Cookie policy notice

By continuing to use this site you agree to our cookies policy below:
Since 26 May 2011, the law now states that cookies on websites can ony be used with your specific consent. Cookies allow us to ensure that you enjoy the best browsing experience.

This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

NHS forced to admit sepsis guidance is 'difficult' as GPs switch off alerts

NHS England has appeared to roll back on guidance for GPs to identify and treat sepsis following criticism that GPs were suffering from ‘alert fatigue’.

Commissioning guidance released in September conceded that ‘some front line staff have found it difficult to translate’ NICE guidance into practice.

It clarified that the application of the NICE guidelines is ‘not mandatory’, and that the ‘use of clinical judgement is a critical component’.

GP leaders said that GPs were suffering from ‘alert fatigue’, after the NICE guidance was embedded into IT systems, leading to repeated computer warnings.

The Government drive began two years ago with a string of measures designed to make GPs ‘think sepsis’, after a series of high-profile deaths, including asking GPs to conduct a ‘sepsis audit’.

The 2015 sepsis action plan suggested GPs have limited ability ‘to distinguish between sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock’ and urged doctors to use screening tools to help differentiate simple infection from something more serious.

In 2016, NICE published guidelines urging GPs to treat signs of sepsis in the same way as chest pain and including large tables of symptoms and signs that were translated into electronic alerts embedded into GP systems.

However, BMA GP Committee prescribing lead Dr Andrew Green said these electronic alerts represented ‘a lesson in how not to use IT’.

Dr Green said: ‘The largest problem with it is the low threshold for sending an alert. The result is that these alerts are ignored. Should that “suspected UTI” patient go on to have sepsis, GPs may find themselves having to justify why they did not take action earlier.

‘Inquests where people have ignored warnings rarely look at the contribution of alert-fatigue.’

Dr Ron Daniels, chief executive of the Sepsis Trust, which helped drive the sepsis action plans, admitted the alerts were implemented ‘hastily’ and have backfired in some cases.

He said: ‘We’re aware of anecdotal cases where GPs have found the systems very helpful in clinical decision making, but we’ve also heard of cases where GPs decided to turn off the alerts.’

RCGP clinical champion for sepsis Dr Simon Stockley said there must be greater recognition of the importance of clinical judgement in assessing the risk of infection – mirroring the recent NHS England advice that he co-authored.

Dr Stockley said: ‘The numbers will not always give you the right answer, which is why the clinical systems tend to over trigger. You should always use your clinical judgement to weigh the risk.’

The latest NHS England guidance, released last month, says: ’NICE guidance on sepsis was published in 2016 and provides an evidence-based approach to recognising and initiating treatment for suspected sepsis. However, some front line staff have found it difficult to translate this guidance into practice.’

It adds: ‘The application of the recommendations in the NICE guideline NG51 is not mandatory and the use of clinical judgement is a critical component.’

In a separate piece of guidance issued last month, NHS England said it will ‘work with GP software providers to update their sepsis alert algorithms’.

Readers' comments (21)

  • AlanAlmond

    Stick your algorithms up your [this comment has been moderated]

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • when I type the word deterioration get a sepsis alert.

    this tends to be a problem as I often type " warned about deterioration and emergency advice given"

    also hay fever triggers the alert

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • So NHSE thinks GPs are creating bacterial Armageddon by overprescribing antibiotics, whilst at the same time killing patients with sepsis by underprescrbing antibiotics.

    Here's a thought, why not leave individual medical professionals to make individual prescribing decisions in individual patient consultations. It's so crazy it might just work.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    Dr Stockley said: ‘The numbers will not always give you the right answer, which is why the clinical systems tend to over trigger. You should always use your clinical judgement to weigh the risk.’

    OMG , how long does it take for academics to realise the difference between textbook thinking (what computer systems are implementing) and clinical judgement and discretion exercised by experienced GPs in the frontline?
    The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
    But then again , NHSE and DoH simply want to kill off us(older GPs) because we are too f**king expensive.......

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    By the way , how much taxpayers’ money was paid to these ‘nice’ guys doing their guidelines every year ?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Too much, Vinci, too much.
    And while we're at it how about those decent chaps down at CQC- even more value for money I shouldn't think....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    You see
    I was teaching my GP registrars yesterday about the difference between the latest NICE recommendation of 1% 10Yrs fracture risk(FRAX or Qfracture calculator)threshold for initiating treatment of biphosphonates and the more logical approach of NOGG by using the assessment chart which adopts 6 to 10% fracture risks depending on age.
    You just wonder how these guidelines cannot converge and make common senses. Instead , every establishment wants to be territorial, worst of all , being ‘used’ by politicians and technocrats.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Guys - you're missing the bigger picture.

    All these algorithms are too facilitate the non doctors doing our job wben we have all left. Cue risk averse, over investigations, over referral and over treatment.

    They'll miss us when we are gone

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    5 Oct 2017 1:45pm

    I haven’t written this sound bite for a while:
    ‘It is only a fine line between politically correct diplomacy and dangerously flawed hypocrisy.’

    Dangerously flawed particularly when some easily triggered artificial intelligence is increasing demand to an extremely overstretched NHS with inadequate resources provided by this government.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I use it as a ruse to get patients admitted. In the last line of my admission covering letter I put - "insert your preliminary diagnosis here" +/- AKI +/- sepsis.

    All can only be discounted by doing some investigations. When the hospital don't bother to do any, they usually miss the AKI/sepsis.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page50 results per page

Have your say