Search

Background US hospitals have reported compliance with the SEP-1 quality measure to Medicare since 2015. Finding an association between compliance and outcomes is essential to gauge measure effectiveness. Research Question What is the association between compliance with SEP-1 and 30-day mortality among Medicare beneficiaries? Study Design And Methods Studying patient-level data reported to Medicare by 3,241 hospitals from October 1, 2015, to March 31, 2017, we used propensity score matching and a hierarchical general linear model (HGLM) to estimate the treatment effects associated with compliance with SEP-1. Compliance was defined as completion of all qualifying SEP-1 elements including lactate measurements, blood culture collection, broad-spectrum antibiotic administration, 30 mL/kg crystalloid fluid administration, application of vasopressors, and patient reassessment. The primary outcome was a change in 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included changes in length of stay. Results We completed two matches to evaluate population-level treatment effects. In standard match, 122,870 patients whose care was compliant were matched with the same number whose care was noncompliant. Compliance was associated with a reduction in 30-day mortality (21.81% vs 27.48%, respectively), yielding an absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 5.67% (95% CI, 5.33-6.00; P Interpretation Compliance with SEP-1 was associated with lower 30-day mortality. Rendering SEP-1 compliant care may reduce the incidence of avoidable deaths.

In 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) instituted an all-or-none sepsis performance measure bundle (SEP-1) to promote high-quality, cost-effective care. Systematic reviews demonstrated only low-quality evidence supporting most of SEP-1’s interventions. CMS has removed some but not all of these unproven components. The current SEP-1 version requires patients with suspected sepsis have a lactate level, blood cultures, broad-spectrum antibiotics and, if hypotensive, a fixed 30 mL/kg fluid infusion within 3 hours, and a repeat lactate if initially elevated within 6 hours. Experts have continued to raise concerns that SEP-1 remains overly prescriptive, lacks a sound scientific basis and presents risks (overuse of antibiotics and inappropriate fluids not titrated to need). To incentivize compliance with SEP-1, CMS now publicly publishes how often hospitals complete all interventions in individual patients. However, compliance measured across hospitals (5 studies, 48–2,851 hospitals) or patients (three studies, 110–851 patients) has been low (approximately 50%) which is not surprising given SEP-1’s lack of scientific basis. The largest observational study (1,738 patients) reporting survival rates employing SEP-1 found they were not significantly improved with the measure (P=0.53) as did the next largest study (851 patients, adjusted survival odds ratio 1.36, 95% CI, 0.85 to 2.18). Two smaller observational studies (158 and 450 patients) reported SEP-1 improved unadjusted survival (P≤0.05) but were confounded either by baseline imbalances or by simultaneous introduction of a code sepsis protocol to improve compliance. Regardless, retrospective studies have well known biases related to non-randomized designs, uncontrolled data collection and failure to adjust for unrecognized influential variables. Such low-quality science should not be the basis for a national mandate compelling care for a rapidly lethal disease with a high mortality rate. Instead, SEP-1 should be based on high quality reproducible evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCT) demonstrating its benefit and thereby safety. Otherwise we risk not only doing harm but standardizing it.

Objective:To provide an update to “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012.”Design:A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for

Objective:The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend obtaining a serum lactate measurement within 6 hours of presentation for all patients with suspected severe sepsis or septic shock. A lactate greater than 4 mmol/L qualifies for administration of early quantitative resuscitation therapy. W

Objective: To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012." Design: A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. Methods: The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics infection adjunctive therapies metabolic and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. Results: The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. Conclusions: Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality. © 2016 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Sepsis is a leading cause of in-hospital death, and evidence suggests a higher mortality in patients presenting with sepsis on the ward compared to those presenting to the emergency department. Ward patients who develop severe sepsis may have poor outcomes for a variety of reasons, including delayed diagnosis, lack of readily available staffing, and delayed treatment. We report on a multihospital quality improvement program for early detection and treatment of sepsis on general medical-surgical wards. We describe a multipronged approach to improve severe sepsis outcomes using the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Plan-Do-Study-Act model. Sixty sites engaged in a collaborative implementation process that aligned people, process, and technology. Based on our experience, we recommend a stepwise approach to implement such a program: (1) both administrative and clinical leadership commit to a common goal; (2) appoint clinical champions and give them authority to engage other clinicians to improve timeliness of interventions; (3) map workflows and processes to rely heavily on the nursing staff's ability to evaluate and report severe sepsis screening results; (4) if available, design and deploy technology with the assistance of clinical informaticians (eg, to enable electronic health records-based continuous screening); (5) to determine success, consider tracking screening compliance and process, and outcome measures such as length of stay and mortality. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;S11:32-S39. © 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine.

