Accountability for Sepsis Treatment

Concept review of regionalized systems of acute care: Is regionalization the next frontier in sepsis care?

Regionalization has become a buzzword in US health care policy. Regionalization, however, has varied meanings, and definitions have lacked contextual information important to understanding its role in improving care. This concept review is a comprehensive primer and summation of 8 common core components of the national models of regionalization informed by text-based analysis of the writing of involved organizations (professional, regulatory, and research) guided by semistructured interviews with organizational leaders. Further, this generalized model of regionalized care is applied to sepsis care, a novel discussion, drawing on existing small-scale applications. This discussion highlights the fit of regionalization principles to the sepsis care model and the actualized and perceived potential benefits. The principal aim of this concept review is to outline regionalization in the United States and provide a roadmap and novel discussion of regionalized care integration for sepsis care.

Association Between Implementation of the Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Early Management Bundle Performance Measure and Outcomes in Patients With Suspected Sepsis in US Hospitals

IMPORTANCE

In October 2015, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services began requiring US hospitals to report adherence to the Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Early Management Bundle (SEP-1).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association of SEP-1 implementation with sepsis treatment patterns and outcomes in diverse hospitals.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study with interrupted time-series analysis and logistic regression models was conducted among adults admitted to 114 hospitals from October 2013 to December 2017 with suspected sepsis (blood culture orders, ≥2 systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, and acute organ dysfunction) within 24 hours of hospital arrival. Data analysis was conducted from September 2020 to September 2021.

EXPOSURES

SEP-1 implementation in the fourth quarter (Q4) of 2015.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was quarterly rates of risk-adjusted short-term mortality (in-hospital death or discharge to hospice). Secondary outcomes included lactate testing and administration of anti-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or antipseudomonal β-lactam antibiotics within 24 hours of hospital arrival. Generalized estimating equations with robust sandwich variances were used to fit logistic regression models to assess for changes in level or trends in these outcomes, adjusting for baseline characteristics and severity of illness.

RESULTS

The cohort included 117 510 patients (median [IQR] age, 67 years [55-78] years; 60 530 [51.5%] men and 56 980 [48.5%] women) with suspected sepsis. Lactate testing rates increased from 55.1% (95% CI, 53.9%-56.2%) in Q4 of 2013 to 76.7% (95% CI, 75.4%-78.0%) in Q4 of 2017, with a significant level change following SEP-1 implementation (odds ratio [OR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.04-1.74). There were increases in use of anti-MRSA antibiotics (19.8% [95% CI, 18.9%-20.7%] in Q4 of 2013 to 26.3% [95% CI, 24.9%-27.7%] in Q4 of 2017) and antipseudomonal antibiotics (27.7% [95% CI, 26.7%-28.8%] in Q4 of 2013 to 40.5% [95% CI, 38.9%-42.0%] in Q4 of 2017), but these trends preceded SEP-1 and did not change with SEP-1 implementation. Unadjusted short-term mortality rates were similar in the pre-SEP-1 period (Q4 of 2013 through Q3 of 2015) vs the post-SEP-1 period (Q1 of 2016 through Q4 of 2017) (20.3% [95% CI, 20.0%-20.6%] vs 20.4% [95% CI, 20.1%-20.7%]), and SEP-1 implementation was not associated with changes in level (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.68-1.29) or trend (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97-1.04) for risk-adjusted short-term mortality rates.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, SEP-1 implementation was associated with an immediate increase in lactate testing rates, no change in already-increasing rates of broad-spectrum antibiotic use, and no change in short-term mortality rates for patients with suspected sepsis. Other approaches to decrease sepsis mortality may be warranted.

Inpatient hospital performance is associated with post-discharge sepsis mortality

Background

Post-discharge deaths are common in patients hospitalized for sepsis, but the drivers of post-discharge deaths are unclear. The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that hospitals with high risk-adjusted inpatient sepsis mortality also have high post-discharge mortality, readmissions, and discharge to nursing homes.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study of age-qualifying Medicare beneficiaries with sepsis hospitalization between January 2013 and December 2014. Hospital survivors were followed for 180-days post-discharge, and mortality, readmissions, and new admission to skilled nursing facility were measured. Inpatient hospital-specific sepsis risk-adjusted mortality ratio (observed: expected) was the primary exposure.

Results

A total of 830,721 patients in the cohort were hospitalized for sepsis, with inpatient mortality of 20% and 90-day mortality of 48%. Higher hospital-specific sepsis risk-adjusted mortality was associated with increased 90-day post-discharge mortality (aOR 1.03 per each 0.1 increase in hospital inpatient O:E ratio, 95% CI 1.03–1.04). Higher inpatient risk adjusted mortality was also associated with increased probability of being discharged to a nursing facility (aOR 1.03, 95% CI 1.02–1.03) and 90-day readmissions (aOR 1.03, 95% CI 1.02–1.03).

Conclusions

Hospitals with the highest risk-adjusted sepsis inpatient mortality also have higher post-discharge mortality and increased readmissions, suggesting that post-discharge complications are a modifiable risk that may be affected during inpatient care. Future work will seek to elucidate inpatient and healthcare practices that can reduce sepsis post-discharge complications.

Implementation of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Early identification and appropriate management of sepsis improves outcomes. Despite convincing data showing the benefits of early recognition and treatment of sepsis and septic shock, implementation of such evidence-based therapy is suboptimal. This review describes methods that have been shown to improve bedside application of the evidence-based guidelines.

RECENT FINDINGS

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) has developed guidelines for the management of severe sepsis and septic shock. The initial SSC guidelines were published in 2004; as evidence continued to evolve, the guidelines were updated, with the most recent iteration published in 2016. Guidelines by themselves can take years to change clinical practice. To affect more rapid change, the SSC guidelines are filtered into bundles to impact behavior change in a simple and uniform way.

SUMMARY

Implementation of the SSC bundles revolves around practice improvement measures. Hospitals that have successfully implemented these bundles have consistently shown improved outcomes and reductions in healthcare spending. Finally, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has approved SSC bundle compliance as a core measure, and hospitals in the United States are mandated to collect and report their data regularly to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Liberal Versus Restrictive Intravenous Fluid Therapy for Early Septic Shock: Rationale for a Randomized Trial

Prompt intravenous fluid therapy is a fundamental treatment for patients with septic shock. However, the optimal approach for administering intravenous fluid in septic shock resuscitation is unknown. Two competing strategies are emerging: a liberal fluids approach, consisting of a larger volume of initial fluid (50 to 75 mL/kg [4 to 6 L in an 80-kg adult] during the first 6 hours) and later use of vasopressors, versus a restrictive fluids approach, consisting of a smaller volume of initial fluid (≤30 mL/kg [≤2 to 3 L]), with earlier reliance on vasopressor infusions to maintain blood pressure and perfusion. Early fluid therapy may enhance or maintain tissue perfusion by increasing venous return and cardiac output. However, fluid administration may also have deleterious effects by causing edema within vital organs, leading to organ dysfunction and impairment of oxygen delivery. Conversely, a restrictive fluids approach primarily relies on vasopressors to reverse hypotension and maintain perfusion while limiting the administration of fluid. Both strategies have some evidence to support their use but lack robust data to confirm the benefit of one strategy over the other, creating clinical and scientific equipoise. As part of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury Network, we designed a randomized clinical trial to compare the liberal and restrictive fluids strategies, the Crystalloid Liberal or Vasopressor Early Resuscitation in Sepsis trial. The purpose of this article is to review the current literature on approaches to early fluid resuscitation in adults with septic shock and outline the rationale for the upcoming trial.