Search

A dysregulated host response to infection resulting in life-threatening organ dysfunction defines the onset of sepsis. Unfortunately, sepsis is common, costly, and deadly. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign publishes regularly updated, evidence-informed, detection, and treatment guidelines culminating in time-sensitive care “bundles.” The goal of these bundles is to expedite sepsis recognition because it is widely held that early treatment is life-saving. Hospitals are mandated to publicly report their bundle compliance, and this will soon be tied to hospital reimbursement. For these reasons, hospitals are creating sepsis emergency response teams which are a form of a rapid response team consisting of dedicated medical professionals who evaluate patients with suspected sepsis and initiate therapy when appropriate. Evidence to date support sepsis emergency response teams as a mechanism to improve bundle compliance, and potentially, patient outcome. Nevertheless, some elements of bundled sepsis care are controversial (e.g., intravenous fluid administration) as some argue that mandated treatment precludes personalized care. Herein, we briefly describe general sepsis emergency response team structure, review evidence supporting sepsis emergency response teams to improve bundle compliance and patient outcome and report our unique experience incorporating point of care ultrasound—to guide intravenous fluid—into a nursing-led sepsis team. We propose that our sepsis emergency response team approach allays concern that sepsis care is either bundled or personalized. Instead, incorporating point of care ultrasound into a nursing-led sepsis emergency response team increases bundle compliance and individualizes care.

IntroductionChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients have poor sleep quality, longer time to sleep onset and frequent nocturnal awakenings. Poor sleep quality in COPD is associated with poor quality of life (QoL), increased exacerbations and increased mortality. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) improves functional status and QoL in COPD but effects on sleep are unclear. PR improves subjective sleep quality but there is paucity of objective actigraphy data. We hypothesized that actigraphy would demonstrate subjective and objective improvement in sleep following PR. Paired comparisons (t-test or Wilcoxon-signed-rank test) were performed before and after PR data on all variables.MethodsThis retrospective study of COPD patients undergoing PR utilized actigraphy watch recordings before and after 8-weeks of PR to assess changes in sleep variables including total time in bed (TBT), total sleep time (TST), sleep onset latency (SOL), sleep efficiency (SE), wakefulness after sleep onset (WASO) and total nocturnal awakenings. A change in Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) was a secondary outcome. PSQI was performed before and after PR.ResultsSixty-nine patients were included in the final analysis. Most participants were male (97%), non-obese (median BMI 27.5, IQR 24.3 to 32.4 kg/m2) with an average age of 69 ± 8 years and 71% had severe COPD (GOLD stage 3 or 4). Prevalence of poor sleep quality (PSQI ≥5) was 86%. Paired comparisons did not show improvement in actigraphic sleep parameters following 8-weeks PR despite improvements in 6-min-walk distance (6MWD, mean improvement 54 m, 95% CI 34 m to 74 m, pConclusionsPulmonary rehabilitation improved subjective sleep quality in Veterans who had poor sleep quality at the beginning of the PR but did not improve objective sleep parameters by actigraphy. Our findings highlight the complex interactions among COPD, sleep and exercise.