Association Between Medicare's Sepsis Reporting Policy (SEP-1) and the Documentation of a Sepsis Diagnosis in the Clinical Record.

Publisher: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 0230027 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1537-1948 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 00257079 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Med Care Subsets: MEDLINE

Publication: Hagerstown, MD : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Original Publication: Philadelphia, etc., Lippincott.

Sepsis*/diagnosis ; Medicare*/statistics & numerical data ; Documentation*/statistics & numerical data ; Documentation*/standards ; Interrupted Time Series Analysis* ; Electronic Health Records*; Humans ; United States ; Retrospective Studies ; Male ; Female ; Aged ; Middle Aged ; Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data ; Aged, 80 and over

Study Design: Interrupted time series analysis of a retrospective, electronic health record cohort.
Objective: To determine the association between the implementation of Medicare's sepsis reporting measure (SEP-1) and sepsis diagnosis rates as assessed in clinical documentation.
Background: The role of health policy in the effort to improve sepsis diagnosis remains unclear.
Patients and Methods: Adult patients hospitalized with suspected infection and organ dysfunction within 6 hours of presentation to the emergency department, admitted to one of 11 hospitals in a multi-hospital health system from January 2013 to December 2017. Clinician-diagnosed sepsis, as reflected by the inclusion of the terms "sepsis" or "septic" in the text of clinical notes in the first two calendar days following presentation.
Results: Among 44,074 adult patients with sepsis admitted to 11 hospitals over 5 years, the proportion with sepsis documentation was 32.2% just before the implementation of SEP-1 in the third quarter of 2015 and increased to 37.3% by the fourth quarter of 2017. Of the 9 post-SEP-1 quarters, 8 had odds ratios for a sepsis diagnosis >1 (overall range: 0.98-1.26; P value for a joint test of statistical significance = 0.005). The effects were clinically modest, with a maximum effect of an absolute increase of 4.2% (95% CI: 0.9-7.8) at the end of the study period. The effect was greater in patients who did not require vasopressors compared with patients who required vasopressors ( P value for test of interaction = 0.02).
Conclusions: SEP-1 implementation was associated with modest increases in sepsis diagnosis rates, primarily among patients who did not require vasoactive medications.
Competing Interests: I.J.B. was granted funding from K08HS025455 from AHRQ, and C.W.S. was granted funding from R35GM119519. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.
(Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Improving Diagnosis in Health Care. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/21794.
Yang D, Fineberg HV, Cosby K. Diagnostic excellence. JAMA. 2021;326:1905–1906.
AHRQ: AHRQ Health Services Research Project:Partners Enabling Diagnostic Excellence (R01). Accessed December 3 2021: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-HS-19-003.html.
Seymour CW, Gesten F, Prescott HC, et al. Time to treatment and mortality during mandated emergency care for sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2235–2244.
Rhee C, Filbin MR, Massaro AF, et al. Compliance with the national SEP-1 quality measure and association with sepsis outcomes. Crit Care Med. 2018;46:1585–1591.
Kahn JM, Davis BS, Yabes JG, et al. Association between state-mandated protocolized sepsis care and in-hospital mortality among adults with sepsis. JAMA. 2019;322:240.
Barbash IJ, Davis B, Kahn JM. National performance on the Medicare SEP-1 sepsis quality measure. Crit Care Med. 2019;47:1026–1032.
Barbash IJ, Davis BS, Yabes JG, et al. Treatment patterns and clinical outcomes after the introduction of the Medicare sepsis performance measure (SEP-1). Ann Intern Med. 2021;174:927–935.
Barbash IJ, Rak KJ, Kuza CC, et al. Hospital perceptions of Medicare’s sepsis quality reporting initiative. J Hosp Med. 2017;12:963–968.
Gigli KH, Rak KJ, Hershey TB, et al. A roadmap for successful state sepsis regulations—lessons from New York. Crit Care Explor. 2021;3:e0521.
Rhee C, Yu T, Wang R, et al. Association between implementation of the severe sepsis and septic shock early management bundle performance measure and outcomes in patients with suspected sepsis in US hospitals. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4:1–13.
Seymour CW, Kennedy JN, Wang S, et al. Derivation, validation, and potential treatment implications of novel clinical phenotypes for sepsis. JAMA. 2019;321:2003–2017.
Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, et al. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care. 1998;36:8–27.
Yount RJ, Vries JK, Councill CD. The medical archival system: an information retrieval system based on distributed parallel processing. Inf Process Manag. 1991;27:379–389.
Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315:801.
Rhee C, Wang R, Zhang Z, et al. Epidemiology of hospital-onset versus community-onset sepsis in U.S. hospitals and association with mortality. Crit Care Med. 2019;47:1169–1176.
Gupta D, Saul M, Gilbertson J. Evaluation of a deidentification (De-Id) software engine to share pathology reports and clinical documents for research. Am J Clin Pathol. 2004;121:176–186.
Brown T, Ghelani-Allen A, Yeung D, et al. Comparative effectiveness of physician diagnosis and guideline definitions in identifying sepsis patients in the emergency department. J Crit Care. 2015;30:71–77.
Poeze M, Ramsay G, Gerlach H, et al. An international sepsis survey: a study of doctors’ knowledge and perception about sepsis. Crit Care. 2004;8:409–413.
Dave N, Bui S, Morgan C, et al. Interventions targeted at reducing diagnostic error: systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf. 2022;31:297–307.
Shah FA, Meyer NJ, Angus DC, et al. A research agenda for precision medicine in sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome: an official American Thoracic Society Research statement. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021;204:891–901.
Calfee CS. Opening the debate on the new sepsis definition. precision medicine: an opportunity to improve outcomes of patients with sepsis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;194:137–139.
Angus DC, Seymour CW, Coopersmith CM, et al. A framework for the development and interpretation of different sepsis definitions and clinical criteria. Crit Care Med. 2016;44:e113–e121.
Rhee C, Dantes R, Epstein L, et al. Incidence and trends of sepsis in us hospitals using clinical vs claims data, 2009-2014. JAMA. 2017;318:1241–1249.
Kempker JA, Rudd KE, Wang HE, et al. Sepsis epidemiology across the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Edition, to International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition, Chasm—a direct application of the institute for health metrics and evaluation case definition to hospital discharge data. Crit Care Med. 2020;48:1881–1884.

Date Created: 20240415 Date Completed: 20240510 Latest Revision: 20240510

20240511

10.1097/MLR.0000000000001997

38620117