Objective The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC or “the Campaign”) developed guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock. A performance improvement initiative targeted changing clinical behavior (process improvement) via bundles based on key SSC guideline recommendations on process improvement and patient outcomes. Design and setting A multifaceted intervention to facilitate compliance with selected guideline recommendations in the ICU, ED, and wards of individual hospitals and regional hospital networks was implemented voluntarily in the US, Europe, and South America. Elements of the guidelines were “bundled” into two sets of targets to be completed within 6 h and within 24 h. An analysis was conducted on data submitted from January 2005 through March 2008. Main results Data from 15,022 subjects at 165 sites were analyzed to determine the compliance with bundle targets and association with hospital mortality. Compliance with the entire resuscitation bundle increased linearly from 10.9% in the first site quarter to 31.3% by the end of 2 years (P

As the Surviving Sepsis Campaign was assessing patient-level data over multiple countries, we sought to evaluate the use of a pragmatic and parsimonious severity-of-illness scoring system for patients with sepsis in an attempt to provide appropriate comparisons with practical application.Prospective, observational evaluation.Data from 23,438 patients with suspected or confirmed sepsis from 218 hospitals in 18 countries were evaluated.This analysis was conducted on prospective data submitted to a database from January 2005 through March 2010.None.Maximum likelihood logistic regression was used to estimate model coefficients, and these were then used to develop a Sepsis Severity Score. The probability of hospital mortality was estimated using the Sepsis Severity Score as the sole variable in a logistic regression model. Univariable logistic regression determined which variables were included in the multivariable predictor model. The scale of continuous variables was assessed using fractional polynomials. Two-way interactions between variables were considered for model inclusion if the interaction p value is less than 0.05. The prediction model was developed based on randomly selecting 90% of available patients and was validated on the remaining 10%, as well as by using a bootstrapping technique. The p values for the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodnessof-fit statistic in the developmental and validation datasets were considerably greater than 0.05, suggesting good calibration. Development and validation areas under the receiver operator curve curves were 0.736 and 0.748, respectively. Observed and estimated probabilities of hospital mortality for the total population were both 0.334. The validation and the developmental datasets were gradually compared over deciles of predicted mortality and found to be very similar.The Sepsis Severity Score accurately estimated the probability of hospital mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock patients. It performed well with respect to calibration and discrimination, which remained consistent over deciles. It functioned well over international geographic regions. This robust, population-specific evaluation of international severe sepsis patients provides an effective and accurate mortality estimate allowing for appropriate quality comparisons with practical clinical and research application.

Compelling evidence has shown that aggressive resuscitation bundles, adequate source control, appropriate antibiotic therapy, and organ support are cornerstone for the success in the treatment of patients with sepsis. Delay in the initiation of appropriate antibiotic therapy has been recognized as a risk factor for mortality. To perform a retrospective analysis on the Surviving Sepsis Campaign database to evaluate the relationship between timing of antibiotic administration and mortality.Retrospective analysis of a large dataset collected prospectively for the Surviving Sepsis Campaign.One hundred sixty-five ICUs in Europe, the United States, and South America.A total of 28,150 patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, from January 2005 through February 2010, were evaluated.Antibiotic administration and hospital mortality.A total of 17,990 patients received antibiotics after sepsis identification and were included in the analysis. In-hospital mortality was 29.7% for the cohort as a whole. There was a statically significant increase in the probability of death associated with the number of hours of delay for first antibiotic administration. Hospital mortality adjusted for severity (sepsis severity score), ICU admission source (emergency department, ward, vs ICU), and geographic region increased steadily after 1 hour of time to antibiotic administration. Results were similar in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, regardless of the number of organ failure.The results of the analysis of this large population of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock demonstrate that delay in first antibiotic administration was associated with increased in-hospital mortality. In addition, there was a linear increase in the risk of mortality for each hour delay in antibiotic administration. These results underscore the importance of early identification and treatment of septic patients in the hospital setting.

