received modest investigation, but rural patients likely have worse outcomes.3 In SC, patients referred from Emergency Departments (ED's) in smaller, typically rural hospitals have a 22% increase risk of death as compared to those referred from ED's in larger, urban hospitals (CREST preliminary analysis) suggesting the benefits of specialist directed care available to patients at larger facilities. Equally concerning is an apparent race-associated disparity in which African American patients presenting to rural ED's in SC are twice as likely to be discharged from the ED with a diagnosis of sepsis as compared to white patients. Although the rates for discharge from an ED with a diagnosis of sepsis are low at 3.95% for whites and 8.71% for African Americans (CREST preliminary analysis), it is concerning that any patient is discharged from an ED with this diagnosis and the disparate rates may reflect the well-described phenomenon of unequal treatment 10. Critically ill patients with any diagnosis benefit from intensivist-directed care including a 30-40% reduction in mortality.11 Unfortunately, over half of US hospitals have no intensivist coverage at all and rural hospitals are disproportionately affected by this problem 12.
Likewise, trauma is the leading cause of death among Americans up to age 45 and the fourth leading cause of death overall for all ages 8. Deaths from injury occur in a tri-phasic distribution: 50% of deaths from injury occur at the scene, 30% occur in the first 1-2 hours and 20% occur during hospitalization between 1-2 weeks after admission. Trauma care at designated trauma centers improves survival 13. Yet, rural hospitals are rarely trauma centers and in SC patients injured in rural communities have inferior outcomes and higher costs 14. Significant disparities can be identified among SC's elderly and minority populations. 14 An important barrier to facilitating quality care for SC trauma patients relates to triage efficiency between rural hospitals and a trauma center. Outcomes for seriously injured rural patients are negatively affected when patients are taken to non-trauma EDs and then transferred to a trauma center 13 . Conversely, transfer of patients with low risk of death and disability to trauma centers represents over-triage, and creates additional stressors at already busy trauma centers accruing financial burden on the health care system.
CREST is scientifically innovative on multiple levels. It is the first prospective, mixed-methods evaluation of telemedicine; as well as one of the few studies in remote/telemedicine not sponsored by industry. CREST is the first study to demonstrate improved outcomes for sepsis using telemedicine and will augment the sparse literature on trauma and telemedicine. CREST also serves as a demonstration project showing that access to specialist care for rural patients with high stakes, high acuity conditions can be reliably provided through telemedicine. CREST technology is non-proprietary and relatively low cost and thus allows important cost-effectiveness analyses to ascertain the viability of telemedicine in rural settings.
CREST includes two elements - an educational program for rural providers and clinical consultation for patients with sepsis and trauma. Collaborating hospitals receive telemedicine hardware and software, usage instruction, and 24/7 access to MUSC experts in sepsis and trauma for patient consultation in real-time. This project uses a quasi-experimental design, which incorporates a controlled experiment using pre-existing patient groups as the controls. This design minimizes threats to external validity and offers efficiency in the longitudinal aspect of the research. Main dependent measures include time to initiation of appropriate antibiotics for septic patients and reduced transfer rates of less-severe trauma patients as measured by average increase in the Injury Severity Score (ISS). Data collection for the controls in the retrospective groups and the prospective intervention group will be conducted by using structured audit forms by trained staff. The research plan includes investigation of outcomes, including treatment decisions.
Rural hospitals are the primary targets for CREST because these institutions tend to have fewer specialty providers and often cannot provide definitive care for patients with sepsis and trauma. Eligible rural hospitals are strategically identified based on several criteria. First, the hospital is located in a rural area as designated by the US Department of Agriculture. Second, the hospital has substantial resource limitations as indicated by a Level III or IV Medical Facility Status from the Joint Accreditation Committee for Hospital Organizations. Third, the hospital is within MUSC's typical 120 mile catchment area.
CREST investigators are mindful of the importance of collegial and collaborative approaches to recruiting rural hospitals and providers. To establish a framework for the working relationships important to the success of CREST, collaborating hospitals and MUSC sign a Memorandum of Agreement stipulating the roles and expectations. The fundamental duties for the rural hospitals are: 1) work with MUSC research team to facilitate human subjects approval of CREST; 2) coordinate their providers' availability with CREST's educational program; 3) facilitate working relationships between MUSC clinical experts and appropriate clinicians at rural hospitals and 4) allow CREST investigators access to patient records to ascertain outcome measures. MUSC provides: 1) an educational program 2) the technical expertise and equipment; 3) 24/7 availability for clinical evaluations; 4) training and support of chart abstractors to acquire outcome data; and 5) the conducting of analyses and writing of reports for CREST.
