Search

Purpose: Timely and accurate data on the epidemiology of sepsis are essential to inform policy decisions and research priorities. We aimed to investigate the validity of inpatient administrative health data (IAHD) for surveillance and quality assurance of sepsis care., Methods: We conducted a retrospective validation study in a disproportional stratified random sample of 10,334 inpatient cases of age ≥ 15 years treated in 2015-2017 in ten German hospitals. The accuracy of coding of sepsis and risk factors for mortality in IAHD was assessed compared to reference standard diagnoses obtained by a chart review. Hospital-level risk-adjusted mortality of sepsis as calculated from IAHD information was compared to mortality calculated from chart review information., Results: ICD-coding of sepsis in IAHD showed high positive predictive value (76.9-85.7% depending on sepsis definition), but low sensitivity (26.8-38%), which led to an underestimation of sepsis incidence (1.4% vs. 3.3% for severe sepsis-1). Not naming sepsis in the chart was strongly associated with under-coding of sepsis. The frequency of correctly naming sepsis and ICD-coding of sepsis varied strongly between hospitals (range of sensitivity of naming: 29-71.7%, of ICD-diagnosis: 10.7-58.5%). Risk-adjusted mortality of sepsis per hospital calculated from coding in IAHD showed no substantial correlation to reference standard risk-adjusted mortality (r = 0.09)., Conclusion: Due to the under-coding of sepsis in IAHD, previous epidemiological studies underestimated the burden of sepsis in Germany. There is a large variability between hospitals in accuracy of diagnosing and coding of sepsis. Therefore, IAHD alone is not suited to assess quality of sepsis care., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objectives: This study aims to describe physicians' perspectives on the use of computed tomography (CT) in patients with sepsis., Methods: In January 2022, physicians of a large European university medical center were surveyed using a web-based questionnaire asking about their views on the role of CT in sepsis. A total of 371 questionnaires met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed using work experience, workplace, and medical specialty of physicians as variables. Chi-square tests were performed., Results: Physicians considered the ability to detect an unknown focus as the greatest benefit of CT scans in sepsis (70.9%, n = 263/371). Two clinical criteria - "signs of decreased vigilance" (89.2%, n = 331/371) and "increased catecholamine demand" (84.7%, n = 314/371) - were considered highly relevant for a CT request. Elevated procalcitonin (82.7%, n = 307/371) and lactate levels (83.6%, n = 310/371) were consistently found to be critical laboratory values to request a CT. As long as there is evidence of infection in one organ region, most physicians (42.6%, n = 158/371) would order a CT scan based on clinical assessment. Combined examination of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis was favored (34.8%, n = 129/371) in cases without clinical clues of an infection source. A time window of ≥ 1-6 h was preferred for both CT examinations (53.9%, n = 200/371) and CT-guided interventions (59.3%, n = 220/371) in patients with sepsis., Conclusion: Despite much consensus, there are significant differences in attitudes towards the use of CT in septic patients among physicians from different workplaces and medical specialties. Knowledge of these perspectives may improve patient management and interprofessional communication., Key Points: Despite interdisciplinary consensus on the use of CT in sepsis, statistically significant differences in the responses are apparent among physicians from different workplaces and medical specialties. The detection of a previously unknown source of infection and the ability to plan interventions and/or surgery based on CT findings are considered key advantages of CT in septic patients. Timing of CT reflects the requirements of specific disciplines., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Sepsis is a major cause of preventable deaths in hospitals. This study aims to investigate if sepsis incidence and quality of care can be assessed using inpatient administrative health data (IAHD)., Methods and Analysis: Design: Retrospective observational validation study using routine data to assess the diagnostic accuracy of sepsis coding in IAHD regarding sepsis diagnosis based on medical record review., Procedure: A stratified sample of 10 000 patients with an age ≥15 years treated in between 2015 and 2017 in 10 German hospitals is investigated. All available information of medical records is screened by trained physicians to identify true sepsis cases ('gold standard') both according to current ('sepsis-1') definitions and new ('sepsis-3') definitions. Data from medical records are linked to IAHD on patient level using a pseudonym., Analyses: Proportions of cases with sepsis according to sepsis-1 and sepsis-3 definitions are calculated and compared with estimates from coding of sepsis in IAHD. Predictive accuracy (sensitivity, specificity) of different coding abstraction strategies regarding the gold standard is estimated. Predictive accuracy of mortality risk factors obtained from IAHD regarding the respective risk factors obtained from medical records is calculated. An IAHD-based risk model for hospital mortality is compared with a record-based risk model regarding model-fit and predicted risk of death. Analyses adjust for sampling weights. The obtained estimates of sensitivity and specificity for sepsis coding in IAHD are used to estimate adjusted incidence proportions of sepsis based on German national IAHD., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has been approved by the ethics commission of the Jena University Hospital (No. 2018-1065-Daten). The results of the study will be discussed in an expert panel to write a memorandum on improving the utility of IAHD for epidemiological surveillance and quality management of sepsis care., Trial Registration Number: DRKS00017775; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)