Abstract
Objectives Sepsis is a growing concern for health systems, but the epidemiology of sepsis is poorly characterised. We evaluated sepsis recording across primary care electronic records, hospital episodes and mortality registrations.
Methods and Findings Cohort study including 378 general practices in England from Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD database from 2002 to 2017 with 36,209,676 patient-years of follow-up with linked Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and Office for National Statistics (ONS) mortality registrations. Incident sepsis episodes were identified for each source. Concurrent records from different sources were identified and age-standardised and age-specific incidence rates compared. Logistic regression analysis evaluated associations of gender, age-group, fifth of deprivation and period of diagnosis with concurrent sepsis recording.
There were 20,206 first episodes of sepsis from primary care, 20,278 from HES and 13,972 from ONS. There were 4,117 (20%) first HES sepsis events and 2,438 (17%) mortality records concurrent with incident primary care sepsis records within 30 days. Concurrent HES and primary care records of sepsis within 30 days before or after first diagnosis were higher at younger or older ages and for patients with the most recent period of diagnosis with those diagnosed during 2007:2011 less likely to have a concurrent HES record given CPRD compared to those diagnosed during 2012 to 2017 (odd ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 0.70). At age 85 and older, primary care incidence was 5.22 per 1,000 patient years (95% CI 1.75 to 11.97) in men and 3.55 (0.87 to 9.58) in women which increased to 10.09 (4.86 to 18.51) for men and 7.22 (2.96 to 14.72) for women after inclusion of all three sources.
Conclusion Explicit recording of sepsis is inconsistent across healthcare sectors with a high proportion of non-concurrent records. Incidence estimates are higher when linked data are analysed.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Programme (16/116/46).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The protocol was approved by the CPRD Independent Scientific Advisory Committee (ISAC protocol 18-041R).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Requests for access to data from the study should be addressed to martin.gulliford{at}kcl.ac.uk. All proposals requesting data access will need to specify planned uses with approval of the study team and CPRD before data release.
