Rachel D Kramer1, Colin R Cooke2, Vincent Liu3, Russell R Miller4,5, Theodore J Iwashyna2,6,7. 1. 1 University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2. 2 University of Michigan Pulmonary and Critical Care, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. 3 Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, California. 4. 4 Intermountain Medical Center, Murray, Utah. 5. 5 University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 6. 6 VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan; and. 7. 7 Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Sepsis contributes to one in every two to three inpatient hospital deaths. Early recognition and treatment are instrumental in reducing mortality, yet there are substantial quality gaps. Sepsis bundles containing quality metrics are often used in efforts to improve outcomes. Several prominent organizations have published their own bundles, but there are few head-to-head comparisons of content. OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the degree of agreement on component elements of sepsis bundles and the associated timing goals for completion of each element. We additionally sought to evaluate the amount of variation between metrics associated with bundles. METHODS: We reviewed the components of and level of agreement among several sepsis resuscitation and management bundles. We compared the individual bundle elements, together with their associated goals and metrics. We performed a systematic review (PubMed 2008-2015) and searched publically available online content, supplemented by interviews with key informants, to identify eight distinct bundles. Bundles are presented as current as of April 2015. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Broadly, elements of care covered early resuscitation and short-term management. Bundles varied from 6 to 10 elements, and there were 12 distinct elements listed across all bundles. Only lactate collection and broad-spectrum antibiotics were common to all eight bundles, although there were seven elements included in at least 75% of the bundles. Timing goals for the collection of lactate and antibiotic administration varied among bundles from within 1 to 6 hours of diagnosis or admission. Notably, no bundle included metrics evaluating timeliness or completeness of sepsis recognition. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of consensus on component elements and timing goals across highly recognized sepsis bundles. These differences highlight an urgent need for comparative effectiveness research to guide future implementation and for metrics to evaluate progress. None of the widely instituted bundles include metrics to evaluate sepsis recognition or diagnostic accuracy.
RATIONALE: Sepsis contributes to one in every two to three inpatient hospital deaths. Early recognition and treatment are instrumental in reducing mortality, yet there are substantial quality gaps. Sepsis bundles containing quality metrics are often used in efforts to improve outcomes. Several prominent organizations have published their own bundles, but there are few head-to-head comparisons of content. OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the degree of agreement on component elements of sepsis bundles and the associated timing goals for completion of each element. We additionally sought to evaluate the amount of variation between metrics associated with bundles. METHODS: We reviewed the components of and level of agreement among several sepsis resuscitation and management bundles. We compared the individual bundle elements, together with their associated goals and metrics. We performed a systematic review (PubMed 2008-2015) and searched publically available online content, supplemented by interviews with key informants, to identify eight distinct bundles. Bundles are presented as current as of April 2015. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Broadly, elements of care covered early resuscitation and short-term management. Bundles varied from 6 to 10 elements, and there were 12 distinct elements listed across all bundles. Only lactate collection and broad-spectrum antibiotics were common to all eight bundles, although there were seven elements included in at least 75% of the bundles. Timing goals for the collection of lactate and antibiotic administration varied among bundles from within 1 to 6 hours of diagnosis or admission. Notably, no bundle included metrics evaluating timeliness or completeness of sepsis recognition. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of consensus on component elements and timing goals across highly recognized sepsis bundles. These differences highlight an urgent need for comparative effectiveness research to guide future implementation and for metrics to evaluate progress. None of the widely instituted bundles include metrics to evaluate sepsis recognition or diagnostic accuracy.
Authors: Alan Whippy; Melinda Skeath; Barbara Crawford; Carmen Adams; Gregory Marelich; Mezhgan Alamshahi; Josefina Borbon Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2011-11
Authors: Mitchell M Levy; R Phillip Dellinger; Sean R Townsend; Walter T Linde-Zwirble; John C Marshall; Julian Bion; Christa Schorr; Antonio Artigas; Graham Ramsay; Richard Beale; Margaret M Parker; Herwig Gerlach; Konrad Reinhart; Eliezer Silva; Maurene Harvey; Susan Regan; Derek C Angus Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Vincent Liu; Gabriel J Escobar; John D Greene; Jay Soule; Alan Whippy; Derek C Angus; Theodore J Iwashyna Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-07-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: H Bryant Nguyen; Stephen W Corbett; Robert Steele; Jim Banta; Robin T Clark; Sean R Hayes; Jeremy Edwards; Thomas W Cho; William A Wittlake Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Ricard Ferrer; Antonio Artigas; Mitchell M Levy; Jesús Blanco; Gumersindo González-Díaz; José Garnacho-Montero; Jordi Ibáñez; Eduardo Palencia; Manuel Quintana; María Victoria de la Torre-Prados Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-05-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Sandra Christina Pereira Lima Shiramizo; Alexandre R Marra; Marcelino S Durão; Ângela T Paes; Michael B Edmond; Oscar Fernando Pavão dos Santos Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-11-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Nicholas M Mohr; Alexis M Zebrowski; David F Gaieski; David G Buckler; Brendan G Carr Journal: Crit Care Date: 2020-10-27 Impact factor: 9.097