Emily L Aaronson1, Michael R Filbin2, David F M Brown2, Kathy Tobin3, Elizabeth A Mort4. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Lawrence Center for Quality and Safety, Massachusetts General Hospital and Massachusetts General Physicians' Organization, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Lawrence Center for Quality and Safety, Massachusetts General Hospital and Massachusetts General Physicians' Organization, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Lawrence Center for Quality and Safety, Massachusetts General Hospital and Massachusetts General Physicians' Organization, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The release of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Service's (CMS) latest quality measure, Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock Early Management Bundle (SEP-1), has intensified the long-standing debate over optimal care for severe sepsis and septic shock. Although the last decade of research has demonstrated the importance of comprehensive bundled care in conjunction with compliance mechanisms to reduce patient mortality, it is not clear that SEP-1 achieves this aim. The heterogeneous and often cryptic presentation of severe sepsis and septic shock, along with the multifaceted criteria for the definition of this clinical syndrome, pose a particular challenge for fitting requirements to this disease, and implementation could have unintended consequences. OBJECTIVE: Following a simulated reporting exercise, in which 50 charts underwent expert review, we aimed to detail the challenges of, and offer suggestions on how to rethink, measuring performance in severe sepsis and septic shock care. DISCUSSION: There were several challenges associated with the design and implementation of this measure. The ambiguous definition of severe sepsis and septic shock, prescriptive fluid volume requirements, rigid reassessment, and complex abstraction logic all raise significant concern. CONCLUSIONS: Although SEP-1 represents an important first step in requiring hospitals to improve outcomes for patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, the current approach must be revisited. The volume and complexity of the currently required SEP-1 reporting elements deserve serious consideration and revision before they are used as measures of accountability and tied to reimbursement.
BACKGROUND: The release of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Service's (CMS) latest quality measure, Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock Early Management Bundle (SEP-1), has intensified the long-standing debate over optimal care for severe sepsis and septic shock. Although the last decade of research has demonstrated the importance of comprehensive bundled care in conjunction with compliance mechanisms to reduce patient mortality, it is not clear that SEP-1 achieves this aim. The heterogeneous and often cryptic presentation of severe sepsis and septic shock, along with the multifaceted criteria for the definition of this clinical syndrome, pose a particular challenge for fitting requirements to this disease, and implementation could have unintended consequences. OBJECTIVE: Following a simulated reporting exercise, in which 50 charts underwent expert review, we aimed to detail the challenges of, and offer suggestions on how to rethink, measuring performance in severe sepsis and septic shock care. DISCUSSION: There were several challenges associated with the design and implementation of this measure. The ambiguous definition of severe sepsis and septic shock, prescriptive fluid volume requirements, rigid reassessment, and complex abstraction logic all raise significant concern. CONCLUSIONS: Although SEP-1 represents an important first step in requiring hospitals to improve outcomes for patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, the current approach must be revisited. The volume and complexity of the currently required SEP-1 reporting elements deserve serious consideration and revision before they are used as measures of accountability and tied to reimbursement.
Authors: Anders Perner; Anthony C Gordon; Derek C Angus; Francois Lamontagne; Flavia Machado; James A Russell; Jean-Francois Timsit; John C Marshall; John Myburgh; Manu Shankar-Hari; Mervyn Singer Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Chanu Rhee; Michael R Filbin; Anthony F Massaro; Amy L Bulger; Donna McEachern; Kathleen A Tobin; Barrett T Kitch; Bert Thurlo-Walsh; Aran Kadar; Alexandra Koffman; Anupam Pande; Yasir Hamad; David K Warren; Travis M Jones; Cara O'Brien; Deverick J Anderson; Rui Wang; Michael Klompas Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Chanu Rhee; Sarah R Brown; Travis M Jones; Cara O'Brien; Anupam Pande; Yasir Hamad; Amy L Bulger; Kathleen A Tobin; Anthony F Massaro; Deverick J Anderson; David K Warren; Michael Klompas Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2018-06-22 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Andy Hung-Yi Lee; Emily Aaronson; Kathryn A Hibbert; Micah H Flynn; Hayley Rutkey; Elizabeth Mort; Jonathan D Sonis; Kyan C Safavi Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-06-24 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Jonathan D Baghdadi; Mitchell D Wong; Daniel Z Uslan; Douglas Bell; William E Cunningham; Jack Needleman; Russell Kerbel; Robert Brook Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-02-10 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Michael R Filbin; Jill E Thorsen; James Lynch; Trent D Gillingham; Corey L Pasakarnis; Roberta Capp; Nathan I Shapiro; Theodore Mooncai; Peter C Hou; Thomas Heldt; Andrew T Reisner Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-07-23 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Chanu Rhee; Sameer S Kadri; John P Dekker; Robert L Danner; Huai-Chun Chen; David Fram; Fang Zhang; Rui Wang; Michael Klompas Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-04-01