Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37773067›Full record

ArticleTrials2023

Assessment of implementation methods in sepsis: study protocol for a cluster-randomized hybrid type 2 trial.

Hannah E Frank, Laura Evans, Gary Phillips, RPhillip Dellinger, Jessyca Goldstein, Lori Harmon, David Portelli, Nima Sarani, Christa Schorr, Kathleen M Terry and 2 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05491941 (Assessment for Implementation Methods in Sepsis), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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.

NCT05491941 narecruitingnot on this map

Assessment for Implementation Methods in Sepsis

TypeinterventionalSponsorRhode Island HospitalRan2022 to 2027Enrolled10,000ConditionsSepsis Severe, Septic ShockArmsSepsis Bundle
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. What Can We Learn from Differences in Hospitals' Sepsis Care?American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

12 authors.

Hannah E FrankDepartment of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Laura EvansDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Gary PhillipsBiostatistical Consultant, Center for Biostatistics, The Ohio State University, Retired From, Columbus, OH, USA.
RPhillip DellingerCritical Care Division, Cooper University Health Care, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, NJ, USA.
Jessyca GoldsteinDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Lori HarmonSociety of Critical Care Medicine, Mount Prospect, IL, USA.
David PortelliDepartment of Emergency Medicine, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Nima SaraniDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Kansas Health System, Kansas City, KS, USA.
Christa SchorrCooper Research Institute, Cooper University Health Care, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, NJ, USA.
Kathleen M TerryLightning Strategies LLC (WOSB), New York, NY, USA.
Sean R TownsendCalifornia Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Mitchell M LevyDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. Mitchell_Levy@brown.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8556-2405

Funding

Assessment of Implementation Methods in Sepsis and Respiratory FailureR01HL162954 · NHLBI · RHODE ISLAND HOSPITAL · PI Mitchell M Levy · 2022 to 2026
$3.4M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL162954
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSepsis is the leading cause of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and ICU death. In recognition of the burden of sepsis, the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement developed sepsis "bundles" (goals to accomplish over a specific time period) to facilitate SSC guideline implementation in clinical practice. Using the SSC 3-h bundle as a base, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services developed a 3-h sepsis bundle that has become the national standard for early management of sepsis. Emerging observational data, from an analysis conducted for the AIMS grant application, suggest there may be additional mortality benefit from even earlier implementation of the 3-h bundle, i.e., the 1-h bundle.

methodThe primary aims of this randomized controlled trial are to: (1) examine the effect on clinical outcomes of Emergency Department initiation of the elements of the 3-h bundle within the traditional 3 h versus initiating within 1 h of sepsis recognition and (2) examine the extent to which a rigorous implementation strategy will improve implementation and compliance with both the 1-h bundle and the 3-h bundle. This study will be entirely conducted in the Emergency Department at 18 sites. A secondary aim is to identify clinical sepsis phenotypes and their impact on treatment outcomes. DISCUSSION: This cluster-randomized trial, employing implementation science methodology, is timely and important to the field. The hybrid effectiveness-implementation design is likely to have an impact on clinical practice in sepsis management by providing a rigorous evaluation of the 1- and 3-h bundles.

fundingNHLBI R01HL162954.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05491941. Registered on August 8, 2022.

Indexed as

SepsisShock, SepticAgedGuideline AdherenceHospital MortalityHumansMedicareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUnited StatesImplementation scienceSepsisSepsis bundlesSeptic shock

Identifiers

PMID37773067
PMCPMC10543317

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.