SEP-1 Has Brought Much Needed Attention to Improving Sepsis Care…But Now Is the Time to Improve SEP-1

Association Between the Sequence of β-Lactam and Vancomycin Administration and Mortality in Patients With Suspected Sepsis

BACKGROUND

Timely antibiotic initiation is critical to sepsis management, but there are limited data on the impact of giving β-lactams first versus vancomycin first among patients prescribed both agents.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed all adults admitted to 5 US hospitals from 2015-2022 with suspected sepsis (blood culture collected, antibiotics administered, and organ dysfunction) treated with vancomycin and a broad-spectrum β-lactam within 24 hours of arrival. We estimated associations between β-lactam- versus vancomycin-first strategies and in-hospital mortality using inverse probability weighting (IPW) to adjust for potential confounders.

RESULTS

Among 25 391 patients with suspected sepsis, 21 449 (84.4%) received β-lactams first and 3942 (15.6%) received vancomycin first. Compared with the β-lactam-first group, patients administered vancomycin first tended to be less severely ill, had more skin/musculoskeletal infections (20.0% vs 7.8%), and received β-lactams a median of 3.5 hours later relative to emergency department arrival. On IPW analysis, the β-lactam-first strategy was associated with lower mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: .89; 95% CI: .80-.99). Point estimates were directionally similar but nonsignificant in a sensitivity analysis using propensity score matching rather than IPW (aOR: .94; 95% CI: .82-1.07) and in subgroups of patients with positive blood cultures, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus cultures, and those administered antipseudomonal β-lactams.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with suspected sepsis prescribed vancomycin and β-lactam therapy, β-lactam administration before vancomycin was associated with a modest reduction in in-hospital mortality. These findings support prioritizing β-lactam therapy in most patients with sepsis but merit confirmation in randomized trials given the risk of residual confounding in observational analyses.

Decision analysis model of rapid versus deferred antibiotic initiation in patients with suspected sepsis in the emergency department

PURPOSE

Sepsis remains a major health concern with high associated mortality. Adequate treatment involves the use of antibiotic therapy although the timing of antibiotics is controversial. A decision analysis model of antibiotic initiation was created to determine optimal management of patients with suspected sepsis.

METHODS

Two decision trees were created using data from the published literature. A limited model used mortality as the primary outcome using the impact of antibiotic timing on rates of progression to shock and in-hospital mortality. The primary model included mortality and stewardship-related factors such as antibiotic avoidance and antibiotic-associated adverse events. Rapid initiation of antibiotics was defined as universal antibiotic administration within 3 h of presentation whereas deferred initiation included administration up to 6 h. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of each option.

RESULTS

When considering only mortality, rapid initiation was the optimal strategy. When considering stewardship-related factors, rapid initiation of antibiotics maximized utility in only 40.6% of model iterations. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated rapid initiation of antibiotics was optimal when initiation times were above 1.33 h and the prevalence of infection was above 89.5%. Two-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that as time to antibiotics increased, rate of true infection above which rapid antibiotics is optimal drops from just under 91% to approximately 88.5%.

CONCLUSION

We constructed decision analysis models to characterize optimal conditions for antibiotic initiation in suspected sepsis. Our model suggests that the prevalence of infection needs to be approximately 90% for rapid initiation of antibiotics to be the optimal strategy.

The Effect of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Management Bundle (SEP-1) Compliance and Implementation on Mortality Among Patients With Sepsis : A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Management Bundle (SEP-1) is now included in the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program.

PURPOSE

To assess the evidence supporting SEP-1 compliance or SEP-1 implementation in improving sepsis mortality.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL Complete, and Cochrane Library from inception to 26 November 2024.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies of adults with sepsis that included 3- or 6-hour sepsis bundles defined by SEP-1 specifications.

DATA EXTRACTION

Article screening, full-text review, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment were independently performed by 2 authors. Level of evidence was determined using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria and National Quality Forum criteria.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 4403 unique references were screened, and 17 studies were included. Twelve studies assessed the relationship between SEP-1 compliance and mortality; 5 showed statistically significant benefit, whereas 7 did not. Among studies showing benefit, 1 did not adjust for confounders, 1 found benefit only among patients with severe sepsis, 1 included only patients with septic shock, and 1 included only Medicare beneficiaries. Five studies assessed the relationship between SEP-1 implementation and sepsis mortality; only 1 showed significant benefit, but it did not adjust for mortality trends before SEP-1 implementation. All 17 studies were observational, and none had low risk of bias.

