OBJECTIVES: To evaluate accuracy of 2 established administrative methods of identifying children with sepsis using a medical record review reference standard. STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective study at 6 US children's hospitals. Subjects were children >60 days to <19 years of age and identified in 4 groups based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes: (1) severe sepsis/septic shock (sepsis codes); (2) infection plus organ dysfunction (combination codes); (3) subjects without codes for infection, organ dysfunction, or severe sepsis; and (4) infection but not severe sepsis or organ dysfunction. Combination codes were allowed, but not required within the sepsis codes group. We determined the presence of reference standard severe sepsis according to consensus criteria. Logistic regression was performed to determine whether addition of codes for sepsis therapies improved case identification. RESULTS: A total of 130 out of 432 subjects met reference SD of severe sepsis. Sepsis codes had sensitivity 73% (95% CI 70-86), specificity 92% (95% CI 87-95), and positive predictive value 79% (95% CI 70-86). Combination codes had sensitivity 15% (95% CI 9-22), specificity 71% (95% CI 65-76), and positive predictive value 18% (95% CI 11-27). Slight improvements in model characteristics were observed when codes for vasoactive medications and endotracheal intubation were added to sepsis codes (c-statistic 0.83 vs 0.87, P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: Sepsis specific International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes identify pediatric patients with severe sepsis in administrative data more accurately than a combination of codes for infection plus organ dysfunction.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate accuracy of 2 established administrative methods of identifying children with sepsis using a medical record review reference standard. STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective study at 6 US children's hospitals. Subjects were children >60 days to <19 years of age and identified in 4 groups based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes: (1) severe sepsis/septic shock (sepsis codes); (2) infection plus organ dysfunction (combination codes); (3) subjects without codes for infection, organ dysfunction, or severe sepsis; and (4) infection but not severe sepsis or organ dysfunction. Combination codes were allowed, but not required within the sepsis codes group. We determined the presence of reference standard severe sepsis according to consensus criteria. Logistic regression was performed to determine whether addition of codes for sepsis therapies improved case identification. RESULTS: A total of 130 out of 432 subjects met reference SD of severe sepsis. Sepsis codes had sensitivity 73% (95% CI 70-86), specificity 92% (95% CI 87-95), and positive predictive value 79% (95% CI 70-86). Combination codes had sensitivity 15% (95% CI 9-22), specificity 71% (95% CI 65-76), and positive predictive value 18% (95% CI 11-27). Slight improvements in model characteristics were observed when codes for vasoactive medications and endotracheal intubation were added to sepsis codes (c-statistic 0.83 vs 0.87, P = .008). CONCLUSIONS:Sepsis specific International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes identify pediatric patients with severe sepsis in administrative data more accurately than a combination of codes for infection plus organ dysfunction.
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: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: R Scott Watson; Joseph A Carcillo; Walter T Linde-Zwirble; Gilles Clermont; Jeffrey Lidicker; Derek C Angus Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2002-11-14 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Mitchell M Levy; Mitchell P Fink; John C Marshall; Edward Abraham; Derek Angus; Deborah Cook; Jonathan Cohen; Steven M Opal; Jean-Louis Vincent; Graham Ramsay Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2003-03-28 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Derek J Williams; Samir S Shah; Angela Myers; Matthew Hall; Katherine Auger; Mary Ann Queen; Karen E Jerardi; Lauren McClain; Catherine Wiggleton; Joel S Tieder Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Robert B Lindell; Akira Nishisaki; Scott L Weiss; Fran Balamuth; Danielle M Traynor; Marianne R Chilutti; Robert W Grundmeier; Julie C Fitzgerald Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Fran Balamuth; Elizabeth R Alpern; Mengyuan Kan; Maya Shumyatcher; Katie Hayes; Ebbing Lautenbach; Blanca E Himes Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Scott L Weiss; Luke Keele; Fran Balamuth; Neika Vendetti; Rachael Ross; Julie C Fitzgerald; Jeffrey S Gerber Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2017-01-04 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Todd A Florin; Lilliam Ambroggio; Cole Brokamp; Yin Zhang; Mantosh Rattan; Eric Crotty; Michael A Belsky; Sara Krueger; Thomas N Epperson; Andrea Kachelmeyer; Richard Ruddy; Samir S Shah Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2020-05-13 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Scott L Weiss; Fran Balamuth; Marianne Chilutti; Mark Jason Ramos; Peter McBride; Nancy-Ann Kelly; K Joy Payton; Julie C Fitzgerald; Jeffrey W Pennington Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 3.624