Clements, Casey M.

Abstract Sepsis is a multi-system physiological syndrome defined as a dysregulated host response to infection. Despite recent advances clinicians continue to depend on clinically or physiologically defined syndromes as poor classifiers and therefore fail to accurately predict outcome or responses to treatment. Recent studies suggest that advances in screening, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of sepsis can be used to tailor immunomodulatory therapies. In the present narrative review, we critically analyze important academic literature published between January 2025 and June 2026 with a focus on epidemiology, screening, diagnosis, prognosis and personalized management. We believe that sepsis care will soon be defined by the convergence of rapid diagnostics, multi-omics profiling, and artificial intelligence, enabling a shift from generalized treatment approaches toward truly personalized, dynamic patient management. While the scientific and technological foundation for this transformation is emerging rapidly, clinical validation using innovative (adaptive) clinical trial design is required. Successful implementation within routine care will require multidisciplinary collaboration, robust infrastructure, clinician and patient engagement, and healthcare systems capable of integrating innovation into practice. The coming years may see a paradigm shift in sepsis management comparable to advances observed in personalized management of malignancies.

Importance Hospital-based shootings represent an extreme form of workplace violence, with notable consequences for staff, patients, and visitors. Despite growing concern, these events remain poorly understood. Objective To categorize hospital-based shootings from 2012 to 2024 and incorporate prior published events between 2000 and 2011 to examine trends in shootings over a 25-year span. Evidence Review Events in this systematic review of acute care hospital–based shootings in the US from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2024, with subgroup analysis of previously published data trending shootings over 25 years (January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2024), were identified using EBSCO Regional Business News, ProQuest US Newsstream Collection, Gun Violence Archive, and Google News Search. Selected shooting events involved at least 1 injured person (a nonperpetrator or perpetrator) that occurred within or on the immediate property of the hospital. Findings A total of 327 news articles of unique hospital-based shooting events (5.2 per year per 1000 hospitals) were included from a review of 6658 articles, spanning 47 US states (94.0%). There was an overall incidence of 25.2 hospital-based shootings per year. Between 2012 and 2024, shootings increased by a mean (SD) of 1.7 (0.5) events per year, from 14 to 34 events (8.4% increase per year). Large hospitals accounted for the highest rate of shootings (258.1 events per 1000 hospitals). Events primarily occurred in urban settings (314 [96.0%]), and 161 (49.2%) occurred in the US South. Nearly one-third (105 [32.1%]) were potentially preventable by weapons screening. From 2000 to 2024, shootings increased by a mean (SD) of 1.1 (0.2) events per year, from 6 to 34 events (6.4% increase per year). A positive correlation was found in annual firearm fatalities in hospital settings and US firearms fatalities overall between 2012 and 2023 ( r = 0.42). Conclusions and Relevance This systematic review found that hospital-based shootings in the US have increased steadily over the past 25 years, representing an intersection between broader national trends in workplace and firearm violence. Large hospitals, those in the US South, and hospitals in urban communities are particularly at-risk settings. These findings underscore the need for hospital-specific prevention strategies, including consideration of weapons screening technology, alongside broader societal efforts to address rising firearm violence.

ImportanceThere is a clear benefit to body armor against firearms; however, it remains unclear how these vests may influence day-to-day patient encounters when worn by emergency medical services (EMS).ObjectiveTo determine the association of ballistic vests worn by EMS clinicians with workplace violence (WPV) and disparities in care among racial and/or ethnic minority patients.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsProspective cohort study of a volunteer-based sample of EMS clinicians at a large, multistate EMS agency encompassing 15 ground sites across the Midwest from April 1, 2023, to March 31, 2024. Data were analyzed from May to June 2024.ExposureExternal ballistic armor being used by a group of self-selected clinicians on every run.Main Outcomes and MeasuresPrevalence and characteristics associated with WPV and with declines of treatment and/or transport compared between crews with 1 or more vested vs no vested members.ResultsA total of 156 of 415 staff (37.6%) opted in to wear the vests, including 77 male participants (49.4%). Prevalence of WPV was higher for vested crews (1.11 vs 0.85 cases per 100 runs; adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.28; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.50; P = .001) and was due to higher rates of verbal abuse. The presence of 1 or more vested crew members increased the likelihood of all patients declining EMS treatment and/or transport; however, effect size was highest among patients with an unknown race and/or ethnicity (2234 [21.1%] vs 2134 [16.5%] patients; aRR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.27; P < .001), followed by racial and/or ethnic minority patients (708 [16.7%] vs 399 [13.8%] patients; aRR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.33; P = .01). Analyses of individual minority groups revealed a significant increase only in Black or African American patients declining treatment and/or transport by vested crews (461 [17.6%] vs 223 [13.7%] patients; RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.49; P = .002).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, vested crews experienced increased prevalence of WPV compared with nonvested crews. Use of vests increased the frequency of all patients declining EMS treatment and/or transport. Among minority groups, there was a significant increase in Black or African American patients declining treatment and/or transport. Agencies should consider benefits and unintended consequences of EMS clinicians wearing body armor.

