Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29236094›Full record

ArticleJournal of hospital medicine2017

Hospital Perceptions of Medicare's Sepsis Quality Reporting Initiative.

Ian J Barbash, Kimberly J Rak, Courtney C Kuza, Jeremy M Kahn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of hospital medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Keeping It Simple in Sepsis Measures.Journal of hospital medicine · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ian J BarbashDivision of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Kimberly J RakCRISMA Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Courtney C KuzaCRISMA Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Jeremy M KahnDivision of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. kahnjm@upmc.edu.

Funding

Translational Training Program in Pulmonary Biology and MedicineT32HL007563 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI Melanie Koenigshoff · 1985 to 2026
$12.3M
Patient Oriented Research and Mentoring in Critical Care Implementation ScienceK24HL133444 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI KAHN, JEREMY M · 2016 to 2018
$348k
The impact of variation in the ICU bed supply on utilization of intensive care servicesF32HL132461 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI BARBASH, IAN · 2016 to 2017
$108k
NHLBI NIH HHS F32 HL132461NHLBI NIH HHS K24 HL133444NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007563
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn October 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented the Sepsis CMS Core Measure (SEP-1) program, requiring hospitals to report data on the quality of care for their patients with sepsis.

objectiveWe sought to understand hospital perceptions of and responses to the SEP-1 program.

designA thematic content analysis of semistructured interviews with hospital quality officials.

settingA stratified random sample of short-stay, nonfederal, general acute care hospitals in the United States. PATIENTS: Hospital quality officers, including nurses and physicians. MEASUREMENTS: We completed 29 interviews before reaching content saturation.

resultsHospitals reported a variety of actions in response to SEP-1, including new efforts to collect data, improve sepsis diagnosis and treatment, and manage clinicians' attitudes toward SEP-1. These efforts frequently required dedicated resources to meet the program's requirements for treatment and documentation, which were thought to be complex and not consistently linked to patient-centered outcomes. Most respondents felt that SEP-1 was likely to improve sepsis outcomes. At the same time, they described specific changes that could improve its effectiveness, including allowing hospitals to focus on the treatment processes most directly associated with improved patient outcomes and better aligning the measure's sepsis definitions with current clinical definitions.

conclusionsHospitals are responding to the SEP-1 program across a number of domains and in ways that consistently require dedicated resources. Hospitals are interested in further revisions to the program to alleviate the burden of the reporting requirements and help them optimize the effectiveness of their investments in quality-improvement efforts.

Indexed as

PerceptionClinical ProtocolsHospitalsHumansInterviews as TopicMedicareOutcome Assessment, Health CarePhysiciansQuality Indicators, Health CareResource AllocationSepsisUnited States

Identifiers

PMID29236094
PMCPMC5830093

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.