CREST allows rural spoke hospitals 24/7 access to MUSC sepsis and trauma experts who provide formal consultation for patients with these conditions including appropriate documentation in the medical record. Rural hospitals can utilize the telemedicine consultants on a one-time basis for initial evaluation and recommendations or request ongoing collaborative care with MUSC clinical experts. If a patient benefits by transfer to MUSC, this is identified and MUSC clinicians are already familiar with the patient's clinical status, representing another advantage of telemedicine services. Alternatively, if patients can be adequately managed at referring spoke sites this is determined, thus improving triage efficiency for tertiary care referrals.
- Medical subject headings
- Sepsis, Wounds and Injuries
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Mortality
Measure:
-Mortality
Source:
-Data from the medical record
Measured: Two Years
Secondary outcomes (2)
Cost Elements
Measure:
- Patient charges and cost (before and after telemedicine)
- Cost of telemedicine
- Total charges per admission
Sources:
- Hospital billing records
- Staff and consultant time estimates and invoices
- All-payer hospital discharge data set annual staff salary data
Measured: Two Years
Provider Acceptance and Satisfaction
Measure:
- Provider Experience and Ratings
- Reports of use, frequency, type
- Ratings of reliability, expertise, technology
- Personal efficacy
- Overall satisfaction
Sources:
- Post-project Survey
- Actual use of the system
Measured: Two Years
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted31 Aug 2011 (estimated)
- Study startSep 2009
- Primary completionMar 2012
- Study completionMar 2012
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (14)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for SepsisStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Medical University of South CarolinaThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Other
- Enrolment
- 26 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Medical University of South Carolina
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD)
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Dee W Ford, MD, Principal investigator, Medical University of South CarolinaSamir M. Fakhry, MD, Principal investigator, Medical University of South Carolina
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01426711
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- CREST-004405-02
- Other IDs
- RC1MD004405
- Acronym
- CREST
- Status last verified
- Apr 2018
- First submitted
- 30 Aug 2011
- Last updated
- 30 Apr 2018
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Publications
Peake SL, Judd N. Supporting rural community-based critical care. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2007 Dec;13(6):720-4. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0b013e3282f1bb21.
PubMed 17975397Selassie AW, McCarthy ML, Ferguson PL, Tian J, Langlois JA. Risk of posthospitalization mortality among persons with traumatic brain injury, South Carolina 1999-2001. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2005 May-Jun;20(3):257-69. doi: 10.1097/00001199-200505000-00008.
PubMed 15908825ARISE; ANZICS APD Management Committee. The outcome of patients with sepsis and septic shock presenting to emergency departments in Australia and New Zealand. Crit Care Resusc. 2007 Mar;9(1):8-18.
PubMed 17352661Seferian EG, Afessa B, Gajic O, Keegan MT, Hubmayr RD; Mayo Epidemiology and Translational Research in Intensive Care. Comparison of community and referral intensive care unit patients in a tertiary medical center: evidence for referral bias in the critically ill. Crit Care Med. 2008 Oct;36(10):2779-86. doi: 10.1097/ccm.0b013e318186ab1b.
PubMed 18828201Surgenor SD, Corwin HL, Clerico T. Survival of patients transferred to tertiary intensive care from rural community hospitals. Crit Care. 2001;5(2):100-4. doi: 10.1186/cc993. Epub 2000 Feb 1.
PubMed 11299068Bernard GR, Vincent JL, Laterre PF, LaRosa SP, Dhainaut JF, Lopez-Rodriguez A, Steingrub JS, Garber GE, Helterbrand JD, Ely EW, Fisher CJ Jr; Recombinant human protein C Worldwide Evaluation in Severe Sepsis (PROWESS) study group. Efficacy and safety of recombinant human activated protein C for severe sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2001 Mar 8;344(10):699-709. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200103083441001.
