Compliance with SEP-1 guidelines is associated with improved outcomes for septic shock but not for severe sepsis.

Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services Early goal-directed therapy Quality improvement Reimbursement SEP-1 Sepsis

Journal

Journal of intensive medicine
ISSN: 2667-100X
Titre abrégé: J Intensive Med
Pays: China
ID NLM: 9918539389006676

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jul 2022
Historique:
received: 21 10 2021
revised: 11 03 2022
accepted: 13 03 2022
entrez: 15 2 2023
pubmed: 16 2 2023
medline: 16 2 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

In 2018, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) issued a protocol for the treatment of sepsis. This bundle protocol, titled SEP-1 is a multicomponent 3 h and 6 h resuscitation treatment for patients with the diagnosis of either severe sepsis or septic shock. The SEP-1 bundle includes antibiotic administration, fluid bolus, blood cultures, lactate measurement, vasopressors for fluid-refractory hypotension, and a reevaluation of volume status. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with either severe sepsis or septic shock comparing mortality outcomes based on compliance with the updated SEP-1 bundle at a rural community hospital. Mortality outcome and readmission data were extracted from an electronic medical records database from January 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020. International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes were used to identify patients with either severe sepsis or septic shock. Once identified, patients were separated into four populations: patients with severe sepsis who met SEP-1, patients with severe sepsis who failed SEP-1, patients with septic shock who met SEP-1, and patients with septic shock who failed SEP-1. A patient who met bundle criteria (SEP-1 criteria) received each component of the bundle in the time allotted. Using chi-squared test of homogeneity, mortality outcomes for population proportions were investigated. Two sample proportion summary hypothesis test and 95% confidence intervals (CI) determined significance in mortality outcomes. Out of our 1122 patient population, 437 patients qualified to be measured by CMS criteria. Of the 437 patients, 195 met the treatment bundle and 242 failed the treatment bundle. Upon comparing the two groups, we found the probable difference in mortality rate between the met(14.87%) and failed bundle(27.69%) groups to be significant(95% CI: 5.28-20.34, This study shows that with septic shock obtained a benefit, decreased mortality, when the SEP-1 bundle was met. However, meeting the SEP-1 bundle had no benefit for patients who had the diagnosis of severe sepsis alone. The significant difference in mortality, found between the met and failed bundle groups, is primarily due to the number of patients with septic shock, and whether or not those patients with septic shock met or failed the bundle.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
In 2018, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) issued a protocol for the treatment of sepsis. This bundle protocol, titled SEP-1 is a multicomponent 3 h and 6 h resuscitation treatment for patients with the diagnosis of either severe sepsis or septic shock. The SEP-1 bundle includes antibiotic administration, fluid bolus, blood cultures, lactate measurement, vasopressors for fluid-refractory hypotension, and a reevaluation of volume status. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with either severe sepsis or septic shock comparing mortality outcomes based on compliance with the updated SEP-1 bundle at a rural community hospital.
Methods UNASSIGNED
Mortality outcome and readmission data were extracted from an electronic medical records database from January 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020. International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes were used to identify patients with either severe sepsis or septic shock. Once identified, patients were separated into four populations: patients with severe sepsis who met SEP-1, patients with severe sepsis who failed SEP-1, patients with septic shock who met SEP-1, and patients with septic shock who failed SEP-1. A patient who met bundle criteria (SEP-1 criteria) received each component of the bundle in the time allotted. Using chi-squared test of homogeneity, mortality outcomes for population proportions were investigated. Two sample proportion summary hypothesis test and 95% confidence intervals (CI) determined significance in mortality outcomes.
Results UNASSIGNED
Out of our 1122 patient population, 437 patients qualified to be measured by CMS criteria. Of the 437 patients, 195 met the treatment bundle and 242 failed the treatment bundle. Upon comparing the two groups, we found the probable difference in mortality rate between the met(14.87%) and failed bundle(27.69%) groups to be significant(95% CI: 5.28-20.34,
Conclusion UNASSIGNED
This study shows that with septic shock obtained a benefit, decreased mortality, when the SEP-1 bundle was met. However, meeting the SEP-1 bundle had no benefit for patients who had the diagnosis of severe sepsis alone. The significant difference in mortality, found between the met and failed bundle groups, is primarily due to the number of patients with septic shock, and whether or not those patients with septic shock met or failed the bundle.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36789014
doi: 10.1016/j.jointm.2022.03.003
pii: S2667-100X(22)00040-8
pmc: PMC9924005
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

