ObjectivesTimely recognition and treatment of sepsis is essential to reduce mortality and morbidity. Acutely ill patients often consult a general practitioner (GP) as the first healthcare provider. During out-of-hours, GP cooperatives deliver this care in the Netherlands. The aim of this study is to explore the role of these GP cooperatives in the care for patients with sepsis.DesignRetrospective study of patient records from both the hospital and the GP cooperative.SettingAn intensive care unit (ICU) of a general hospital in the Netherlands, and the colocated GP cooperative serving 260 000 inhabitants.ParticipantsWe used data from 263 patients who were admitted to the ICU due to community-acquired sepsis between January 2011 and December 2015.Main outcome measuresContact with the GP cooperative within 72 hours prior to hospital admission, type of contact, delay from the contact until hospital arrival, GP diagnosis, initial vital signs and laboratory values, and hospital mortality.ResultsOf 263 patients admitted to the ICU, 127 (48.3%) had prior GP cooperative contacts. These contacts concerned home visits (59.1%), clinic consultations (18.1%), direct ambulance deployment (12.6%) or telephone advice (10.2%). Patients assessed by a GP were referred in 64% after the first contact. The median delay to hospital arrival was 1.7 hours. The GP had not suspected an infection in 43% of the patients. In this group, the in-hospital mortality rate was significantly higher compared with patients with suspected infections (41.9% vs 17.6%). Mortality difference remained significant after correction for confounders.ConclusionGP cooperatives play an important role in prehospital management of sepsis and recognition of sepsis in this setting proved difficult. Efforts to improve management of sepsis in out-of-hours primary care should not be limited to patients with a suspected infection, but also include severely ill patients without clear signs of infection.

BackgroundEarly recognition and treatment of sepsis are important to reduce morbidity and mortality. Screening tools using vital signs are effective in emergency departments. It is not known how the decision to refer a patient to the hospital with a possible serious infection is made in primary care.AimTo gain insight into the clinical decision-making process of GPs in patients with possible sepsis infections.Design & settingSurvey among a random sample of 800 GPs in the Netherlands.MethodQuantitative questionnaire using Likert scales.ResultsOne hundred and sixty (20.3%) of questionnaires were eligible for analysis. Based on self-reported cases of possible serious infections, the factors most often indicated as important for the decision to refer patients to the hospital were: general appearance (94.1%), gut feeling (92.1%), history (92.0%), and physical examination (89.3%). Temperature (88.7%), heart rate (88.7%), and blood pressure (82.1%), were the most frequently measured vital signs. In general, GPs more likely referred patients in case of: altered mental status (98.7%), systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg (93.7%), unable to stand (89.3%), insufficient effect of previous antibiotic treatment (87.4%), and respiratory rate ≥22/minute (86.1%).ConclusionThe GPs' assessment of patients with possible serious infection is a complex process, in which besides checking vital signs, many other aspects of the consultation guide the decision to refer a patient to the hospital. To improve care for patients with sepsis, the diagnostic and prognostic value of assessing the vital signs and symptoms, GPs' gut feeling, and additional diagnostic tests, should be prospectively studied in the primary care setting.

Research should be done on the process of triage and allocation of care to optimize labelling complaints with the appropriate urgency and to deploy the appropriate healthcare provider, especially for patients with chest pain.