PubMed 11236773Rivers E, Nguyen B, Havstad S, Ressler J, Muzzin A, Knoblich B, Peterson E, Tomlanovich M; Early Goal-Directed Therapy Collaborative Group. Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2001 Nov 8;345(19):1368-77. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa010307.
PubMed 11794169National Vital Statistics System - National Center for Health Statistics - CDC. 10 Leading Causes of Death by Age Group - United States. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/osp/charts.htm. Accessed Dec. 1, 2008.
Angus DC, Linde-Zwirble WT, Lidicker J, Clermont G, Carcillo J, Pinsky MR. Epidemiology of severe sepsis in the United States: analysis of incidence, outcome, and associated costs of care. Crit Care Med. 2001 Jul;29(7):1303-10. doi: 10.1097/00003246-200107000-00002.
PubMed 11445675Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Understanding and Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care; Smedley BD, Stith AY, Nelson AR, editors. Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2003. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK220358/
PubMed 25032386Pronovost PJ, Angus DC, Dorman T, Robinson KA, Dremsizov TT, Young TL. Physician staffing patterns and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002 Nov 6;288(17):2151-62. doi: 10.1001/jama.288.17.2151.
PubMed 12413375Angus DC, Shorr AF, White A, Dremsizov TT, Schmitz RJ, Kelley MA; Committee on Manpower for Pulmonary and Critical Care Societies (COMPACCS). Critical care delivery in the United States: distribution of services and compliance with Leapfrog recommendations. Crit Care Med. 2006 Apr;34(4):1016-24. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000206105.05626.15.
PubMed 16505703MacKenzie EJ, Rivara FP, Jurkovich GJ, Nathens AB, Frey KP, Egleston BL, Salkever DS, Scharfstein DO. A national evaluation of the effect of trauma-center care on mortality. N Engl J Med. 2006 Jan 26;354(4):366-78. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa052049.
PubMed 16436768Selassie AW, Pickelsimer EE, Frazier L Jr, Ferguson PL. The effect of insurance status, race, and gender on ED disposition of persons with traumatic brain injury. Am J Emerg Med. 2004 Oct;22(6):465-73. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2004.07.024.
PubMed 15520941
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 30 Apr 2018. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Critical Care Excellence in Sepsis and Trauma
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01426711
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- CREST / CREST-004405-02
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 26 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Medical University of South CarolinaUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD)
- Study start
- Sep 2009
- Primary completion
- Mar 2012 (actual)
- Study completion
- Mar 2012 (actual)
- First posted
- 31 Aug 2011 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The care of patients with sepsis and trauma requires the delivery of appropriate definitive care in the early stages of the illness. Hospitals with limited resources, those in rural and underserved areas of South Carolina, may be unable to consistently provide optimal care to these patients. In addition, the shortage of specialists nationally makes it more difficult for these hospitals to recruit and retain the specialists needed. Patients in these areas continue to pay the rural penalty of poorer outcomes. This study provides specialists' level care through telemedicine consults to rural emergency departments in rural areas of SC to improve outcomes for these patients.
The CREST study is a project that specifically addresses the need to bring health care to rural communities in SC, as well as evaluates methods and tests technology to implement this care in rural communities. The CREST study uses telemedicine remotely from MUSC to rural community hospitals to provide rural community physicians care from specialists for trauma and sepsis, which are both high acuity, difficult to treat conditions.
CREST is a multi-site trial of telemedicine services to meet rural patients' and providers' need for expert evaluation and management of sepsis and trauma. The specific aims of CREST are:
- To test the hypothesis that a telemedicine program including education and clinical consultation between a tertiary care academic medical center and rural, local hospitals will significantly improve key treatment decisions and outcome measures in sepsis and trauma.
- To test the hypothesis that the differences in ISS and time to antibiotics for trauma and sepsis patients exposed to telemedicine intervention and those without the intervention matched on propensity scores are not due to unmeasured confounders.
CREST seeks new solutions to rural health disparities, to advance technology, create and retain jobs and address important research opportunities by combining implementation of a novel, trans disciplinary clinical program with rigorous, mixed methods scientific evaluation including clinical, process, and economic outcome measures. The impact on both science and quality healthcare outcomes is broad and CREST has far reaching implications for addressing rural health disparities for acute, life-threatening illnesses.
Detailed description
The impetus for CREST derives from the observation that rural patients are unlikely to acquire on-site access to appropriate specialist care for high stakes, high acuity, crisis-mode conditions such as sepsis and trauma. Novel, collaborative approaches are necessary to provide rural patients with access to appropriate specialist care for sepsis and trauma. CREST is an innovative, technologically levering mechanism that provides the opportunity to lessen the inferior outcomes and "rural penalty" paid by patients in rural communities.
Rural patients are less likely to have onsite access to specialist care for sepsis and trauma for several reasons:
- Personnel: there is a nation-wide shortage of appropriate specialty providers including intensivists, trauma surgeons, and other critical care staff 1. Small, rural communities lack the economies of scale to support resource intense services and if a community has these specialties, there is often not around the clock coverage necessary for best quality care for these conditions 1.
- Physical and material resources: Sepsis and trauma patients require immediate availability of resources such as multidisciplinary ICU staff, large blood banks, operating rooms, and advanced radiological facilities.
- Availability of resources such as multidisciplinary ICU staff, large blood banks, operating rooms, and advanced radiological facilities.
- Location and distance: Patients in rural communities have inferior outcomes in sepsis and trauma 2, 3. This is likely multifactorial and includes delays in entry to the Emergency Medical System network, longer travel times to definitive care facilities and delays in definitive care delivery. Inter-hospital transfer may be limited both by severity of patient illness, acute care and ICU bed shortages in tertiary care centers. Additionally, the scarcity of tertiary care hospital beds increases the importance of initiating transfer for patients who will maximally benefit from tertiary care referral 4, 5.
The impact to rural patients with sepsis and trauma, due to lack of access to appropriate specialist care, is substantial. Sepsis is one of the most common serious critical illnesses. It kills 28-50% of patients diagnosed 6, 7 and is the 10th leading cause of death in the US 8. Furthermore, the incidence is increasing in conjunction with the aging of the US population 9. The impact of rurality on sepsis has received modest investigation, but rural patients likely have worse outcomes.3 In SC, patients referred from Emergency Departments (ED's) in smaller, typically rural hospitals have a 22% increase risk of death as compared to those referred from ED's in larger, urban hospitals (CREST preliminary analysis) suggesting the benefits of specialist directed care available to patients at larger facilities. Equally concerning is an apparent race-associated disparity in which African American patients presenting to rural ED's in SC are twice as likely to be discharged from the ED with a diagnosis of sepsis as compared to white patients. Although the rates for discharge from an ED with a diagnosis of sepsis are low at 3.95% for whites and 8.71% for African Americans (CREST preliminary analysis), it is concerning that any patient is discharged from an ED with this diagnosis and the disparate rates may reflect the well-described phenomenon of unequal treatment 10. Critically ill patients with any diagnosis benefit from intensivist-directed care including a 30-40% reduction in mortality.11 Unfortunately, over half of US hospitals have no intensivist coverage at all and rural hospitals are disproportionately affected by this problem 12.
Likewise, trauma is the leading cause of death among Americans up to age 45 and the fourth leading cause of death overall for all ages 8. Deaths from injury occur in a tri-phasic distribution: 50% of deaths from injury occur at the scene, 30% occur in the first 1-2 hours and 20% occur during hospitalization between 1-2 weeks after admission. Trauma care at designated trauma centers improves survival 13. Yet, rural hospitals are rarely trauma centers and in SC patients injured in rural communities have inferior outcomes and higher costs 14. Significant disparities can be identified among SC's elderly and minority populations. 14 An important barrier to facilitating quality care for SC trauma patients relates to triage efficiency between rural hospitals and a trauma center. Outcomes for seriously injured rural patients are negatively affected when patients are taken to non-trauma EDs and then transferred to a trauma center 13 . Conversely, transfer of patients with low risk of death and disability to trauma centers represents over-triage, and creates additional stressors at already busy trauma centers accruing financial burden on the health care system.
CREST is scientifically innovative on multiple levels. It is the first prospective, mixed-methods evaluation of telemedicine; as well as one of the few studies in remote/telemedicine not sponsored by industry. CREST is the first study to demonstrate improved outcomes for sepsis using telemedicine and will augment the sparse literature on trauma and telemedicine. CREST also serves as a demonstration project showing that access to specialist care for rural patients with high stakes, high acuity conditions can be reliably provided through telemedicine. CREST technology is non-proprietary and relatively low cost and thus allows important cost-effectiveness analyses to ascertain the viability of telemedicine in rural settings.