LIMITATIONS

The conclusions are limited by the underlying quality of the available studies, as all were observational. Because there was considerable methodologic heterogeneity among the included studies, a meta-analysis was not performed as the results could have been misleading.

CONCLUSION

This review found no moderate- or high-level evidence to support that compliance with or implementation of SEP-1 was associated with sepsis mortality. CMS should reconsider the addition of SEP-1 to the Hospital VBP Program.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None. (PROSPERO: CRD42023482787).

Complex Sepsis Presentations, SEP-1 Compliance, and Outcomes

Importance

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Management Bundle (SEP-1) is supported by observational studies that report SEP-1 compliance is associated with lower mortality. Most studies, however, adjusted for limited confounders and provided little insight into why bundle-compliant care was not provided.

Objectives

To identify the clinical factors that complicate the diagnosis and management of sepsis and assess their association with SEP-1 compliance and mortality.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study was conducted among 590 adults with sepsis in the emergency department of 4 academic hospitals from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2022. Patients' medical records were reviewed between September 2022 and December 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Study outcomes were (1) characteristics of patients who received SEP-1-compliant care vs characteristics of patients who received noncompliant care and (2) association between SEP-1 compliance and hospital mortality using multivariable models to adjust for successively more potential confounders (first demographics and comorbidities, then infection source, then severity of illness, and then clinical markers of complexity).

Results

Of 590 patients with sepsis (median age, 65 years [IQR, 53-77 years]; 329 men [55.8%]), 335 (56.8%) received SEP-1-compliant care, and 225 (43.2%) received noncompliant care. Compared with patients in the compliant group, patients in the noncompliant group were more likely to be 65 years or older (142 [55.7%] vs 158 [47.2%]; odds ratio [OR], 1.41 [95% CI, 1.01-1.95]), to have multiple comorbidities (Elixhauser score >20: 99 [38.8%] vs 99 [29.6%]; OR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.07-2.13]), and to have a higher incidence of septic shock (107 [42.0%] vs 107 [31.9%]; OR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.10-2.16]), kidney dysfunction (87 [34.1%] vs 80 [23.9%]; OR, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.15-2.37]), and thrombocytopenia (43 [16.9%] vs 37 [11.0%]; OR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.02-2.62]) on presentation. Compared with patients in the compliant group, those in the noncompliant group also had more nonfebrile presentations (136 [53.3%] vs 121 [36.1%]; OR, 2.02 [95% CI, 1.45-2.82]), impaired mental status (92 [36.1%] vs 94 [28.1%]; OR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.02-2.05]), need for bedside procedures (57 [22.4%] vs 41 [12.2%]; OR, 2.06 [95% CI, 1.33-3.21]), acute concurrent noninfectious illnesses (140 [54.9%] vs 151 [45.1%]; OR, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.07-2.06]), and noninfectious illness as the primary factor associated with their presentation (84 [32.9%] vs 71 [21.2%]; OR, 1.82 [95% CI, 1.08-3.08]). SEP-1 compliance was associated with lower crude mortality rates compared with noncompliance (40 [11.9%] vs 41 [16.1%]; unadjusted OR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.37-0.98]), but there was no statistically significant difference between groups after successively adjusting for demographics and comorbidities (adjusted OR [AOR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.42-1.18]), infection source (AOR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.43-1.20]), severity of illness (AOR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.50-1.49]), and clinical markers of complexity (AOR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.61-1.91]).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of adults with sepsis, complex clinical presentations were more common among patients whose treatment was noncompliant with SEP-1. These nuances are poorly captured in most observational studies but confound the association between SEP-1 compliance and mortality.

