AzTrials
AzTrials

SepsisNCT03655626

Implementation and Evaluations of Sepsis Watch

A study testing Sepsis Watch in people with Sepsis and Severe Sepsis, run by Duke University at 1 site in United States.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial 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. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Sepsis, Severe Sepsis, Septic Shock
What is being tested?
Sepsis Watch
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
32,003 participants
Where
1 siteUnited States
Study dates
5 Nov 2018to 5 Jul 2019
Phase
Interventional
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

Who may be able to join

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

Who cannot join

  • Under 18 years old at time of emergency department arrival

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

United States1 site
  • Duke University Hospital

    Durham, North Carolina, 27710

Other trials in United States

About this study

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

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.

Read the 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.

Being tested
Sepsis Watch
Keywords
Machine Learning, Sepsis, Implementation Science, Health Information Technology
Medical subject headings
Sepsis, Shock, Septic

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Sepsis WatchOther

    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.

Study groups in NCT03655626
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Sepsis Watch on Duke University Hospital ED AdultsExperimentalPatients older than 18 years old at time of presentation to Duke University Hospital emergency department.
Receives: Other: Sepsis Watch

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Rate of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) bundle completion for patients with sepsis

    Proportion of patients with sepsis that complete Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services treatment bundle

    Measured: Within 96 hours of emergency department arrival

Secondary outcomes (14)
  1. Mean time from ED arrival to sepsis for patients with sepsis

    Mean time from to ED arrival to sepsis

    Measured: Within 96 hours of emergency department arrival

  2. Average number of patients who develop sepsis per day and month

    Number of patients daily who meet sepsis phenotype

    Measured: Within 96 hours of emergency department arrival

  3. Average number of patients who develop sepsis and are not treated per day and month

    Number of patients daily who meet sepsis phenotype who are not treated for sepsis

    Measured: Within 96 hours of emergency department arrival

  4. Mean ED length of stay for patients with sepsis

    Emergency department length of stay for patients with sepsis

    Measured: Within 96 hours of emergency department arrival

  5. Mean Hospital length of stay for patients with sepsis

    Hospital length of stay for patients with sepsis

    Measured: Within 30 days of emergency department arrival

  6. Mean Inpatient mortality for patients with sepsis

    Inpatient mortality for patients with sepsis

    Measured: Within 30 days of emergency department arrival

  7. Mean ICU requirement rate for patients with sepsis

    Intensive care unit requirement rate for patients with sepsis

    Measured: Within 30 days of emergency department arrival

  8. Mean time from sepsis onset to blood culture

    Time of sepsis to blood culture order and collection for patients with sepsis

    Measured: Within 96 hours of emergency department arrival

  9. Mean time from sepsis onset to antibiotics

    Time of sepsis to antibiotic order and administration for patients with sepsis

    Measured: Within 96 hours of emergency department arrival

  10. Mean time from sepsis onset to IV fluids

    Time of sepsis to IV fluids order and administration for patients with sepsis

    Measured: Within 96 hours of emergency department arrival

  11. Mean time from sepsis onset to lactate

    Time of sepsis to lactate collection for patients with sepsis

    Measured: Within 96 hours of emergency department arrival

  12. Mean time from sepsis onset to CMS bundle completion

    Time of sepsis to CMS bundle completion for patients with sepsis

    Measured: Within 96 hours of emergency department arrival

  13. Rate of lactate complete for patients with sepsis

    Proportion of lactate drawn within 3 hours and potentially re-drawn within 6 hours of sepsis for patients with sepsis

    Measured: Within 96 hours of emergency department arrival

  14. Number of sepsis diagnosis codes across Duke University Hospital patients per month

    Number of billing diagnosis codes for sepsis

    Measured: Within 30 days of emergency department arrival

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted31 Aug 2018
  2. Study start5 Nov 2018
  3. Primary completion5 Jul 2019
  4. Study completion5 Jul 2019

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Not applicable
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
32,003 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT03655626
Sponsor's protocol ID
Pro00093721
Status last verified
Jul 2019
First submitted
30 Aug 2018
Last updated
1 Aug 2019
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
No

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Sepsis Watch in people with Sepsis and Severe Sepsis, run by Duke University at 1 site 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 1 inclusion and 1 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 1 Aug 2019. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site 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?

Rate of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) bundle completion for patients with sepsis (time frame: Within 96 hours of emergency department arrival). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?
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 1 Aug 2019; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 3 Nov 2026.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in