Views and Uses of Sepsis Digital Alerts in National Health Service Trusts in England: Qualitative Study With Health Care Professionals
- PMID: 39405513
- PMCID: PMC11522658
- DOI: 10.2196/56949
Views and Uses of Sepsis Digital Alerts in National Health Service Trusts in England: Qualitative Study With Health Care Professionals
Abstract
Background: Sepsis is a common cause of serious illness and death. Sepsis management remains challenging and suboptimal. To support rapid sepsis diagnosis and treatment, screening tools have been embedded into hospital digital systems to appear as digital alerts. The implementation of digital alerts to improve the management of sepsis and deterioration is a complex intervention that has to fit with team workflow and the views and practices of hospital staff. Despite the importance of human decision-making and behavior in optimal implementation, there are limited qualitative studies that explore the views and experiences of health care professionals regarding digital alerts as sepsis or deterioration computerized clinician decision support systems (CCDSSs).
Objective: This study aims to explore the views and experiences of health care professionals on the use of sepsis or deterioration CCDSSs and to identify barriers and facilitators to their implementation and use in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals.
Methods: We conducted a qualitative, multisite study with unstructured observations and semistructured interviews with health care professionals from emergency departments, outreach teams, and intensive or acute units in 3 NHS hospital trusts in England. Data from both interviews and observations were analyzed together inductively using thematic analysis.
Results: A total of 22 health care professionals were interviewed, and 12 observation sessions were undertaken. A total of four themes regarding digital alerts were identified: (1) support decision-making as nested in electronic health records, but never substitute professionals' knowledge and experience; (2) remind to take action according to the context, such as the hospital unit and the job role; (3) improve the alerts and their introduction, by making them more accessible, easy to use, not intrusive, more accurate, as well as integrated across the whole health care system; and (4) contextual factors affecting views and use of alerts in the NHS trusts. Digital alerts are more optimally used in general hospital units with a lower senior decision maker:patient ratio and by health care professionals with experience of a similar technology. Better use of the alerts was associated with quality improvement initiatives and continuous sepsis training. The trusts' features, such as the presence of a 24/7 emergency outreach team, good technological resources, and staffing and teamwork, favored a more optimal use.
Conclusions: Trust implementation of sepsis or deterioration CCDSSs requires support on multiple levels and at all phases of the intervention, starting from a prego-live analysis addressing organizational needs and readiness. Advancements toward minimally disruptive and smart digital alerts as sepsis or deterioration CCDSSs, which are more accurate and specific but at the same time scalable and accessible, require policy changes and investments in multidisciplinary research.
Keywords: England; computerized clinical decision support systems; decision-making; digital alerts; electronic health records; emergency care; intensive care; patient deterioration; qualitative study; secondary care; sepsis.
©Runa Lazzarino, Aleksandra J Borek, Kate Honeyford, John Welch, Andrew J Brent, Anne Kinderlerer, Graham Cooke, Shashank Patil, Anthony Gordon, Ben Glampson, Philippa Goodman, Peter Ghazal, Ron Daniels, Céire E Costelloe, Sarah Tonkin-Crine. Originally published in JMIR Human Factors (https://humanfactors.jmir.org), 15.10.2024.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflicts of Interest: None declared.
Similar articles
-
The sepsis journey and where digital alerts can help: a qualitative, interview study with survivors and family members in England.Front Public Health. 2025 Mar 26;13:1521761. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1521761. eCollection 2025. Front Public Health. 2025. PMID: 40231176 Free PMC article.
-
Evaluating mental health decision units in acute care pathways (DECISION): a quasi-experimental, qualitative and health economic evaluation.Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2023 Dec;11(25):1-221. doi: 10.3310/PBSM2274. Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2023. PMID: 38149657
-
Rapid evaluation of the Special Measures for Quality and challenged provider regimes: a mixed-methods study.Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2023 Oct;11(19):1-139. doi: 10.3310/GQQV3512. Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2023. PMID: 37921786 Review.
-
The implementation, use and sustainability of a clinical decision support system for medication optimisation in primary care: A qualitative evaluation.PLoS One. 2021 May 3;16(5):e0250946. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250946. eCollection 2021. PLoS One. 2021. PMID: 33939750 Free PMC article.
-
The Views and Experiences of Integrated Care System Commissioners About the Adoption and Implementation of Virtual Wards in England: Qualitative Exploration Study.J Med Internet Res. 2024 Nov 27;26:e56494. doi: 10.2196/56494. J Med Internet Res. 2024. PMID: 39602216 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Digital innovation in healthcare: quantifying the impact of digital sepsis screening tools on patient outcomes-a multi-site natural experiment.BMJ Health Care Inform. 2025 Apr 27;32(1):e101141. doi: 10.1136/bmjhci-2024-101141. BMJ Health Care Inform. 2025. PMID: 40288808 Free PMC article.
-
The sepsis journey and where digital alerts can help: a qualitative, interview study with survivors and family members in England.Front Public Health. 2025 Mar 26;13:1521761. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1521761. eCollection 2025. Front Public Health. 2025. PMID: 40231176 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, Bellomo R, Bernard GR, Chiche J, Coopersmith CM, Hotchkiss RS, Levy MM, Marshall JC, Martin GS, Opal SM, Rubenfeld GD, van der Poll T, Vincent J, Angus DC. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3) JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801–10. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0287. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/26903338 2492881 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- The sepsis manual 6th edition. United Kingdom Sepsis Trust. [2023-10-16]. https://sepsistrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Sepsis-Manual-Sixth-E... .
-
- Paoli CJ, Reynolds MA, Sinha M, Gitlin M, Crouser E. Epidemiology and costs of sepsis in the United States-an analysis based on timing of diagnosis and severity level. Crit Care Med. 2018 Dec;46(12):1889–97. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003342. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/30048332 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- Prescott HC. The epidemiology of sepsis. In: Wiersinga WJ, Seymour CW, editors. Handbook of Sepsis. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2018. pp. 15–28.
-
- Rudd KE, Johnson SC, Agesa KM, Shackelford KA, Tsoi D, Kievlan DR, Colombara DV, Ikuta KS, Kissoon N, Finfer S, Fleischmann-Struzek C, Machado FR, Reinhart KK, Rowan K, Seymour CW, Watson RS, West TE, Marinho F, Hay SI, Lozano R, Lopez AD, Angus DC, Murray CJ, Naghavi M. Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990-2017: analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet. 2020 Jan 18;395(10219):200–11. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32989-7. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140-6736(19)32989-7 S0140-6736(19)32989-7 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical