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

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Implementation Science
Published in: Implementation Science 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Study protocol

The German Quality Network Sepsis: study protocol for the evaluation of a quality collaborative on decreasing sepsis-related mortality in a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences design

Authors: Daniel Schwarzkopf, Hendrik Rüddel, Matthias Gründling, Christian Putensen, Konrad Reinhart

Published in: Implementation Science | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

While sepsis-related mortality decreased substantially in other developed countries, mortality of severe sepsis remained as high as 44% in Germany. A recent German cluster randomized trial was not able to improve guideline adherence and decrease sepsis-related mortality within the participating hospitals, partly based on lacking support by hospital management and lacking resources for documentation of prospective data. Thus, more pragmatic approaches are needed to improve quality of sepsis care in Germany. The primary objective of the study is to decrease sepsis-related hospital mortality within a quality collaborative relying on claims data.

Method

The German Quality Network Sepsis (GQNS) is a quality collaborative involving 75 hospitals. This study protocol describes the conduction and evaluation of the start-up period of the GQNS running from March 2016 to August 2018. Democratic structures assure participatory action, a study coordination bureau provides central support and resources, and local interdisciplinary quality improvement teams implement changes within the participating hospitals. Quarterly quality reports focusing on risk-adjusted hospital mortality in cases with sepsis based on claims data are provided. Hospitals committed to publish their individual risk-adjusted mortality compared to the German average. A complex risk-model is used to control for differences in patient-related risk factors. Hospitals are encouraged to implement a bundle of interventions, e.g., interdisciplinary case analyses, external peer-reviews, hospital-wide staff education, and implementation of rapid response teams. The effectiveness of the GQNS is evaluated in a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences design by comparing the change of hospital mortality of cases with sepsis with organ dysfunction from a retrospective baseline period (January 2014 to December 2015) and the intervention period (April 2016 to March 2018) between the participating hospitals and all other German hospitals. Structural and process quality indicators of sepsis care as well as efforts for quality improvement are monitored regularly.

Discussion

The GQNS is a large-scale quality collaborative using a pragmatic approach based on claims data. A complex risk-adjustment model allows valid quality comparisons between hospitals and with the German average. If this study finds the approach to be useful for improving quality of sepsis care, it may also be applied to other diseases.