What Clinicians Think About When They Think About Sepsis: Results From a Survey Across the University of Maryland Medical System

IMPORTANCE

Sepsis, a leading cause of death in the hospital, is a heterogeneous syndrome without a defined or specific set of symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a survey of clinicians in practice to understand which clinical findings they tend to associate with sepsis.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A survey was distributed to physicians and advanced practice providers across a multihospital health system during April 2022 and May 2022 querying likelihood of suspecting sepsis and initiating sepsis care in response to various normal and abnormal clinical findings.

ANALYSIS

Strength of association between clinical findings and suspicion of sepsis were based on median and interquartile range of complete responses. Comparisons between individual questions were performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum testing.

RESULTS

Among 179 clinicians who opened the survey, 68 (38%) completed all questions, including 53 (78%) attending physicians representing six different hospitals. Twenty-nine respondents (43%) worked primarily in the ICU, and 16 (24%) worked in the emergency department. The clinical findings most strongly associated with suspicion of sepsis were hypotension, tachypnea, coagulopathy, leukocytosis, respiratory distress, and fever. The abnormal clinical findings least likely to prompt suspicion for sepsis were elevated bilirubin, elevated troponin, and abdominal examination suggesting ileus. On average, respondents were more likely to suspect sepsis with high temperature than with low temperature (p = 0.008) and with high WBC count than with low WBC count (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians in practice tend to associate the diagnosis of sepsis with signs of severe illness, such as hypotension or respiratory distress, and systemic inflammation, such as fever and leukocytosis. Except for coagulopathy, nonspecific laboratory indicators of organ dysfunction have less influence on decision-making.

Building the Future of Infectious Diseases: A Call to Action for Quality Improvement Research and Measurement

Quality is central to value-based care, and measurement is essential for assessing performance and understanding improvement over time. Both value-based care and methods for quality measurement are evolving. Infectious diseases (ID) has been less engaged than other specialties in quality measure development, and ID providers must seize the opportunity to engage with quality measure development and research. Antimicrobial stewardship programs are an ideal starting point for ID-related quality measure development; antimicrobial stewardship program interventions and best practices are ID specific, measurable, and effective, yet they are grossly undercompensated. Herein, we provide a scheme for prioritizing research focused on development of ID-specific quality measures. Maturation of quality measurement research in ID, beginning with an initial focus on stewardship-related conditions and then expanding to non-stewardship topics, will allow ID to take control of its future in value-based care and promote the growth of ID through greater recognition of its value.

Evaluating Sepsis Bundle Compliance as a Predictor for Patient Outcomes at a Community Hospital: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Clinicians are encouraged to use the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services early management bundle for severe sepsis and septic shock (SEP-1); however, it is unclear whether this process measure improves patient outcomes.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether compliance with the SEP-1 bundle is a predictor of hospital mortality, length of stay (LOS), and intensive care unit LOS at a suburban community hospital.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 577 patients were included in the analysis. Compliance with the SEP-1 bundle was not a significant predictor for patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

SEP-1 compliance may not equate with quality of health care. Efforts to comply with SEP-1 may help organizations develop systems and structures that improve patient outcomes. Health care leaders should evaluate strategies beyond SEP-1 compliance to ensure continuous improvement of outcomes for patients experiencing sepsis.

How artificial intelligence could transform emergency care

Artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is the ability of a computer to perform tasks typically associated with clinical care (e.g. medical decision-making and documentation). AI will soon be integrated into an increasing number of healthcare applications, including elements of emergency department (ED) care. Here, we describe the basics of AI, various categories of its functions (including machine learning and natural language processing) and review emerging and potential future use-cases for emergency care. For example, AI-assisted symptom checkers could help direct patients to the appropriate setting, models could assist in assigning triage levels, and ambient AI systems could document clinical encounters. AI could also help provide focused summaries of charts, summarize encounters for hand-offs, and create discharge instructions with an appropriate language and reading level. Additional use cases include medical decision making for decision rules, real-time models that predict clinical deterioration or sepsis, and efficient extraction of unstructured data for coding, billing, research, and quality initiatives. We discuss the potential transformative benefits of AI, as well as the concerns regarding its use (e.g. privacy, data accuracy, and the potential for changing the doctor-patient relationship).

