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
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Critical Care
Published in: Critical Care 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research

Diagnosing sepsis is subjective and highly variable: a survey of intensivists using case vignettes

Authors: Chanu Rhee, Sameer S. Kadri, Robert L. Danner, Anthony F. Suffredini, Anthony F. Massaro, Barrett T. Kitch, Grace Lee, Michael Klompas

Published in: Critical Care | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Sepsis is the focus of national quality improvement programs and a recent public reporting measure from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. However, diagnosing sepsis requires interpreting nonspecific signs and can therefore be subjective. We sought to quantify interobserver variability in diagnosing sepsis.

Methods

We distributed five case vignettes of patients with suspected or confirmed infection and organ dysfunction to a sample of practicing intensivists. Respondents classified cases as systemic inflammatory response syndrome, sepsis, severe sepsis, septic shock, or none of the above. Interobserver variability was calculated using Fleiss’ κ for the five-level classification, and for answers dichotomized as severe sepsis/septic shock versus not-severe sepsis/septic shock and any sepsis category (sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock) versus not-sepsis.

Results

Ninety-four physicians completed the survey. Most respondents (88 %) identified as critical care specialists; other specialties included pulmonology (39 %), anesthesia (19 %), surgery (9 %), and emergency medicine (9 %). Respondents had been in practice for a median of 8 years, and 90 % practiced at academic hospitals. Almost all respondents (83 %) felt strongly or somewhat confident in their ability to apply the traditional consensus sepsis definitions. However, overall interrater agreement in sepsis diagnoses was poor (Fleiss’ κ 0.29). When responses were dichotomized into severe sepsis/septic shock versus not-severe sepsis/septic shock or any sepsis category versus not-sepsis, agreement was still poor (Fleiss’ κ 0.23 and 0.18, respectively). Seventeen percent of respondents classified one of the five cases as severe sepsis/septic shock, 27.7 % rated two cases, 33.0 % respondents rated three cases, 19.2 % rated four cases, and 3.2 % rated all five cases as severe sepsis/septic shock. Among respondents who felt strongly confident in their ability to use sepsis definitions (n = 45), agreement was no better (Fleiss’ κ 0.28 for the five-category classification, and Fleiss’ κ 0.21 for the dichotomized severe sepsis/septic shock classification). Cases were felt to be extremely or very realistic in 74 % of responses; only 3 % were deemed unrealistic.

