Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

ACC 2024 Congress

Catch up on all the top stories and latest evidence in cardiology research with our ACC 2024 Congress hub page.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine 4/2020

01-04-2020 | Septicemia

Adherence to the SEP-1 Sepsis Bundle in Hospital-Onset v. Community-Onset Sepsis: a Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study

Authors: Jonathan D. Baghdadi, MD, PhD, Mitchell D. Wong, MD, PhD, Daniel Z. Uslan, MD, MBA, Douglas Bell, MD, PhD, William E. Cunningham, MD, MPH, Jack Needleman, PhD, Russell Kerbel, MD, Robert Brook, MD, ScD

Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Issue 4/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Sepsis is the leading cause of in-hospital death. The SEP-1 sepsis bundle is a protocol for early sepsis care that requires providers to diagnose and treat sepsis quickly. Limited evidence suggests that adherence to the sepsis bundle is lower in cases of hospital-onset sepsis.

Objective

To compare sepsis bundle adherence in hospital-onset vs. community-onset sepsis.

Design

Retrospective cohort study using multivariable analysis of clinical data.

Participants

A total of 4658 inpatients age 18 or older were identified by diagnosis codes consistent with sepsis or disseminated infection.

Setting

Four university hospitals in California between 2014 and 2016.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was adherence to key components of the sepsis bundle defined by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in their core measure, SEP-1. Covariates included clinical characteristics related to the patient, infection, and pathogen.

Key Results

Compared with community-onset, cases of hospital-onset sepsis were less likely to receive SEP-1 adherent care (relative risk 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.29–0.38, p < 0.001). With the exception of vasopressors (RR 1.11, p = 0.002), each component of SEP-1 evaluated—blood cultures (RR 0.76, p < 0.001), serum lactate (RR 0.51, p < 0001), broad-spectrum antibiotics (RR 0.62, p < 0.001), intravenous fluids (0.47, p < 0.001), and follow-up lactate (RR 0.71, p < 0.001)—was less likely to be performed within the recommended time frame in hospital-onset sepsis. Within the hospital, cases of hospital-onset sepsis arising on the ward were less likely to receive SEP-1-adherent care than were cases arising in the intensive care unit (RR 0.68, p = 0.004).