Trial registration

Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3). JAMA-J Am Med Assoc. 2016;315(8):801–10.CrossRef
3.
4.
5.
Fleischmann C, Scherag A, Adhikari NKJ, et al. Assessment of global incidence and mortality of hospital-treated sepsis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;193(3):259–72.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Torio CM, Moore BJ. National inpatient hospital costs: the most expensive conditions by payer, 2013. Internet. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2016.
7.
8.
Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(2):165–228.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Ferrer R, Artigas A, Suarez D, et al. Effectiveness of treatments for severe sepsis a prospective, multicenter, observational study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2009;180(9):861–6.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Ferrer R, Martin-Loeches I, Phillips G, et al. Empiric antibiotic treatment reduces mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock from the first hour: results from a guideline-based performance improvement program. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(8):1749–55.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Gaieski DF, Mikkelsen ME, Band RA, et al. Impact of time to antibiotics on survival in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock in whom early goal-directed therapy was initiated in the emergency department. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(4):1045–53.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Bloos F, Thomas-Ruddel D, Ruddel H, et al. Impact of compliance with infection management guidelines on outcome in patients with severe sepsis: a prospective observational multi-center study. Crit Care. 2014;18(2):R42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Kumar A, Roberts D, Wood KE, et al. Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(6):1589–96.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Levy MM, Artigas A, Phillips GS, et al. Outcomes of the surviving sepsis campaign in intensive care units in the USA and Europe: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012;12(12):919-24.
15.
Levy MM, Rhodes A, Phillips GS, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: association between performance metrics and outcomes in a 7.5-year study. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(1):3–12.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Seymour CW, Gesten F, Prescott HC, et al. Time to treatment and mortality during mandated emergency care for sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(23):2235–44.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Burrell AR, McLaws ML, Fullick M, et al. SEPSIS KILLS: early intervention saves lives. Med J Aust. 2016;204(2):73.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Miller RR, Dong L, Nelson NC, et al. Multicenter implementation of a severe sepsis and septic shock treatment bundle. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;188(1):77–82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Ferrer R, Artigas A, Levy MM, et al. Improvement in process of care and outcome after a multicenter severe sepsis educational program in Spain. JAMA-J Am Med Assoc. 2008;299(19):2294–303.CrossRef
20.
Castellanos-Ortega A, Suberviola B, Garcia-Astudillo LA, et al. Impact of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign protocols on hospital length of stay and mortality in septic shock patients: results of a three-year follow-up quasi-experimental study. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(4):1036–43.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Noritomi DT, Ranzani OT, Monteiro MB, et al. Implementation of a multifaceted sepsis education program in an emerging country setting: clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness in a long-term follow-up study. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40(2):182–91.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Scheer CS, Fuchs C, Kuhn S-O, et al. Quality improvement initiative for severe sepsis and septic shock reduces 90-day mortality: a 7.5-year observational study. Crit Care Med. 2016; Publish Ahead of Print
23.
Damiani E, Donati A, Serafini G, et al. Effect of performance improvement programs on compliance with sepsis bundles and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0125827.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Fleischmann C, Thomas–Rueddel DO, Hartmann M, et al. Fallzahlen und Sterblichkeitsraten von Sepsis-Patienten im Krankenhaus. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2016;113(10):159-166.
25.
Kaukonen KM, Bailey M, Suzuki S, et al. Mortality related to severe sepsis and septic shock among critically III patients in Australia and New Zealand, 2000-2012. JAMA-J Am Med Assoc. 2014;311(13):1308–16.CrossRef
26.
Shankar-Hari M, Harrison DA, Rowan KM. 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; Publish Ahead of Print
27.
Lagu T, Rothberg MB, Shieh MS, et al. Hospitalizations, costs, and outcomes of severe sepsis in the United States 2003 to 2007. Crit Care Med. 2012;40(3):754–61.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Engel C, Brunkhorst FM, Bone HG, et al. Epidemiology of sepsis in Germany: results from a national prospective multicenter study. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33(4):606–18.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Bloos F, Rüddel H, Thomas-Rüddel D, et al. Effect of a multifaceted educational intervention for anti-infectious measures on sepsis mortality: a cluster randomized trial. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(11):1602–12.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Matthaeus-Kraemer CT, Thomas-Rueddel DO, Schwarzkopf D, et al. Barriers and supportive conditions to improve quality of care for critically ill patients: a team approach to quality improvement. J Crit Care. 2015;30(4):685–91.CrossRefPubMed
31.
32.
Iezzoni LI. Risk adjustment. In: Smith PC, Mossialos E, Papanicolas I, Leatherman S, editors. Performance measurement for health system improvement: experiences, challenges and prospects. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2009. p. 251–85.
33.
Nimptsch U, Mansky T. Quality measurement combined with peer review improved German in-hospital mortality rates for four diseases. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(9):1616–23.CrossRef
34.
Ogrinc G, Davies L, Goodman D, et al. SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;
35.
Schouten LMT, Hulscher M, van Everdingen JJE, et al. Evidence for the impact of quality improvement collaboratives: systematic review. Br Med J. 2008;336(7659):1491.CrossRef
36.
Schouten LM, Hulscher ME, van Everdingen JJ, et al. Evidence for the impact of quality improvement collaboratives: systematic review. BMJ. 2008;336(7659):1491–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Hulscher M, Schouten LMT, Grol R, et al. Determinants of success of quality improvement collaboratives: what does the literature show? BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22(1):19–31.CrossRefPubMed
38.
39.
Brook RH, McGlynn EA, Cleary PD. Quality of health care .2. Measuring quality of care. N Engl J Med. 1996;335(13):966–70.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Duckers MLA, Spreeuwenberg P, Wagner C, et al. Exploring the black box of quality improvement collaboratives: modelling relations between conditions, applied changes and outcomes. Implement Sci. 2009;4:12.CrossRef
41.
42.
Kaplan HC, Brady PW, Dritz MC, et al. The influence of context on quality improvement success in health care: a systematic review of the literature. Milbank Q. 2010;88(4):500–59.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Bone RC, Balk RA, Cerra FB, et al. American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine consensus conference: definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for use of innovative therapies in sepsis. Crit Care Med. 1992;20(6):864–74.CrossRef
44.