167-172

Informations de copyright

© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Chinese Medical Association.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

All authors have declared no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Références

N Engl J Med. 2001 Nov 8;345(19):1368-77
pubmed: 11794169
J Emerg Med. 2018 Dec;55(6):751-757
pubmed: 30253948
Crit Care Med. 2018 Oct;46(10):1585-1591
pubmed: 30015667
JAMA. 2014 Apr 2;311(13):1308-16
pubmed: 24638143
N Engl J Med. 2003 Jan 9;348(2):138-50
pubmed: 12519925
J Thorac Dis. 2020 Feb;12(Suppl 1):S22-S36
pubmed: 32148923
N Engl J Med. 2014 Oct 16;371(16):1496-506
pubmed: 25272316
Crit Care Med. 2013 Feb;41(2):580-637
pubmed: 23353941
Crit Care Med. 2018 Oct;46(10):1689-1690
pubmed: 30216302
J Rural Health. 2019 Sep;35(4):490-497
pubmed: 30488590
Crit Care Med. 2004 Mar;32(3):858-73
pubmed: 15090974
Intensive Care Med. 2017 Mar;43(3):304-377
pubmed: 28101605
Crit Care Med. 2008 Jan;36(1):296-327
pubmed: 18158437
N Engl J Med. 2014 May 1;370(18):1683-93
pubmed: 24635773
N Engl J Med. 2015 Apr 2;372(14):1301-11
pubmed: 25776532
Crit Care Med. 2001 Jul;29(7):1303-10
pubmed: 11445675
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10
pubmed: 26903338
Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2020 Dec 24;2020:6681073
pubmed: 33425215
J Crit Care. 2019 Dec;54:88-93
pubmed: 31400737
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019 Oct 31;6(10):ofz408
pubmed: 31687417
Am J Med Qual. 2020 Mar/Apr;35(2):110-116
pubmed: 31226883
Ann Emerg Med. 2018 Jan;71(1):10-15.e1
pubmed: 28789803
Intensive Care Med. 2003 Apr;29(4):530-8
pubmed: 12664219
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):775-87
pubmed: 26903336
Chest. 1992 Jun;101(6):1644-55
pubmed: 1303622
Am J Emerg Med. 2020 May;38(5):879-882
pubmed: 31301874
Hosp Pharm. 2017 Mar;52(3):177-186
pubmed: 28439131

Auteurs

Shelly N B Sloan (SNB)

Department of Primary Care, College of Medicine, Kansas City University, 2901St. Johns Blvd., Joplin, MO 64804, USA.

Nate Rodriguez (N)

Department of Primary Care, College of Medicine, Kansas City University, 2901St. Johns Blvd., Joplin, MO 64804, USA.

Thomas Seward (T)

Department of Primary Care, College of Medicine, Kansas City University, 2901St. Johns Blvd., Joplin, MO 64804, USA.

Lucy Sare (L)

Department of Primary Care, College of Medicine, Kansas City University, 2901St. Johns Blvd., Joplin, MO 64804, USA.

Lukas Moore (L)

Department of Primary Care, College of Medicine, Kansas City University, 2901St. Johns Blvd., Joplin, MO 64804, USA.

Greg Stahl (G)

Department of Quality Improvement, Freeman Health System, Joplin, MO 64804, USA.

Kerry Johnson (K)

Department of Mathematics, Missouri Southern State University, Joplin, MO 64801, USA.

Scott Goade (S)

Department of Pharmacy, Freeman Health System, Joplin, MO 64804, USA.

Robert Arnce (R)

Department of Primary Care, College of Medicine, Kansas City University, 2901St. Johns Blvd., Joplin, MO 64804, USA.

Classifications MeSH