Conclusions

Inpatients with hospital-onset sepsis receive different management than individuals with community-onset sepsis. It remains to be determined whether system-level factors, provider-level factors, or factors related to measurement explain the observed variation in care or whether variation in care affects outcomes.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Mayr, F.B., S. Yende, and D.C. Angus, Epidemiology of severe sepsis. Virulence, 2014. 5(1): p. 4–11.PubMedCrossRef
2.
3.
Novosad, S.A., Vital signs: epidemiology of sepsis: prevalence of health care factors and opportunities for prevention. MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report, 2016. 65.
4.
5.
Jones, S.L., et al., Outcomes and Resource Use of Sepsis-associated Stays by Presence on Admission, Severity, and Hospital Type. Med Care, 2016. 54(3): p. 303–10.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
7.
Paoli, C.J., et al., Epidemiology and Costs of Sepsis in the United States-An Analysis Based on Timing of Diagnosis and Severity Level. Critical care medicine, 2018. 46(12): p. 1889–1897.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
8.
Seymour, C.W., et al., Time to Treatment and Mortality during Mandated Emergency Care for Sepsis. New England Journal of Medicine, 2017. 376(23): p. 2235–2244.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Odden, A.J., et al., A Systematic Assessment of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign's Evidence Supporting the Care of Patients with Severe Sepsis on the Wards. Ann Am Thorac Soc, 2015. 12(6): p. 956–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
10.
Rhee, C., et al., Compliance With the National SEP-1 Quality Measure and Association With Sepsis Outcomes: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study. Crit Care Med, 2018. 46(10): p. 1585–1591.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
11.
Milano, P.K., et al., Sepsis Bundle Adherence Is Associated with Improved Survival in Severe Sepsis or Septic Shock. West J Emerg Med, 2018. 19(5): p. 774–781.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
12.
Dellinger, R.P., et al., Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012. Crit Care Med, 2013. 41(2): p. 580–637.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Commission, J., Specifications manual for national hospital inpatient quality measures. Version 5.2, 2017.
14.
15.
Venkatesh, A.K., et al., Preliminary Performance on the New CMS Sepsis-1 National Quality Measure: Early Insights From the Emergency Quality Network (E-QUAL). Ann Emerg Med, 2017.
16.
17.
Rhodes, A., et al., The Surviving Sepsis Campaign bundles and outcome: results from the International Multicentre Prevalence Study on Sepsis (the IMPreSS study). Intensive Care Med, 2015. 41(9): p. 1620–8.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Singer, M., et al., The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA, 2016. 315.
19.
Elixhauser, A., et al., Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Medical care, 1998. 36(1): p. 8–27.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Moore, B.J., et al., Identifying Increased Risk of Readmission and In-hospital Mortality Using Hospital Administrative Data: The AHRQ Elixhauser Comorbidity Index. Med Care, 2017. 55(7): p. 698–705.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Martin, G.S., et al., The epidemiology of sepsis in the United States from 1979 through 2000. New England Journal of Medicine, 2003. 348(16): p. 1546–1554.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Lagu, T., et al., What is the best method for estimating the burden of severe sepsis in the United States? J Crit Care, 2012. 27(4): p. 414.e1–9.CrossRef
23.
Kumar, G., et al., Nationwide trends of severe sepsis in the 21st century (2000-2007). Chest, 2011. 140(5): p. 1223–1231.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Stoller, J., et al., Epidemiology of severe sepsis: 2008-2012. J Crit Care, 2015.
25.
Zou, G., A Modified Poisson Regression Approach to Prospective Studies with Binary Data. American Journal of Epidemiology, 2004. 159(7): p. 702–706.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Seymour, C.W., et al., Derivation, Validation, and Potential Treatment Implications of Novel Clinical Phenotypes for Sepsis. JAMA, 2019. 321(20): p. 2003–2017.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
27.
Mahajan, A., et al., A hospital is not just a factory, but a complex adaptive system—implications for perioperative care. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 2017. 125(1): p. 333–341.CrossRef
28.
Nugus, P., et al., Integrated care in the emergency department: A complex adaptive systems perspective. Social Science & Medicine, 2010. 71(11): p. 1997–2004.CrossRef
29.
Durning, S.J., et al., The impact of selected contextual factors on experts’ clinical reasoning performance (does context impact clinical reasoning performance in experts?). Advances in Health Sciences Education, 2012. 17(1): p. 65–79.PubMedCrossRef
30.
McBee, E., et al., Consequences of contextual factors on clinical reasoning in resident physicians. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract, 2015. 20(5): p. 1225–36.PubMedCrossRef
31.
32.
Pepper, D.J., et al., Evidence Underpinning the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Management Bundle (SEP-1): A Systematic Review. Ann Intern Med, 2018. 168(8): p. 558–568.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Miguel, N., et al., Sepsis-related organ failure assessment and withholding or withdrawing life support from critically ill patients. Critical care (London, England), 1998. 2(2): p. 61–66.CrossRef
34.
Torsvik, M., et al., Early identification of sepsis in hospital inpatients by ward nurses increases 30-day survival. Critical Care, 2016. 20(1): p. 244.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
35.
Bruce, H.R., et al., Impact of nurse-initiated ED sepsis protocol on compliance with sepsis bundles, time to initial antibiotic administration, and in-hospital mortality. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 2015. 41(2): p. 130–137.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Sochalski, J., Is More Better?: The Relationship Between Nurse Staffing and the Quality of Nursing Care in Hospitals. Medical Care, 2004. 42(2): p. II-67-II-73.
37.
Lucero, R.J., E.T. Lake, and L.H. Aiken, Variations in nursing care quality across hospitals. Journal of advanced nursing, 2009. 65(11): p. 2299–2310.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
38.
Shankar-Hari, M., D.A. Harrison, and K.M. Rowan, Differences in Impact of Definitional Elements on Mortality Precludes International Comparisons of Sepsis Epidemiology-A Cohort Study Illustrating the Need for Standardized Reporting. Crit Care Med, 2016. 44(12): p. 2223–2230.PubMedCrossRef
39.
40.
Rhodes, A., et al., Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016. Intensive Care Medicine, 2017. 43(3): p. 304–377.PubMedCrossRef
41.
42.
Aaronson, E.L., et al., New Mandated Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Requirements for Sepsis Reporting: Caution from the Field. J Emerg Med, 2017. 52(1): p. 109–116.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Gonet, J., et al., Interrate Reliability for SEP-1 Abstraction in a Multihospital Medical Center. Critical Care Medicine, 2016. 44(12): p. 96.CrossRef
44.
Rhee, C., et al., Variability in determining sepsis time zero and bundle compliance rates for the centers for medicare and medicaid services SEP-1 measure. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 2018. 39(8): p. 994–996.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Adherence to the SEP-1 Sepsis Bundle in Hospital-Onset v. Community-Onset Sepsis: a Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study
Authors
Jonathan D. Baghdadi, MD, PhD
Mitchell D. Wong, MD, PhD
Daniel Z. Uslan, MD, MBA
Douglas Bell, MD, PhD
William E. Cunningham, MD, MPH
Jack Needleman, PhD
Russell Kerbel, MD
Robert Brook, MD, ScD
Publication date
01-04-2020
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine / Issue 4/2020
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Electronic ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-05653-0

Other articles of this Issue 4/2020

Journal of General Internal Medicine 4/2020 Go to the issue

Capsule Commentary

Capsule Commentary on Butler et al., “Ethical concerns in the care of patients with advanced kidney disease: a national retrospective study, 2000-2011”

Capsule Commentary

Capsule Commentary on Gunn et al. “Acceptability of an Interactive Computer-Animated Agent to Promote Patient-Provider Communication about Breast Density: a Mixed-Methods Pilot Study”

OriginalPaper

Time and Organizational Cost for Facilitating Implementation of Primary Care Mental Health Integration

Original Research

A Novel Approach to Characterizing Readmission Patterns Following Hospitalization for Ambulatory Care-Sensitive Conditions

Capsule Commentary

Capsule Commentary on Nevedal et al. “Factors Influencing Primary Care Providers’ Unneeded Lumbar Spine MRI Orders for Acute, Uncomplicated Low-Back Pain: a Qualitative Study Use of Patient Decision”

Original Research

Individual vs. Group Delivery of Acupuncture Therapy for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain in Urban Primary Care—a Randomized Trial

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Cardiology Video

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Watch now

Watch official videos from the ACC congress summarizing key highlights from the last year in heart failure, cardiomyopathies, valvular disease, pulmonary vascular disease, and pediatric cardiology.

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

16-04-2024 Type 2 Diabetes News

Incentivised to exercise

11-04-2024 Lifestyle Modifications News

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

10-04-2024 Myocardial Infarction News

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page

Image Credits