Krumholz HM, Wang Y, Mattera JA, et al. An administrative claims model suitable for profiling hospital performance based on 30-day mortality rates among patients with an acute myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2006;113(13):1683–92.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Krumholz HM, Lin Z, Drye EE, et al. An administrative claims measure suitable for profiling hospital performance based on 30-day all-cause readmission rates among patients with acute myocardial infarction. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2011;4(2):243–52.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
46.
Bratzler DW, Normand SLT, Wang Y, et al. An administrative claims model for profiling hospital 30-day mortality rates for pneumonia patients. PLoS One. 2011;6(4)
47.
DeLong ER, Peterson ED, DeLong DM, et al. Comparing risk-adjustment methods for provider profiling. Stat Med. 1997;16(23):2645–64.CrossRefPubMed
48.
49.
Krumholz HM, Brindis RG, Brush JE, et al. Standards for statistical models used for public reporting of health outcomes—an American Heart Association scientific statement from the quality of care and outcomes research interdisciplinary writing group—cosponsored by the council on epidemiology and prevention and the stroke council—endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Circulation. 2006;113(3):456–62.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, et al. A new method of classifying prognostic co-morbidity in longitudinal studies—development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373–83.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, et al. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care. 1998;36(1):8–27.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Thomas-Rüddel D, Schwarzkopf D, Fleischmann C, et al. Development of a sepsis mortality prediction model for use with German hospital claims data. Intensive Care Med Exp. 2016;4(1) ESICM LIVES 2016: part two-Abstract A2504
53.
Ford DW, Goodwin AJ, Simpson AN, et al. A severe sepsis mortality prediction model and score for use with administrative data. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(2):319–27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
54.
Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Confidence-interval estimates of an index of quality performance based on logistic regression models. Stat Med. 1995;14(19):2161–72.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Christianson JB, Volmar KM, Alexander J, et al. A report card on provider report cards: current status of the health care transparency movement. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(11):1235–41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
56.
Emmert M, Hessemer S, Meszmer N, et al. Do German hospital report cards have the potential to improve the quality of care? Health Policy. 2014;118(3):386–95.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Fung CH, Lim YW, Mattke S, et al. Systematic review: the evidence that publishing patient care performance data improves quality of care. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(2):111–23.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Hafner JM, Williams SC, Koss RG, et al. The perceived impact of public reporting hospital performance data: interviews with hospital staff. Int J Qual Health Care. 2011;23(6):697–704.CrossRefPubMed
59.
Hibbard JH, Stockard J, Tusler M. Hospital performance reports: impact on quality, market share, and reputation. Health Aff (Millwood). 2005;24(4):1150–60.CrossRef
60.
Contandriopoulos D, Champagne F, Denis JL. The multiple causal pathways between performance measures’ use and effects. Med Care Res Rev. 2014;71(1):3–20.CrossRefPubMed
61.
Hogan H, Healey F, Neale G, et al. Preventable deaths due to problems in care in English acute hospitals: a retrospective case record review study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21(9):737–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
62.
Hogan H, Healey F, Neale G, et al. Learning from preventable deaths: exploring case record reviewers’ narratives using change analysis. J R Soc Med. 2014;107(9):365–75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
63.
Nguyen HB, Lynch EL, Mou JA, et al. The utility of a quality improvement bundle in bridging the gap between research and standard care in the management of severe sepsis and septic shock in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 2007;14(11):1079–86.CrossRefPubMed
64.
Wu AW, Lipshutz AM, Pronovost PJ. EFfectiveness and efficiency of root cause analysis in medicine. JAMA. 2008;299(6):685–7.CrossRefPubMed
65.
Pronovost PJ, Holzmueller CG, Martinez E, et al. A practical tool to learn from defects in patient care. Joint Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2006;32(2):102–8.CrossRef
66.
Edwards MT. A longitudinal study of clinical peer review’s impact on quality and safety in US hospitals. J Healthc Manag. 2013;58:369–84.CrossRefPubMed
67.
Rink O. Wie wir Qualität verbessern. In: Martin J, Rink O, Zacher J, editors. : Handbuch IQM; 2014.
68.
69.
Yealy DM, Kellum JA, Huang DT, et al. A randomized trial of protocol-based care for early septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(18):1683–93.CrossRefPubMed
70.
Chen J, Ou L, Flabouris A, et al. Impact of a standardized rapid response system on outcomes in a large healthcare jurisdiction. Resuscitation. 2016;107:47–56.CrossRefPubMed
71.
Iwashyna TJ, Angus DC. Declining case fatality rates for severe sepsis good data bring good news with ambiguous implications. JAMA-J Am Med Assoc. 2014;311(13):1295–7.CrossRef
72.
73.
Felsenstein M. Peer Review: Lernen auf Gegenseitigkeit. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2011;108(31–32):A-1688-A-1688.
74.
Gerber JS, Prasad PA, Fiks AG, et al. Effect of an outpatient antimicrobial stewardship intervention on broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing by primary care pediatricians a randomized trial. JAMA-J Am Med Assoc. 2013;309(22):2345–52.CrossRef
75.
Hemming K, Taljaard M. Sample size calculations for stepped wedge and cluster randomised trials: a unified approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;69:137–46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
76.
Jolley RJ, Sawka KJ, Yergens DW, et al. Validity of administrative data in recording sepsis: a systematic review. Crit Care. 2015;19:12.CrossRef
77.
Bhardwaj A, Mikkelsen ME. Sepsis quality improvement initiatives: prepare for the marathon, not the sprint. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(2):374–5.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The German Quality Network Sepsis: study protocol for the evaluation of a quality collaborative on decreasing sepsis-related mortality in a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences design
Authors
Daniel Schwarzkopf
Hendrik Rüddel
Matthias Gründling
Christian Putensen
Konrad Reinhart
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Implementation Science / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1748-5908
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0706-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Implementation Science 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research

Process evaluation of Samoa’s national salt reduction strategy (MASIMA): what interventions can be successfully replicated in lower-income countries?

Research

Improving care at scale: process evaluation of a multi-component quality improvement intervention to reduce mortality after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH trial)

Study protocol

Scale up of PrEP integrated in public health HIV care clinics: a protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized rollout in Kenya

Study protocol

Evaluating the impact of multilevel evidence-based implementation strategies to enhance provider recommendation on human papillomavirus vaccination rates among an empaneled primary care patient population: a study protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial

Research

Adapting clinical practice guidelines for diabetic retinopathy in Kenya: process and outputs

Research

A new scale for the evaluation of clinical practice guidelines applicability: development and appraisal