Dataset Information

Risk Adjustment for Sepsis Mortality to Facilitate Hospital Comparisons Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Adult Sepsis Event Criteria and Routine Electronic Clinical Data.

ABSTRACT: Variability in hospital-level sepsis mortality rates may be due to differences in case mix, quality of care, or diagnosis and coding practices. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Adult Sepsis Event definition could facilitate objective comparisons of sepsis mortality rates between hospitals but requires rigorous risk-adjustment tools. We developed risk-adjustment models for Adult Sepsis Events using administrative and electronic health record data. Design:Retrospective cohort study. Setting:One hundred thirty-six U.S. hospitals in Cerner HealthFacts (derivation dataset) and 137 HCA Healthcare hospitals (validation dataset). Patients:A total of 95,154 hospitalized adult patients (derivation) and 201,997 patients (validation) meeting Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Adult Sepsis Event criteria. Interventions:None. Measurements and Main Results:We created logistic regression models of increasing complexity using administrative and electronic health record data to predict in-hospital mortality. An administrative model using demographics, comorbidities, and coded markers of severity of illness at admission achieved an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.776 (95% CI, 0.770-0.783) in the Cerner cohort, with diminishing calibration at higher baseline risk deciles. An electronic health record-based model that integrated administrative data with laboratory results, vasopressors, and mechanical ventilation achieved an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.826 (95% CI, 0.820-0.831) in the derivation cohort and 0.827 (95% CI, 0.824-0.829) in the validation cohort, with better calibration than the administrative model. Adding vital signs and Glasgow Coma Score minimally improved performance. Conclusions:Models incorporating electronic health record data accurately predict hospital mortality for patients with Adult Sepsis Events and outperform models using administrative data alone. Utilizing laboratory test results, vasopressors, and mechanical ventilation without vital signs may achieve a good balance between data collection needs and model performance, but electronic health record-based models must be attentive to potential variability in data quality and availability. With ongoing testing and refinement of these risk-adjustment models, Adult Sepsis Event surveillance may enable more meaningful comparisons of hospital sepsis outcomes and provide an important window into quality of care.

SUBMITTER: Rhee C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7063887 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Risk Adjustment for Sepsis Mortality to Facilitate Hospital Comparisons Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Adult Sepsis Event Criteria and Routine Electronic Clinical Data.

Rhee Chanu C Wang Rui R Song Yue Y Zhang Zilu Z Kadri Sameer S SS Septimus Edward J EJ Fram David D Jin Robert R Poland Russell E RE Hickok Jason J Sands Kenneth K Klompas Michael M

Critical care explorations 20191014 10

Variability in hospital-level sepsis mortality rates may be due to differences in case mix, quality of care, or diagnosis and coding practices. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Adult Sepsis Event definition could facilitate objective comparisons of sepsis mortality rates between hospitals but requires rigorous risk-adjustment tools. We developed risk-adjustment models for Adult Sepsis Events using administrative and electronic health record data.<h4>Design</h4>Retrospective cohort st ...[more]

PMID: 32166230

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesIn 2018, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention introduced the Adult Sepsis Event (ASE) definition, using electronic health records (EHRs) data for surveillance and sepsis quality improvement. However, data regarding ASE outside the United States remain limited. We therefore aimed to validate the diagnostic accuracy of the ASE and to assess the prevalence and mortality of sepsis using ASE.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingA single center in South Korea, with 2732 beds including 221 ICU beds.PatientsDuring the validation phase, adult patients who were hospitalized or visiting the emergency department between November 5 and November 11, 2019, were included. In the subsequent phase of epidemiologic analysis, we included adult patients who were admitted from January to December 2020.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsASE had a sensitivity of 91.6%, a specificity of 98.3%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 57.4%, and a negative predictive value of 99.8% when compared with the Sepsis-3 definition. Of 126,998 adult patient hospitalizations in 2020, 6,872 cases were diagnosed with sepsis based on the ASE (5.4% per year), and 893 patients were identified as having sepsis according to the International Classification of Diseases , 10th Edition (ICD-10) (0.7% per year). Hospital mortality rates were 16.6% (ASE) and 23.5% (ICD-10-coded sepsis). Monthly sepsis prevalence and hospital mortality exhibited less variation when diagnosed using ASE compared with ICD-10 coding (coefficient of variation [CV] for sepsis prevalence: 0.051 vs. 0.163, Miller test p < 0.001; CV for hospital mortality: 0.087 vs. 0.261, p = 0.001).ConclusionsASE demonstrated high sensitivity and a moderate PPV compared with the Sepsis-3 criteria in a Korean population. The prevalence of sepsis, as defined by ASE, was 5.4% per year and was similar to U.S. estimates. The prevalence of sepsis by ASE was eight times higher and exhibited less monthly variability compared with that based on the ICD-10 code.