Abstract Many patients in the emergency department present with signs and symptoms that arouse concern for sepsis; however, other explanations are also possible. There are currently no rapid tests used in clinical practice that reliably distinguish the presence of a bacterial or viral infection vs. a non-infectious etiology and can predict a patient’s likelihood to decompensate. The diagnostic and prognostic uncertainty in “gray zone” patients complicates the decision to begin therapy as clinicians need to balance the risk of withholding therapy vs. the risk of the therapy itself (e.g., overtreatment with antibiotics and hospitalization, which is costly, potentially harmful, and contributes to antibiotic resistance). The TriVerity™ Test uses isothermal amplification and machine-learning algorithms to quantify and interpret mRNA expression levels to determine both likelihood of bacterial infection, viral infection, or no infection, and whether the patient will likely require one or more critical interventions within 7 days. The three scores each fall into one of five interpretation bands ranging from Very high to Very low. Testing takes approximately 30 minutes using the proprietary Myrna™ Instrument with an operator hands-on-time of under one minute. We enrolled 1,222 patients from 22 emergency departments (ED) to validate the performance of the TriVerity Test. Patients were treated as per local standard of care and were followed for 28 days. Bacterial and viral TriVerity results were validated against clinically adjudicated infection status; the illness severity TriVerity result was validated against the need for at least one critical interventions within 7 days. The bacterial TriVerity result had high AUROC for the diagnosis of bacterial infection (0.83; 80% CI 0.81–0.85) and divided bacterial infection likelihood scores into five interpretation bands with increasing likelihood ratios of infection ranging from Very low (LR- 0.08, 80% CI 0.06–0.11) to Very high (LR + 8.04, 80% CI 5.72–11.78). The AUROC for the bacterial TriVerity result was significantly higher compared to AUROCs for C-reactive protein, procalcitonin or white blood cell count. Similarly, the viral TriVerity score showed high AUROC for the diagnosis of viral infection (0.91; 80% CI 0.90–0.93) and likelihood ratios from Very low (LR- 0.09, 80% CI 0.05–0.14) to Very high (LR + 40.93; 80% CI 29.11–79.23). The TriVerity Illness Severity score showed a high AUROC for the prediction of illness severity (0.77; 80% CI 0.77–0.81) with scores divided into five interpretation bands with increasing likelihood ratios ranging from Very low (LR- 0.22; 80% CI 0.14–0.33) to Very high (LR + 11.33; 80% CI 7.31–17.00). TriVerity illness severity results allowed marked re-classification of the risk for “ICU-level care” as compared to clinical assessment (qSOFA scores) alone. In conclusion, TriVerity provides rapid, highly accurate and actionable results for the diagnosis and prognosis of patients with suspected acute infection and/or sepsis, supporting a major unmet medical need. TriVerity may improve personalized management of patients with suspected acute infections and suspected sepsis for improved overall healthcare outcomes.

Introduction: Healthcare workers, particularly those in the emergency department (ED), experience high rates of injuries caused by workplace violence (WPV). Objective: Our goal was to establish the incidence of WPV among multidisciplinary ED staff within a regional health system and assess its impact on staff victims. Methods: We conducted a survey study of all multidisciplinary ED staff at 18 Midwestern EDs encompassing a larger health system between November 18–December 31, 2020. We solicited the incidence of verbal abuse and physical assault experienced and witnessed by respondents over the prior six months, as well as its impact on staff. Results: We included responses from 814 staff (24.5% response rate) for final analysis with 585 (71.9%) indicating some form of violence experienced in the preceding six months. A total of 582 (71.5%) respondents indicated experiencing verbal abuse, and 251 (30.8%) indicated experiencing some form of physical assault. All disciplines experienced some type of verbal abuse and nearly all experienced some type of physical assault. One hundred thirty-five (21.9%) respondents indicated that being the victim of WPV has affected their ability to perform their job, and nearly half (47.6%) indicated it has changed the way they interact with or perceive patients. Additionally, 132 (21.3%) indicated experiencing symptoms of post-traumatic stress, and 18.5% reported they have considered leaving their position due to an incident. Conclusion: Emergency department staff suffer violence at a high rate, and there is no discipline that is spared. As health systems seek to prioritize staff safety in violence-prone areas such as the ED, it is imperative to recognize that the entire multidisciplinary team is impacted and requires targeted efforts for improvement in safety.