Trends in Empiric Broad-Spectrum Antibiotic Use for Suspected Community-Onset Sepsis in US Hospitals

Importance

Little is known about the degree to which suspected sepsis drives broad-spectrum antibiotic use in hospitals, what proportion of antibiotic courses are unnecessarily broad in retrospect, and whether these patterns are changing over time.

Objective

To describe trends in empiric broad-spectrum antibiotic use for suspected community-onset sepsis.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used clinical data from adults admitted to 241 US hospitals in the PINC AI Healthcare Database. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or more and were admitted between 2017 and 2021 with suspected community-onset sepsis, defined by a blood culture draw, lactate measurement, and intravenous antibiotic administration on admission.

Exposures

Empiric anti-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and/or antipseudomonal β-lactam agent use.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Annual rates of empiric anti-MRSA and/or antipseudomonal β-lactam agent use and the proportion that were likely unnecessary in retrospect based on the absence of β-lactam resistant gram-positive or ceftriaxone-resistant gram-negative pathogens from clinical cultures obtained through hospital day 4. Annual trends were calculated using mixed-effects logistic regression models, adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics.

Results

Among 6 272 538 hospitalizations (median [IQR] age, 66 [53-78] years; 443 465 male [49.6%]; 106 095 Black [11.9%], 65 763 Hispanic [7.4%], 653 907 White [73.1%]), 894 724 (14.3%) had suspected community-onset sepsis, of whom 582 585 (65.1%) received either empiric anti-MRSA (379 987 [42.5%]) or antipseudomonal β-lactam therapy (513 811 [57.4%]); 311 213 (34.8%) received both. Patients with suspected community-onset sepsis accounted for 1 573 673 of 3 141 300 (50.1%) of total inpatient anti-MRSA antibiotic days and 2 569 518 of 5 211 745 (49.3%) of total antipseudomonal β-lactam days. Between 2017 and 2021, the proportion of patients with suspected sepsis administered anti-MRSA or antipseudomonal therapy increased from 63.0% (82 731 of 131 275 patients) to 66.7% (101 003 of 151 435 patients) (adjusted OR [aOR] per year, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.03-1.04). However, resistant organisms were isolated in only 65 434 cases (7.3%) (30 617 gram-positive [3.4%], 38 844 gram-negative [4.3%]) and the proportion of patients who had any resistant organism decreased from 9.6% to 7.3% (aOR per year, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.87-0.88). Most patients with suspected sepsis treated with empiric anti-MRSA and/or antipseudomonal therapy had no resistant organisms (527 356 of 582 585 patients [90.5%]); this proportion increased from 88.0% in 2017 to 91.6% in 2021 (aOR per year, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.11-1.13).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of adults admitted to 241 US hospitals, empiric broad-spectrum antibiotic use for suspected community-onset sepsis accounted for half of all anti-MRSA or antipseudomonal therapy; the use of these types of antibiotics increased between 2017 and 2021 despite resistant organisms being isolated in less than 10% of patients treated with broad-spectrum agents.

Does Point-of-Care Ultrasound Affect Fluid Resuscitation Volume in Patients with Septic Shock: A Retrospective Review

Background

Fixed, large volume resuscitation with intravenous fluids (IVFs) in septic shock can cause inadvertent hypervolemia, increased medical interventions, and death when unguided by point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). The primary study objective was to evaluate whether total IVF volume differs for emergency department (ED) septic shock patients receiving POCUS versus no POCUS.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study from 7/1/2018 to 8/31/2021 of atraumatic adult ED patients with septic shock. We agreed upon a priori variables and defined septic shock as lactate ≥4 and hypotension (SBP <90 or MAP <65). A sample size of 300 patients would provide 85% power to detect an IVF difference of 500 milliliters between POCUS and non-POCUS cohorts. Data are reported as frequencies, median (IQR), and associations from bivariate logistic models.