Conclusions

Diagnosing sepsis is extremely subjective and variable. Objective criteria and standardized methodology are needed to enhance consistency and comparability in sepsis research, surveillance, benchmarking, and reporting.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Minino AM, Murphy SL. Death in the United States, 2010. NCHS Data Brief. 2012;(99).
2.
3.
4.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services. Medicare program; hospital inpatient prospective payment systems for acute care hospitals and the long-term care hospital prospective payment system and fiscal year 2015 rates; quality reporting requirements for specific providers; reasonable compensation equivalents for physician services in excluded hospitals and certain teaching hospitals; provider administrative appeals and judicial review; enforcement provisions for organ transplant centers; and electronic health record (EHR) incentive program. Final rule. Fed Regist. 2014;79(163):49853–50536.
5.
6.
Shankar-Hari M, Bertolini G, Brunkhorst FM, Bellomo R, Annane D, Deutschman CS, et al. Judging quality of current septic shock definitions and criteria. Crit Care. 2015;19(1):445.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Bone RC, Balk RA, Cerra FB, Dellinger RP, Fein AM, Knaus WA, et al. Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. Chest. 1992;101(6):1644–55.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Levy MM, Fink MP, Marshall JC, Abraham E, Angus D, Cook D, et al. 2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference. Crit Care Med. 2003;31(4):1250–6.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Sands KE, Bates DW, Lanken PN, Graman PS, Hibberd PL, Kahn KL, et al. Epidemiology of sepsis syndrome in 8 academic medical centers. JAMA. 1997;278(3):234–40.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Fleiss J. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull. 1971;76(5):378–82.CrossRef
11.
Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2003.CrossRef
12.
Stevens JP, Kachniarz B, Wright SB, Gillis J, Talmor D, Clardy P, et al. When policy gets it right: variability in U.S. hospitals’ diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(3):497–503.CrossRefPubMed
13.
14.
Poeze M, Ramsay G, Gerlach H, Rubulotta F, Levy M. An international sepsis survey: a study of doctors’ knowledge and perception about sepsis. Crit Care. 2004;8(6):R409–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Dellinger RP, Carlet JM, Masur H, Gerlach H, Calandra T, Cohen J, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2004;32(3):858–73.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Carlet JM, Bion J, Parker MM, Jaeschke R, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008. Crit Care Med. 2008;36(1):296–327.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, Annane D, Gerlach H, Opal SM, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(2):580–637.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Weiss SL, Fitzgerald JC, Maffei FA, Kane JM, Rodriguez-Nunez A, Hsing DD, et al. Discordant identification of pediatric severe sepsis by research and clinical definitions in the SPROUT international point prevalence study. Crit Care. 2015;19:325.
19.
Brown T, Ghelani-Allen A, Yeung D, Nguyen HB. Comparative effectiveness of physician diagnosis and guideline definitions in identifying sepsis patients in the emergency department. J Crit Care. 2015;30(1):71–7.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801–10.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Rhee C, Murphy MV, Li L, Platt R, Klompas M, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Epicenters Program. Comparison of trends in sepsis incidence and coding using administrative claims versus objective clinical data. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;60(1):88–95.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Rhee C, Murphy MV, Li L, Platt R, Klompas M, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Epicenters Program. Improving documentation and coding for acute organ dysfunction biases estimates of changing sepsis severity and burden: a retrospective study. Crit Care. 2015;19:338.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Rhee C, Kadri S, Huang SS, Murphy MV, Li L, Platt R, et al. Objective sepsis surveillance using electronic clinical data. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016;37(2):163–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Klompas M. Complications of mechanical ventilation—the CDC’s new surveillance paradigm. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(16):1472–5.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Rohde JM, Odden AJ, Bonham C, Kuhn L, Malani PN, Chen LM, et al. The epidemiology of acute organ system dysfunction from severe sepsis outside of the intensive care unit. J Hosp Med. 2013;8(5):243–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Iwashyna TJ, Odden A, Rohde J, Bonham C, Kuhn L, Malani P, et al. Identifying patients with severe sepsis using administrative claims: patient-level validation of the Angus implementation of the international consensus conference definition of severe sepsis. Med Care. 2014;52(6):e39–43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Whittaker SA, Mikkelsen ME, Gaieski DF, Koshy S, Kean C, Fuchs BD. Severe sepsis cohorts derived from claims-based strategies appear to be biased toward a more severely ill patient population. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(4):945–53.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Diagnosing sepsis is subjective and highly variable: a survey of intensivists using case vignettes
Authors
Chanu Rhee
Sameer S. Kadri
Robert L. Danner
Anthony F. Suffredini
Anthony F. Massaro
Barrett T. Kitch
Grace Lee
Michael Klompas
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Critical Care / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1364-8535
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-016-1266-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Critical Care 1/2016 Go to the issue

Research

Identification of regional overdistension, recruitment and cyclic alveolar collapse with electrical impedance tomography in an experimental ARDS model

Editorial

Fecal microbiota transplantation for multiple organ dysfunction syndrome

Research

Early identification of sepsis in hospital inpatients by ward nurses increases 30-day survival

Research

Characteristics and risk factors for 28-day mortality of hospital acquired fungemias in ICUs: data from the EUROBACT study

Research

Prediction of functional outcome in patients with convulsive status epilepticus: the END-IT score

Erratum

Erratum to: ‘Measuring energy expenditure in the intensive care unit: a comparison of indirect calorimetry by E-sCOVX and Quark RMR with Deltatrac II in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients’