ArticleJournal of hospital medicine2017
Hospital Perceptions of Medicare's Sepsis Quality Reporting Initiative.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Barriers and facilitators to optimal sepsis care - a systematized review of healthcare professionals' perspectives.BMC health services research · 2025Review
- Developing a shared sepsis data infrastructure: a systematic review and concept map to FHIR.NPJ digital medicine · 2022Article
- Improving Compliance with the CMS SEP-1 Sepsis Bundle at a Community-Based Teaching Hospital Emergency Department.Spartan medical research journal · 2022Article
- A Roadmap for Successful State Sepsis Regulations-Lessons From New York.Critical care explorations · 2021Article
- Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes After the Introduction of the Medicare Sepsis Performance Measure (SEP-1).Annals of internal medicine · 2021Article
- US Hospital Capacity Managers' Experiences and Concerns Regarding Preparedness for Seasonal Influenza and Influenza-like Illness.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- Economic Analysis of Mandated Protocolized Sepsis Care in New York Hospitals.Critical care medicine · 2020Article
- A systematic review and meta-synthesis of policy intervention characteristics that influence the implementation of government-directed policy in the hospital setting: implications for infection prevention and control.Journal of infection prevention · 2020Review
- Driving blind: instituting SEP-1 without high quality outcomes data.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Review
- Sepsis quality in safety-net hospitals: An analysis of Medicare's SEP-1 performance measure.Journal of critical care · 2019Article
- National Performance on the Medicare SEP-1 Sepsis Quality Measure.Critical care medicine · 2019Article
- Variability in determining sepsis time zero and bundle compliance rates for the centers for medicare and medicaid services SEP-1 measure.Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2018Article
- Keeping It Simple in Sepsis Measures.Journal of hospital medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.