Results

304 patients met criteria and 26% (78/304) underwent POCUS. Cardiac POCUS demonstrated reduced ejection fraction in 15.4% of patients. Lung ultrasound showed normal findings in 53% of patients. The POCUS vs. non-POCUS cohorts had statistically significant differences for the following variables: higher median lactate (6.7 [IQR 5.2-8.7] vs. 5.6], p = 0.003), lower systolic blood pressure (77.5 [IQR 61-86] vs. 85.0, p < 0.001), more vasopressor use (51% vs. 34%, p = 0.006), and more positive pressure ventilation (38% vs. 24%, p = 0.017). However, there were no statistically significant differences between POCUS and non-POCUS cohorts in total IVF volume ml/kg (33.02 vs. 32.1, p = 0.47), new oxygen requirement (68% vs. 59%, p = 0.16), ED death (3% vs. 4%, p = 0.15), or hospital death (31% vs. 27%, p = 0.48). There were similar distributions of lactate, total fluids, and vasopressors in patients with CHF and severe renal failure.

Conclusions

Among ED patients with septic shock, POCUS was more likely to be used in sicker patients. Patients who had POCUS were given similar volume of crystalloids although these patients were more critically ill. There were no differences in new oxygen requirement or mortality in the POCUS group compared to the non-POCUS group.

Improving Sepsis Outcomes in the Era of Pay-for-Performance and Electronic Quality Measures: A Joint IDSA/ACEP/PIDS/SHEA/SHM/SIDP Position Paper

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced the Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock Management Bundle (SEP-1) as a pay-for-reporting measure in 2015 and is now planning to make it a pay-for-performance measure by incorporating it into the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program. This joint IDSA/ACEP/PIDS/SHEA/SHM/SIPD position paper highlights concerns with this change. Multiple studies indicate that SEP-1 implementation was associated with increased broad-spectrum antibiotic use, lactate measurements, and aggressive fluid resuscitation for patients with suspected sepsis but not with decreased mortality rates. Increased focus on SEP-1 risks further diverting attention and resources from more effective measures and comprehensive sepsis care. We recommend retiring SEP-1 rather than using it in a payment model and shifting instead to new sepsis metrics that focus on patient outcomes. CMS is developing a community-onset sepsis 30-day mortality electronic clinical quality measure (eCQM) that is an important step in this direction. The eCQM preliminarily identifies sepsis using systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, antibiotic administrations or diagnosis codes for infection or sepsis, and clinical indicators of acute organ dysfunction. We support the eCQM but recommend removing SIRS criteria and diagnosis codes to streamline implementation, decrease variability between hospitals, maintain vigilance for patients with sepsis but without SIRS, and avoid promoting antibiotic use in uninfected patients with SIRS. We further advocate for CMS to harmonize the eCQM with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Adult Sepsis Event surveillance metric to promote unity in federal measures, decrease reporting burden for hospitals, and facilitate shared prevention initiatives. These steps will result in a more robust measure that will encourage hospitals to pay more attention to the full breadth of sepsis care, stimulate new innovations in diagnosis and treatment, and ultimately bring us closer to our shared goal of improving outcomes for patients.

Association between the volume of fluid resuscitation and mortality modified by disease severity in patients with sepsis in ICU: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

The important effect modifiers of high disease severity on the relationship between the different volumes of early fluid resuscitation and prognosis in septic patients are unknown. Thus, this study was designed to assess whether the efficacy of different volumes in the early fluid resuscitation treatment of sepsis is affected by disease severity.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with sepsis from 2001 to 2012 in the MIMIC-III database.

INTERVENTIONS

The intravenous fluid volume within 6 hours after the sepsis diagnosis serves as the primary exposure. The patients were divided into the standard (≥ 30 mL/kg) and restrict (<30 mL/kg) groups. Disease severity was defined by the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score at ICU admission. Propensity score matching analysis was performed to ensure the robustness of our results.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary endpoint of this study was 28-day mortality. Days without needing mechanical ventilation or vasopressor administration within 28-day of ICU admission serving as the secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

In total, 5154 consecutive individuals were identified in data analysis, 776 patients had a primary end-point event, 386 (49.68%) in the restrict group and 387 (49.81%) in the standard group. Compared with the restrict group, the standard group had higher 28-day mortality (adjusted HR, 1.32; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.70; p=0.03) in the subgroup with a sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score ≥10. By contrast, the risk of mortality reduction was modest in the subgroup with an SOFA score <10 (adjusted HR, 0.85; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.03; p=0.10). The effect of the interaction between the SOFA score and fluid resuscitation strategies on the 28-day mortality was significant (p=0.0035).

