Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37644973›Full record

ArticleCritical care explorations2023

Sepsis-2.5: Resolving Conflicts Between Payers and Providers.

Howard Rodenberg, Theodore Glasser, Alison Bartfield, Shalika Katugaha

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care explorations, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Howard RodenbergDepartments of Clinical Documentation Integrity and Internal Medicine, Baptist Health, Jacksonville, FL.
Theodore GlasserDepartments of Clinical Documentation Integrity and Internal Medicine, Baptist Health, Jacksonville, FL.
Alison BartfieldDepartments of Clinical Documentation Integrity and Internal Medicine, Baptist Health, Jacksonville, FL.
Shalika KatugahaDepartments of Clinical Documentation Integrity and Internal Medicine, Baptist Health, Jacksonville, FL.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Competing definitions of sepsis have significant clinical implications and impact both medical coding and hospital payment. Although clinicians may prefer Sepsis-2, payer use of Sepsis-3 to validate clinical diagnoses may result in denial of payment or requests to recoup previously paid funds from healthcare providers. The Sepsis-2.5 project was a cooperative effort between a hospital system and a private payer to develop a community-based, literature-supported consensus definition for sepsis characterized by the presence of clinical illness, a source of infection, and evidence of organ dysfunction. This new definition ("Sepsis-2.5") has been instrumental in resolving provider-payer conflicts in defining clinical sepsis and reimbursing care.

Indexed as

clinical codingdiagnosis-related groupsdocumentationfinancial managementhospitalssepsis

Identifiers

PMID37644973
PMCPMC10462079

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.