CREST includes two elements - an educational program for rural providers and clinical consultation for patients with sepsis and trauma. Collaborating hospitals receive telemedicine hardware and software, usage instruction, and 24/7 access to MUSC experts in sepsis and trauma for patient consultation in real-time. This project uses a quasi-experimental design, which incorporates a controlled experiment using pre-existing patient groups as the controls. This design minimizes threats to external validity and offers efficiency in the longitudinal aspect of the research. Main dependent measures include time to initiation of appropriate antibiotics for septic patients and reduced transfer rates of less-severe trauma patients as measured by average increase in the Injury Severity Score (ISS). Data collection for the controls in the retrospective groups and the prospective intervention group will be conducted by using structured audit forms by trained staff. The research plan includes investigation of outcomes, including treatment decisions.
Rural hospitals are the primary targets for CREST because these institutions tend to have fewer specialty providers and often cannot provide definitive care for patients with sepsis and trauma. Eligible rural hospitals are strategically identified based on several criteria. First, the hospital is located in a rural area as designated by the US Department of Agriculture. Second, the hospital has substantial resource limitations as indicated by a Level III or IV Medical Facility Status from the Joint Accreditation Committee for Hospital Organizations. Third, the hospital is within MUSC's typical 120 mile catchment area.
CREST investigators are mindful of the importance of collegial and collaborative approaches to recruiting rural hospitals and providers. To establish a framework for the working relationships important to the success of CREST, collaborating hospitals and MUSC sign a Memorandum of Agreement stipulating the roles and expectations. The fundamental duties for the rural hospitals are: 1) work with MUSC research team to facilitate human subjects approval of CREST; 2) coordinate their providers' availability with CREST's educational program; 3) facilitate working relationships between MUSC clinical experts and appropriate clinicians at rural hospitals and 4) allow CREST investigators access to patient records to ascertain outcome measures. MUSC provides: 1) an educational program 2) the technical expertise and equipment; 3) 24/7 availability for clinical evaluations; 4) training and support of chart abstractors to acquire outcome data; and 5) the conducting of analyses and writing of reports for CREST.
CREST allows rural spoke hospitals 24/7 access to MUSC sepsis and trauma experts who provide formal consultation for patients with these conditions including appropriate documentation in the medical record. Rural hospitals can utilize the telemedicine consultants on a one-time basis for initial evaluation and recommendations or request ongoing collaborative care with MUSC clinical experts. If a patient benefits by transfer to MUSC, this is identified and MUSC clinicians are already familiar with the patient's clinical status, representing another advantage of telemedicine services. Alternatively, if patients can be adequately managed at referring spoke sites this is determined, thus improving triage efficiency for tertiary care referrals.
Study design
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Other
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- The study population is adult patients presenting to rural community hospital's emergency departments wth possible sepsis or severe sepsis and/or blunt or penetrating trauma.
Key inclusion criteria (29 listed)
- Sepsis study patients are adult patients presenting to the rural hospital's EDs that meet the screening criteria for sepsis and two of four SIRS criteria.
- known or suspected infection AND EITHER
- systolic blood pressure < 90mmHg after fluid challenge of 30mL/kg over 30 minutes OR
- lactate > 4mmol/L
- abnormal core body temperature (<36.5 C or > 38 C)
Key exclusion criteria (8 listed)
- -Age < 18 years
- Age < 18 years
- Burn injury of greater than 10% total body surface area
- Traumatic asphyxiation
- Lightning strike/electrical shock
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
Mortality
Time frame: Two Years
Measure: -Mortality Source: -Data from the medical record
2 secondary outcomes
Cost Elements
Time frame: Two Years
Provider Acceptance and Satisfaction
Time frame: Two Years
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 30 Apr 2018.
- Background: PubMed 17975397Peake SL, Judd N. Supporting rural community-based critical care. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2007 Dec;13(6):720-4. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0b013e3282f1bb21.
- Background: PubMed 15908825Selassie AW, McCarthy ML, Ferguson PL, Tian J, Langlois JA. Risk of posthospitalization mortality among persons with traumatic brain injury, South Carolina 1999-2001. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2005 May-Jun;20(3):257-69. doi: 10.1097/00001199-200505000-00008.