CONCLUSIONS

High disease severity modifies the relationship between the volume of fluid resuscitation and mortality in patients with sepsis in the ICU; future studies investigating this interaction are warranted.

Estimating treatment effects for time-to-treatment antibiotic stewardship in sepsis

Sepsis is a life-threatening condition with a high in-hospital mortality rate. The timing of antibiotic administration poses a critical problem for sepsis management. Existing work studying antibiotic timing either ignores the temporality of the observational data or the heterogeneity of the treatment effects. Here we propose a novel method (called T4) to estimate treatment effects for time-to-treatment antibiotic stewardship in sepsis. T4 estimates individual treatment effects by recurrently encoding temporal and static variables as potential confounders, and then decoding the outcomes under different treatment sequences. We propose mini-batch balancing matching that mimics the randomized controlled trial process to adjust the confounding. The model achieves interpretability through a global-level attention mechanism and a variable-level importance examination. Meanwhile, we equip T4 with an uncertainty quantification to help prevent overconfident recommendations. We demonstrate that T4 can identify effective treatment timing with estimated individual treatment effects for antibiotic stewardship on two real-world datasets. Moreover, comprehensive experiments on a synthetic dataset exhibit the outstanding performance of T4 compared with the state-of-the-art models on estimation of individual treatment effect.

Trial of antibiotic restraint in presumed pneumonia: A Surgical Infection Society multicenter pilot

BACKGROUND

Pneumonia is the most common intensive care unit-acquired infection in the trauma and emergency general surgery population. Despite guidelines urging rapid antibiotic use, data supporting immediate antibiotic initiation in cases of suspected infection are limited. Our hypothesis was that a protocol of specimen-initiated antibiotic initiation would have similar compliance and outcomes to an immediate initiation protocol.

METHODS

We devised a pragmatic cluster-randomized crossover pilot trial. Four surgical and trauma intensive care units were randomized to either an immediate initiation or specimen-initiated antibiotic protocol for intubated patients with suspected pneumonia and bronchoscopically obtained cultures who did not require vasopressors. In the immediate initiation arm, antibiotics were started immediately after the culture regardless of patient status. In the specimen-initiated arm, antibiotics were delayed until objective Gram stain or culture results suggested infection. Each site participated in both arms after a washout period and crossover. Outcomes were protocol compliance, all-cause 30-day mortality, and ventilator-free alive days at 30 days. Standard statistical techniques were applied.

RESULTS

A total of 186 patients had 244 total cultures, of which only the first was analyzed. Ninety-three patients (50%) were enrolled in each arm, and 94.6% were trauma patients (84.4% blunt trauma). The median age was 50.5 years, and 21% of the cohort was female. There were no differences in demographics, comorbidities, sequential organ failure assessment, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, or Injury Severity Scores. Antibiotics were started significantly later in the specimen-initiated arm (0 vs. 9.3 hours; p < 0.0001) with 19.4% avoiding antibiotics completely for that episode. There were no differences in the rate of protocol adherence, 30-day mortality, or ventilator-free alive days at 30 days.

CONCLUSION

In this cluster-randomized crossover trial, we found similar compliance rates between immediate and specimen-initiated antibiotic strategies. Specimen-initiated antibiotic protocol in patients with a suspected hospital-acquired pneumonia did not result in worse clinical outcomes compared with immediate initiation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level II.

Outcomes Associated With Rural Emergency Department Provider-to-Provider Telehealth for Sepsis Care: A Multicenter Cohort Study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that provider-to-provider tele-emergency department care is associated with more 28-day hospital-free days and improved Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guideline adherence in rural emergency departments (EDs).

METHODS

Multicenter (n=23), propensity-matched, cohort study using medical records of patients with sepsis from rural hospitals in an established, on-demand, rural video tele-ED network in the upper Midwest between August 2016 and June 2019. The primary outcome was 28-day hospital-free days, with secondary outcomes of 28-day inhospital mortality and SSC guideline adherence.

