Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2021 Feb;10(2):77-91.
doi: 10.2217/cer-2020-0141. Epub 2021 Jan 20.

TELEmedicine as an intervention for sepsis in emergency departments: a multicenter, comparative effectiveness study (TELEvISED Study)

Nicholas M Mohr  1   2   3 , Karisa K Harland  1 , Uche E Okoro  1 , Brian M Fuller  4   5 , Kalyn Campbell  1   6 , Morgan B Swanson  1   3 , Stephen Q Simpson  7   8 , Edith A Parker  9 , Luke J Mack  10   11 , Amanda Bell  10 , Katie DeJong  10 , Brett Faine  1   12   13 , Anne Zepeski  1   13 , Keith Mueller  14 , Elizabeth Chrischilles  3 , Christopher R Carpenter  5 , Michael P Jones  15 , Marcia M Ward  14
Affiliations
Multicenter Study

TELEmedicine as an intervention for sepsis in emergency departments: a multicenter, comparative effectiveness study (TELEvISED Study)

Nicholas M Mohr et al. J Comp Eff Res. 2021 Feb.

Abstract

Sepsis is a life-threatening infection that affects over 1.7 million Americans annually. Low-volume rural hospitals have worse sepsis outcomes, and emergency department (ED)-based telemedicine (tele-ED) has been one promising strategy for improving rural sepsis care. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of tele-ED consultation on sepsis care and outcomes in rural ED patients. The TELEvISED study is a multicenter (n = 25) retrospective propensity-matched comparative effectiveness study of tele-ED care for rural sepsis patients in a mature tele-ED network. Telemedicine-exposed patients will be matched with non telemedicine patients using a propensity score to predict tele-ED use. The primary outcome is 28-day hospital free days, and secondary outcomes include adherence with guidelines, mortality and organ failure. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04441944.

Keywords: emergency service; hospital; hospitals; rural; sepsis; telemedicine.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Financial & competing interests disclosure

This study is supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (K08HS025753), the Institute for Clinical and Translational Science at the University of Iowa through a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the NIH (UL1TR002537), and the Rural Telehealth Research Center through a grant from the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, Health Resources and Services Administration (U1CRH29074). These contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and National Institutes of Health, or the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy. LJM, AB, and KD declare that they are employed by Avera eCARE, an organization that provides tele-ED services to rural hospitals. The authors have no other 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 apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Case selection definition.
(A) First, discharge diagnosis will be screened for sepsis discharge codes. (B) Then the ED electronic medical record will be examined for appropriate clinical criteria to determine the analytic dataset. ED: Emergency department.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Standardized nurse screening for sepsis for all patients during emergency department triage (prior to telemedicine activation).
ED: Emergency department.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.. Causal model.
The relationship between telemedicine use and clinical outcomes in rural sepsis patients is complicated and acts through multiple pathways. In addition, patient factors, provider factors and hospital factors confound the causal model.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.. Sample size estimate.
An estimated 234 pairs of propensity-matched cases are required to detect a 10% difference in 28-day hospital-free days with 80% power.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Rhee C, Dantes R, Epstein L et al. Incidence and trends of sepsis in US hospitals using clinical vs claims data, 2009–2014. JAMA 318(13), 1241–1249 (2017). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hall MJ, Williams SN, Defrances CJ, Golosinskiy A. Inpatient care for septicemia or sepsis: a challenge for patients and hospitals. NCHS Data Brief 62, 1–8 (2011). - PubMed
    1. Filbin MR, Arias SA, Camargo CA Jr, Barche A, Pallin DJ. Sepsis visits and antibiotic utilization in US Emergency Departments. Crit. Care Med. 42(3), 528–535 (2014). - PubMed
    1. 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. 29(7), 1303–1310 (2001). - PubMed
    1. Rivers E, Nguyen B, Havstad S et al. Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. N. Engl. J. Med. 345(19), 1368–1377 (2001). - PubMed

    2. • First paper to show the impact of early, aggressive emergency department-based care at improving survival in critically ill patients with sepsis.

Publication types

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources