Introduction
Sepsis is a health issue that affects people of all ages and leads not only to adverse outcomes and complications but also to death. Fortunately, innovative interventions can improve this situation. For instance, it is possible to use Meditech/SIRs tool (system inflammation response) for patients of a rehab unit. Identifying whether the elderly are likely to obtain the most benefit from this intervention, it is significant to find out the possible ways of preventing sepsis, types of infection that may lead to it, the most common symptoms, risk populations, and duration of life after diagnosing the illness.
Antibiotic Treatment
According to Shebabi et al. (2014), sepsis can be caused by various infections that are usually treated with antibiotics. Unfortunately, they do not always work effectively and improve the patient’s condition. What is more, in some situations, their intake turns out to provide an adverse influence on people’s health. The authors believe that a low procalcitonin cut-off on antibiotic prescription can have positive effects on the situation and currently, its value is underdetermined.
Conducting a quantitative research study with random sampling (which reduces possible biases and is advantageous for the research quality), they managed to find out that even though some improvement is observed, it fails to reach the expected 25% reduction in the duration of antibiotic treatment. Such findings prove that there is a necessity to continue the investigation and find out those tools that can reduce mortality in patients. Existing inconsistencies are faced because healthcare professionals and scientists are not yet aware of those interventions that will undoubtfully provide positive results. Lack of evidence is the main issue currently, but further research can provide an opportunity to identify the best intervention.
Early Intervention
Mohajer and Darouiche (2013) support the necessity to utilize those diagnostic methods that can provide an opportunity to diagnose sepsis at the initial stages so that the treatment can be started as early as possible. Just as Shebabi et al. (2014) they are focused on the opportunity to reduce the duration of antibiotic treatment. Mohajer and Darouiche (2013) emphasize that time management is imperative, so there is a reason to try using Meditech/SIRs tool for prediction and diagnosis because other assessment methods are not accurate enough to ensure positive health outcomes for all clients.
They are mainly interested in hospital-acquired device-related infections, which is critical for healthcare systems topic because they are meant to improve people’s health instead of worsening them. This limitation is not a disadvantage, but an opportunity to discuss the issue of sepsis in a narrowed environment with more detail.
Unlike their colleagues, Bate et al. (2013) discuss infections and sepsis in patients with cancer. This population is at high risk of mortality that is why those professionals who focus on their well-being do not usually pay much attention to sepsis, which is a great drawback. However, people’s condition after anticancer treatment is rather vulnerable. As routines prevention of sepsis can hurt their health, it is better to utilize those tools that can make diagnosing more accurate. In this framework, it is advantageous to investigate the influence of the Meditech/SIRs tool.
Mortality
After investigating the incidence, prevalence, and mortality connected with sepsis, Jawad, Lukšić, and Rafnsson (2012) concluded that it is vital for healthcare professionals to do their best to address this issue and reduce its magnitude. They emphasize that this condition is hard to define that is why medical staff often fails to provide timely interventions. What is more critical, it is connected with numerous other disorders, which makes diagnosing and treatment even more complex.
Regardless of the fact that healthcare is a sphere in the framework of which constant research studies are maintained, the issue of sepsis remains a global public health problem. On the basis of a literature review that includes the most authoritative and relevant articles, the authors concluded that new innovative interventions and approaches are required to achieve improvement. Thus, it is beneficial to discuss the value of the Meditech/SIRs tool.
The views of these researchers are supported by Cuthbertson et al. (2013). Professionals emphasize that sepsis often leads to adverse health outcomes. In order to find out what happens to people in 5 years after sepsis, they conducted a cohort study. Unfortunately, even though more than 400 participants were gathered for their research, less than half of them responded to the follow-up. Of course, this sample size is not enough to speak about broad generalizations, but it is enough to prove that particular findings are relevant for the selected population and trigger further research. It was revealed that patients face high ongoing mortality regardless of the currently used interventions. Thus, it is vital to improving diagnosing and treatment.
System Inflammation Response
Finally, Balk (2014) discusses SIRs, trying to identify whether they are still relevant and their treatment tools can be beneficial for patients. SIRs provides an opportunity to focus on responses to infections that is why they can be used when dealing with patients who have sepsis. SIRs tools are believed to be the most functional that is why they are advantageous for the understanding of mechanisms and pathophysiology. Previous research studies prove that they provide an opportunity to identify septic patients early so that timely treatment is provided. Unfortunately, this source is mainly based on a literature review and includes a lot of outdated sources. Thus, it would be advantageous to conduct a new study that will also discuss changes in patients’ conditions after sepsis treatment.
References
Balk, R. (2014). Systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS): Where did it come from and is it still relevant today? Virulence, 5(1), 20-26.
Bate, J., Gibson, F., Johnson, E., Selwood, K., Skinner, R., & Chisholm, J. (2013). Neutropenic sepsis: Prevention and management of neutropenic sepsis in cancer patients (NICE guideline CG151). Archives of Disease in Childhood: Education and Practice Edition, 98(2), 73-75.
Cuthbertson, B. H., Elders, A., Hall, S., Taylor, J., MacLennan, G., Mackirdy, F., & Mackenzie, S. J. (2013). Mortality and quality of life in the five years after severe sepsis. Critical Care, 17(2), 1-8.
Jawad, I., Lukšić, I., & Rafnsson, S. B. (2012). Assessing available information on the burden of sepsis: Global estimates of incidence, estimates, and mortality. Journal of Global Health, 2(1), 1-9.
Mohajer, M. A., & Darouiche, R. O. (2013). Sepsis syndrome, bloodstream infections, and device-related infections. Medical Clinics of North America, 96(6), 1203-1223.
Shebabi, Y., Sterba, M., Garrett, P. M., Rachakonda, K. S., Stephens, D., Harrigan, P., … the ANZICS Clinical Trials Group. (2014). Procalcitonin algorithm in critically ill adults with undifferentiated infection of suspected sepsis: A randomized control trial. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 190(10), 1102-1110.