RESULTS

A total of 1,191 patients were included in the analysis, with tele-ED used for 326 (27%). Tele-ED cases were more likely to be transferred to another hospital (88% versus 8%, difference 79%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 75% to 83%). After matching and regression adjustment, tele-ED cases did not have more 28-day hospital-free days (difference 0.07 days more for tele-ED, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.17) or 28-day inhospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.51, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.60). Adherence with both the SSC 3-hour bundle (aOR 0.59, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.22) and complete bundle (aOR 0.45, 95% CI 0.02 to 11.60) were similar. An a priori-defined subgroup of patients treated by advanced practice providers suggested that the mortality was lower in the cohort with tele-ED use (aOR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.73) despite no significant difference in complete SSC bundle adherence (aOR 2.88, 95% CI 0.52 to 15.86).

CONCLUSION

Rural emergency department patients treated with provider-to-provider tele-ED care in a mature network appear to have similar clinical outcomes to those treated without.

Hospital nurse staffing and sepsis protocol compliance and outcomes among patients with sepsis in the USA: a multistate cross-sectional analysis

OBJECTIVES

Sepsis is a serious inflammatory response to infection with a high death rate. Timely and effective treatment may improve sepsis outcomes resulting in mandatory sepsis care protocol adherence reporting. How the impact of patient-to-nurse staffing compares to sepsis protocol compliance and patient outcomes is not well understood. This study aimed to determine the association between hospital sepsis protocol compliance, patient-to-nurse staffing ratios and patient outcomes.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study examining hospital nurse staffing, sepsis protocol compliance and sepsis patient outcomes, using linked data from nurse (2015-2016, 2020) and hospital (2017) surveys, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital Compare (2017) and corresponding MedPAR patient claims.

SETTING

537 hospitals across six US states (California, Florida, Pennsylvania, New York, Illinois and New Jersey).

PARTICIPANTS

252 699 Medicare inpatients with sepsis present on admission.

MEASURES

The explanatory variables are nurse staffing and SEP-1 compliance. Outcomes are mortality (within 30 and 60 days of index admission), readmissions (within 7, 30, and 60 days of discharge), admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and lengths of stay (LOS).

RESULTS

Sepsis protocol compliance and nurse staffing vary widely across hospitals. Each additional patient per nurse was associated with increased odds of 30-day and 60-day mortality (9% (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.13) and 10% (1.10, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.14)), 7-day, 30-day and 60-day readmission (8% (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.11, p<0.001), 7% (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.10, p<0.001), 7% (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.10, p<0.001)), ICU admission (12% (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.22, p=0.007)) and increased relative risk of longer LOS (10% (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.12, p<0.001)). Each 10% increase in sepsis protocol compliance was associated with shorter LOS (2% ([OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.97 to 0.99, p<0.001)) only.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes are more strongly associated with improved nurse staffing than with increased compliance with sepsis protocols.

Antibiotic Timing and Progression to Septic Shock Among Patients in the ED With Suspected Infection

BACKGROUND

Recent medical society opinions have questioned the use of early antimicrobials in patients with sepsis, but without septic shock.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Is time from ED presentation to administration of antibiotics associated with progression to septic shock among patients with suspected infection?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study from March 2007 through March 2020. All adults with suspected infection and first antimicrobial administered within 24 h of triage were included. Patients with shock on presentation were excluded. We performed univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses predicting progression to septic shock.

RESULTS

Seventy-four thousand one hundred fourteen patient encounters were included in the study. Five thousand five hundred ten patients (7.4%) progressed to septic shock. Of the patients who progressed to septic shock, 88% had received antimicrobials within the first 5 h from triage. In the multivariate logistic model, time (in hours) to first antimicrobial administration showed an OR of 1.03 (95% CI, 1.02-1.04; P < .001) for progression to septic shock and 1.02 (95% CI, 0.99-1.04; P = .121) for in-hospital mortality. When adjusted for severity of illness, each hour delayed until initial antimicrobial administration was associated with a 4.0% increase in progression to septic shock for every 1 h up to 24 h from triage. Patients with positive quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) results were given antibiotics at an earlier time point than patients with positive systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) score (0.82 h vs 1.2 h; P < .05). However, median time to septic shock was significantly shorter (P < .05) for patients with positive qSOFA results at triage (11.2 h) compared with patients with positive SIRS score at triage (26 h).