- Background: PubMed 17352661ARISE; ANZICS APD Management Committee. The outcome of patients with sepsis and septic shock presenting to emergency departments in Australia and New Zealand. Crit Care Resusc. 2007 Mar;9(1):8-18.
- Background: PubMed 18828201Seferian EG, Afessa B, Gajic O, Keegan MT, Hubmayr RD; Mayo Epidemiology and Translational Research in Intensive Care. Comparison of community and referral intensive care unit patients in a tertiary medical center: evidence for referral bias in the critically ill. Crit Care Med. 2008 Oct;36(10):2779-86. doi: 10.1097/ccm.0b013e318186ab1b.
- Background: PubMed 11299068Surgenor SD, Corwin HL, Clerico T. Survival of patients transferred to tertiary intensive care from rural community hospitals. Crit Care. 2001;5(2):100-4. doi: 10.1186/cc993. Epub 2000 Feb 1.
- Background: PubMed 11236773Bernard GR, Vincent JL, Laterre PF, LaRosa SP, Dhainaut JF, Lopez-Rodriguez A, Steingrub JS, Garber GE, Helterbrand JD, Ely EW, Fisher CJ Jr; Recombinant human protein C Worldwide Evaluation in Severe Sepsis (PROWESS) study group. Efficacy and safety of recombinant human activated protein C for severe sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2001 Mar 8;344(10):699-709. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200103083441001.
- Background: PubMed 11794169Rivers E, Nguyen B, Havstad S, Ressler J, Muzzin A, Knoblich B, Peterson E, Tomlanovich M; Early Goal-Directed Therapy Collaborative Group. Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2001 Nov 8;345(19):1368-77. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa010307.
- BackgroundNational Vital Statistics System - National Center for Health Statistics - CDC. 10 Leading Causes of Death by Age Group - United States. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/osp/charts.htm. Accessed Dec. 1, 2008.
- Background: PubMed 11445675Angus DC, Linde-Zwirble WT, Lidicker J, Clermont G, Carcillo J, Pinsky MR. Epidemiology of severe sepsis in the United States: analysis of incidence, outcome, and associated costs of care. Crit Care Med. 2001 Jul;29(7):1303-10. doi: 10.1097/00003246-200107000-00002.
- Background: PubMed 25032386Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Understanding and Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care; Smedley BD, Stith AY, Nelson AR, editors. Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2003. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK220358/
- Background: PubMed 12413375Pronovost PJ, Angus DC, Dorman T, Robinson KA, Dremsizov TT, Young TL. Physician staffing patterns and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002 Nov 6;288(17):2151-62. doi: 10.1001/jama.288.17.2151.
- Background: PubMed 16505703Angus DC, Shorr AF, White A, Dremsizov TT, Schmitz RJ, Kelley MA; Committee on Manpower for Pulmonary and Critical Care Societies (COMPACCS). Critical care delivery in the United States: distribution of services and compliance with Leapfrog recommendations. Crit Care Med. 2006 Apr;34(4):1016-24. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000206105.05626.15.
Related trials for Sepsis
Not yet recruitingPhase 2/3
A Pivotal Safety and Immunogenicity GBS-NN/NN2 Vaccine Maternal Immunisation Trial
Streptococcus Agalactiae Infection, Neonatal Sepsis
Active, not recruiting
CT for Personalized Mechanical Ventilation
Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury, Sepsis Syndrome
RecruitingPhase 4
A Study to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Extended and Intermittent Infusion of Beta-lactams in Critically Ill Paediatric Patients
Infection, Sepsis
Not yet recruiting
Double Plasma Separation and Adsorption in Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure (DPMAS-ACLF Trial)
Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure (ACLF)
Active, not recruitingPhase 4
Thymosin Alpha 1 and IgM Levels in Sepsis
Sepsis, Septic Shock
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Dee W Ford, MD principal investigator
Medical University of South Carolina
Samir M. Fakhry, MD principal investigator
Medical University of South Carolina
5 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Sepsis and Trauma, run by Medical University of South Carolina at 5 sites in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 29 inclusion and 8 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 30 Apr 2018. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 5 sites in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Mortality (time frame: Two Years). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT01426711, which also lists 14 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 30 Apr 2018.