Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37831591›Full record

ArticleClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2024

Improving Sepsis Outcomes in the Era of Pay-for-Performance and Electronic Quality Measures: A Joint IDSA/ACEP/PIDS/SHEA/SHM/SIDP Position Paper.

Chanu Rhee, Jeffrey R Strich, Kathleen Chiotos, David C Classen, Sara E Cosgrove, Ron Greeno, Emily L Heil, Sameer S Kadri, Andre C Kalil, David N Gilbert and 7 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. A Critical Assessment of Time-to-Antibiotics Recommendations in Pediatric Sepsis.Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society · 2024
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

17 authors.

Chanu RheeDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9537-4245
Jeffrey R StrichCritical Care Medicine Department, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Kathleen ChiotosDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
David C ClassenDivision of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Sara E CosgroveDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Ron GreenoSociety of Hospital Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Emily L HeilDepartment of Practice, Sciences, and Health Outcomes Research, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Sameer S KadriCritical Care Medicine Department, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Andre C KalilDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Nebraska School of Medicine, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
David N GilbertDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Henry MasurCritical Care Medicine Department, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Edward J SeptimusDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Daniel A SweeneyDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, California, USA.
Aisha TerryDepartment of Emergency Medicine, George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington D.C., USA.
Dean L WinslowDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Donald M YealyDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Michael KlompasDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced the Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock Management Bundle (SEP-1) as a pay-for-reporting measure in 2015 and is now planning to make it a pay-for-performance measure by incorporating it into the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program. This joint IDSA/ACEP/PIDS/SHEA/SHM/SIPD position paper highlights concerns with this change. Multiple studies indicate that SEP-1 implementation was associated with increased broad-spectrum antibiotic use, lactate measurements, and aggressive fluid resuscitation for patients with suspected sepsis but not with decreased mortality rates. Increased focus on SEP-1 risks further diverting attention and resources from more effective measures and comprehensive sepsis care. We recommend retiring SEP-1 rather than using it in a payment model and shifting instead to new sepsis metrics that focus on patient outcomes. CMS is developing a community-onset sepsis 30-day mortality electronic clinical quality measure (eCQM) that is an important step in this direction. The eCQM preliminarily identifies sepsis using systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, antibiotic administrations or diagnosis codes for infection or sepsis, and clinical indicators of acute organ dysfunction. We support the eCQM but recommend removing SIRS criteria and diagnosis codes to streamline implementation, decrease variability between hospitals, maintain vigilance for patients with sepsis but without SIRS, and avoid promoting antibiotic use in uninfected patients with SIRS. We further advocate for CMS to harmonize the eCQM with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Adult Sepsis Event surveillance metric to promote unity in federal measures, decrease reporting burden for hospitals, and facilitate shared prevention initiatives. These steps will result in a more robust measure that will encourage hospitals to pay more attention to the full breadth of sepsis care, stimulate new innovations in diagnosis and treatment, and ultimately bring us closer to our shared goal of improving outcomes for patients.

Indexed as

SepsisShock, SepticAdultAgedAnti-Bacterial AgentsHumansMedicareReimbursement, IncentiveSystemic Inflammatory Response SyndromeUnited StatesAnti-Bacterial Agentsquality measuresSEP-1sepsissepsis bundleseptic shock

Identifiers

PMID37831591
PMCPMC11487102

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.