INTERPRETATION

Delays in first antimicrobial administration in patients with suspected infection are associated with rapid increases in likelihood of progression to septic shock. Additionally, qSOFA score has higher specificity than SIRS score for predicting septic shock, but is associated with a worse outcome, even when patients receive early antibiotics.

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.

Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes After the Introduction of the Medicare Sepsis Performance Measure (SEP-1)

BACKGROUND

Medicare requires that hospitals report on their adherence to the Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Early Management Bundle (SEP-1).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of SEP-1 on treatment patterns and patient outcomes.

DESIGN

Longitudinal study of hospitals using repeated cross-sectional cohorts of patients.

SETTING

11 hospitals within an integrated health system.

PATIENTS

54 225 encounters between January 2013 and December 2017 for adults with sepsis who were hospitalized through the emergency department.

INTERVENTION

Onset of the SEP-1 reporting requirement in October 2015.

MEASUREMENTS

Changes in SEP-1-targeted processes, including antibiotic administration, lactate measurement, and fluid administration at 3 hours from sepsis onset; repeated lactate and vasopressor administration for hypotension within 6 hours of sepsis onset; and sepsis outcomes, including risk-adjusted intensive care unit (ICU) admission, in-hospital mortality, and home discharge among survivors.

RESULTS

Two years after its implementation, SEP-1 was associated with variable changes in process measures, with the greatest effect being an increase in lactate measurement within 3 hours of sepsis onset (absolute increase, 23.7 percentage points [95% CI, 20.7 to 26.7 percentage points]; P < 0.001). There were small increases in antibiotic administration (absolute increase, 4.7 percentage points [CI, 1.9 to 7.6 percentage points]; P = 0.001) and fluid administration of 30 mL/kg of body weight within 3 hours of sepsis onset (absolute increase, 3.4 percentage points [CI, 1.5 to 5.2 percentage points]; P < 0.001). There was no change in vasopressor administration. There was a small increase in ICU admissions (absolute increase, 2.0 percentage points [CI, 0 to 4.0 percentage points]; P = 0.055) and no changes in mortality (absolute change, 0.1 percentage points [CI, -0.9 to 1.1 percentage points]; P = 0.87) or discharge to home.

LIMITATION

Data are from a single health system.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of the SEP-1 mandatory reporting program was associated with variable changes in process measures, without improvements in clinical outcomes. Revising the measure may optimize its future effect.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

The Association Between Antibiotic Delay Intervals and Hospital Mortality Among Patients Treated in the Emergency Department for Suspected Sepsis

OBJECTIVES

Rapid delivery of antibiotics is a cornerstone of sepsis therapy, although time targets for specific components of antibiotic delivery are unknown. We quantified time intervals comprising the task of antibiotic delivery and evaluated the association between interval delays and hospital mortality among patients treated in the emergency department for suspected sepsis.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SETTING

Twelve hospitals in Southeastern United States from 2014 to 2017.

PATIENTS

Twenty-four thousand ninety-three encounters among 20,026 adults with suspected sepsis in 12 emergency departments.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We divided antibiotic administration into two intervals: time from emergency department triage to antibiotic order (recognition delay) and time from antibiotic order to infusion (administration delay). We used generalized linear mixed models to evaluate associations between these intervals and hospital mortality. Median time from emergency department triage to antibiotic administration was 3.4 hours (interquartile range, 2.0-6.0 hr), separated into a median recognition delay (time from emergency department triage to antibiotic order) of 2.7 hours(interquartile range, 1.5-4.7 hr) and median administration delay (time from antibiotic order to infusion) of 0.6 hours (0.3-1.2 hr). Adjusting for other risk factors, both recognition delay and administration delay were associated with mortality, but pairwise comparison with a no-delay reference group was not significant for up to 6 hours of recognition delay or up to 1.5 hours of administration delay.

CONCLUSIONS

Both recognition delays and administration delays were associated with increased hospital mortality, but only for longer delays. These results suggest that both metrics may be important to measure and improve for patients with suspected sepsis but do not support targets less than 1 hour.