The incidence of severe sepsis (sepsis with organ dysfunction) is increasing (1). Several recently published studies have demonstrated decreased mortality and morbidity as a result of interventions and therapeutics applied to patients with sepsis (2–5). These new data, resulting from rigorously perf

Summary Background Mortality from severe sepsis and septic shock differs across continents, countries, and regions. We aimed to use data from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) to compare models of care and outcomes for patients with severe sepsis and septic shock in the USA and Europe. Methods The SSC was introduced into more than 200 sites in Europe and the USA. All patients identified with severe sepsis and septic shock in emergency departments or hospital wards and admitted to intensive care units (ICUs), and those with sepsis in ICUs were entered into the SSC database. Patients entered into the database from its launch in January, 2005, through January, 2010, in units with at least 20 patients and 3 months of enrolment of patients were included in this analysis. Patients included in the cohort were limited to those entered in the first 4 years at every site. We used random-effects logistic regression to estimate the hospital mortality odds ratio (OR) for Europe relative to the USA. We used random-effects linear regression to find the relation between lengths of stay in hospital and ICU and geographic region. Findings 25 375 patients were included in the cohort. The USA included 107 sites with 18 766 (74%) patients, and Europe included 79 hospital sites with 6609 (26%) patients. In the USA, 12 218 (65·1%) were admitted to the ICU from the emergency department whereas in Europe, 3405 (51·5%) were admitted from the wards. The median stay on the hospital wards before ICU admission was longer in Europe than in the USA (1·0 vs 0·1 days, difference 0·9, 95% CI 0·8–0·9). Raw hospital mortality was higher in Europe than in the USA (41·1% vs 28·3%, difference 12·8, 95% CI 11·5–14·7). The median length of stay in ICU (7·8 vs 4·2 days, 3·6, 3·3–3·7) and hospital (22·8 vs 10·5 days, 12·3, 11·9–12·8) was longer in Europe than in the USA. Adjusted mortality in Europe was not significantly higher than that in the USA (32·3% vs 31·3%, 1·0, −1·7 to 3·7, p=0·468). Complete compliance with all applicable elements of the sepsis resuscitation bundle was higher in the USA than in Europe (21·6% vs 18·4%, 3·2, 2·2–4·4). Interpretation The significant difference in unadjusted mortality and the fact that this difference disappears with severity adjustment raise important questions about the effect of the approach to critical care in Europe compared with that in the USA. The effect of ICU bed availability on outcomes in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock requires further investigation. Funding Eli Lilly Co, Baxter Lifesciences, Philips Medical Systems, the Society of Critical Care Medicine, and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

This article traces the history and evolution of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign as a public health initiative through its several stages of development. The literature that has characterized clinical experiences with interventions related to the campaign is reviewed and conclusions discussed.

Sepsis is an acute and severe disease associated with early and late high mortality, high and growing prevalence, and impressive costs. In October 2002, during the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine annual congress, the Surviving Sepsis Campaign was launched through a "Barcelona Declaration" -- a document calling critical care providers, governments, health agencies and lay people to join the fight against sepsis. The aim of the campaign was to reduce the sepsis mortality rate by 25% within 5 years (actually, this deadline has been ended from 2007 to 2009). In 2003, a group of international critical care and infectious disease experts in the diagnosis and management of infection and sepsis met to develop guidelines that the bedside clinician could use to improve the outcome of severe sepsis and septic shock. A comprehensive document created from the committee's deliberations was published in prestigious journals. Thus, the SSC is a global, multi-organizational initiative to fight sepsis and undoubtedly, this campaign is a historic step for critical care medicine. This paper highlights the recommendations and the strategies proposed by SSC to implement them in intensive care units.

Patients in acute respiratory distress require rapid assessment of the cause of dyspnea. We have observed that many of those patients who are in congestive heart failure (CHF) exhibit rounding of the abdominal cross-section during expiration. We sought to evaluate the diagnostic utility of this breathing pattern in dyspneic patients presenting to an emergency department. Twenty-six subjects with dyspnea due to a variety of conditions were recruited from the emergency department at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Subjects ranged in age from 21 to 94 years and 81% were female. We measured variation in the anteroposterior and transverse diameters of the rib cage and abdomen using respiratory magnetometers and determined phase of respiration with a pneumotachometer. Investigators blinded to the subjects’ identities and diagnoses interpreted measurements as indicating normal respiratory movement without expiratory abdominal rounding, slight expiratory rounding, or pronounced expiratory rounding. The likely cause of dyspnea was determined from discharge diagnoses in the medical record. Expiratory rounding was observed in 12/14 subjects with CHF and 5/12 subjects without CHF (p = 0.0186), and pronounced expiratory rounding was present in 11/14 patients with CHF and 2/12 patients without CHF (p = 0.0016). Test characteristics for the association of CHF with pronounced expiratory rounding were sensitivity 79%, specificity 83%, and predictive accuracy 81%. In patients with acute respiratory distress, expiratory abdominal rounding suggests CHF as the primary cause of dyspnea; a greater degree of rounding suggests a greater likelihood of CHF. The clinical utility of this diagnostic sign remains to be determined in a prospective study.