Andrew J Goodwin1, Kit N Simpson2, Dee W Ford1. 1. 1 Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy, and Sleep Medicine, and. 2. 2 Department of Healthcare Leadership and Management, College of Health Professions, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Volume-outcome associations have been demonstrated in conditions with high morbidity and mortality; however, the existing literature regarding such associations in sepsis is not definitive. OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that annual hospital severe sepsis case volume is associated with mortality during admissions with severe sepsis in teaching and nonteaching hospitals. METHODS: This work was a retrospective cohort study of administrative data from the South Carolina State Inpatient Database using multivariate logistic regression and case mix adjustment. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In the calendar year 2010, 9,815 patients were admitted with severe sepsis or septic shock. Hospitals were stratified into low- (0-75 cases/yr, n = 26), intermediate- (76-300 cases/yr, n = 19), and high (>300 cases/yr, n = 12) -volume tertiles. Patients admitted to hospitals with a low annual case volume for sepsis had higher adjusted odds of dying before discharge (odds ratio, 1.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-1.94) compared with patients admitted to high-volume hospitals. Hospitalization at intermediate-volume hospitals was not associated with a difference in mortality (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.09) compared with high-volume hospitals. There was no difference between the mortality rates of intermediate- and high-volume hospitals at different severity of illness quartiles. Hospital length of stay differed significantly by hospital case volume (low = 8.0, intermediate = 12.7, high = 14.9 [d]; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals with low annual sepsis case volume are associated with higher mortality rates, whereas hospitals with intermediate sepsis case volumes are associated with similar mortality rates compared with hospitals with high case volumes.
RATIONALE: Volume-outcome associations have been demonstrated in conditions with high morbidity and mortality; however, the existing literature regarding such associations in sepsis is not definitive. OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that annual hospital severe sepsis case volume is associated with mortality during admissions with severe sepsis in teaching and nonteaching hospitals. METHODS: This work was a retrospective cohort study of administrative data from the South Carolina State Inpatient Database using multivariate logistic regression and case mix adjustment. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In the calendar year 2010, 9,815 patients were admitted with severe sepsis or septic shock. Hospitals were stratified into low- (0-75 cases/yr, n = 26), intermediate- (76-300 cases/yr, n = 19), and high (>300 cases/yr, n = 12) -volume tertiles. Patients admitted to hospitals with a low annual case volume for sepsis had higher adjusted odds of dying before discharge (odds ratio, 1.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-1.94) compared with patients admitted to high-volume hospitals. Hospitalization at intermediate-volume hospitals was not associated with a difference in mortality (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.09) compared with high-volume hospitals. There was no difference between the mortality rates of intermediate- and high-volume hospitals at different severity of illness quartiles. Hospital length of stay differed significantly by hospital case volume (low = 8.0, intermediate = 12.7, high = 14.9 [d]; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals with low annual sepsis case volume are associated with higher mortality rates, whereas hospitals with intermediate sepsis case volumes are associated with similar mortality rates compared with hospitals with high case volumes.
Entities:
Keywords:
critical illness; high volume; low volume; risk adjustment; sepsis
Authors: Tara Lagu; Peter K Lindenauer; Michael B Rothberg; Brian H Nathanson; Penelope S Pekow; Jay S Steingrub; Thomas L Higgins Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Anand Kumar; Daniel Roberts; Kenneth E Wood; Bruce Light; Joseph E Parrillo; Satendra Sharma; Robert Suppes; Daniel Feinstein; Sergio Zanotti; Leo Taiberg; David Gurka; Aseem Kumar; Mary Cheang Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Craig M Lilly; Shawn Cody; Huifang Zhao; Karen Landry; Stephen P Baker; John McIlwaine; M Willis Chandler; Richard S Irwin Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-05-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Allan J Walkey; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Joanna M Ghobrial; Lesley H Curtis; Emelia J Benjamin Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-11-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Belinda J Gabbe; Pam M Simpson; Ann M Sutherland; Rory Wolfe; Mark C Fitzgerald; Rodney Judson; Peter A Cameron Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Katherine R Sterba; Emily E Johnson; Nandita Nadig; Annie N Simpson; Kit N Simpson; Andrew J Goodwin; Rebecca Beeks; Emily H Warr; Jane Zapka; Dee W Ford Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2020-09
Authors: Kelly C Vranas; Jennifer Y Scott; Omar Badawi; Michael O Harhay; Christopher G Slatore; Donald R Sullivan; Meeta Prasad Kerlin Journal: Chest Date: 2020-03-27 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Margaret Greenwood-Ericksen; Neil Kamdar; Paul Lin; Naomi George; Larissa Myaskovsky; Cameron Crandall; Nicholas M Mohr; Keith E Kocher Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-11-01
Authors: Nicholas M Mohr; Kalyn D Campbell; Morgan B Swanson; Fred Ullrich; Kimberly A Merchant; Marcia M Ward Journal: J Telemed Telecare Date: 2020-01-05 Impact factor: 6.344