Project description:ObjectivesSepsis-3 defines organ dysfunction as an increase in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score by greater than or equal to 2 points. However, some Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score components are not routinely recorded in all hospitals' electronic health record systems, limiting its utility for wide-scale sepsis surveillance. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released the Adult Sepsis Event surveillance definition that includes simplified organ dysfunction criteria optimized for electronic health records (eSOFA). We compared eSOFA versus Sequential Organ Failure Assessment with regard to sepsis prevalence, overlap, and outcomes.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingOne hundred eleven U.S. hospitals in the Cerner HealthFacts dataset.PatientsAdults hospitalized in 2013-2015.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsWe identified clinical indicators of presumed infection (blood cultures and antibiotics) concurrent with either: 1) an increase in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score by 2 or more points (Sepsis-3) or 2) 1 or more eSOFA criteria: vasopressor initiation, mechanical ventilation initiation, lactate greater than or equal to 2.0 mmol/L, doubling in creatinine, doubling in bilirubin to greater than or equal to 2.0 mg/dL, or greater than or equal to 50% decrease in platelet count to less than 100 cells/μL (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Adult Sepsis Event). We compared area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for discriminating in-hospital mortality, adjusting for baseline characteristics. Of 942,360 patients in the cohort, 57,242 (6.1%) had sepsis by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment versus 41,618 (4.4%) by eSOFA. Agreement between sepsis by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and eSOFA was good (Cronbach's alpha 0.81). Baseline characteristics and infectious diagnoses were similar, but mortality was higher with eSOFA (17.1%) versus Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (14.4%; p < 0.001) as was discrimination for mortality (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.774 vs 0.759; p < 0.001). Comparisons were consistent across subgroups of age, infectious diagnoses, and comorbidities.ConclusionsThe Adult Sepsis Event's eSOFA organ dysfunction criteria identify a smaller, more severely ill sepsis cohort compared with the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, but with good overlap and similar clinical characteristics. Adult Sepsis Events may facilitate wide-scale automated sepsis surveillance that tracks closely with the more complex Sepsis-3 criteria.

Project description:BackgroundCurrently, there is a lack of clear definition for neonatal sepsis. The Pediatric Committee of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) developed consensus criteria to ensure a standardization for neonatal sepsis definition. However, there is no evidence supporting the accuracy of the EMA sepsis criteria in neonatal sepsis diagnosis. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of EMA sepsis criteria for proven neonatal sepsis.MethodsA multicenter prospective cohort study was conducted from October 2015 to November 2018. Infants with a gestational age over 34th weeks, diagnosed with clinical sepsis and received antibiotics according to the EMA criteria or experienced neonatologists' opinion were included. Blood culture or multiplex real time-PCR or 16S-rRNA positive infants were accepted as "proven sepsis". The predictive performance of EMA criteria for proven sepsis was evaluated by sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the curve measures of receiver operator characteristic curves. Data-mining methods were used for further analysis.ResultsAmong the 245 included infants, the EMA criteria were positive in 97 infants (39.6%), while proven sepsis was diagnosed in 113 infants (46.1%). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the EMA criteria for proven sepsis were 44.2% (95%CI: 34.9-53.9), 64.4% (95%CI: 55.6-72.5), 55.1% (95%CI: 46.6-59.4) respectively. None of the clinical and laboratory parameters had sufficient performance individually in terms of sensitivity, specificity and accuracy measures. The diagnostic performance was similar when different clinical findings were added to the EMA sepsis criteria or assessment of the score was interpreted in different ways.ConclusionsResults highlighted that clinician opinion and standard laboratory tests are limited in the neonatal sepsis diagnosis. The EMA criteria also did not efficiently meet the diagnostic accuracy measures for neonatal sepsis. A predictive sepsis definition and rapid bedside point-of care tests are urgently needed.

Dataset Information

Risk Adjustment for Sepsis Mortality to Facilitate Hospital Comparisons Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Adult Sepsis Event Criteria and Routine Electronic Clinical Data.

Publications

Risk Adjustment for Sepsis Mortality to Facilitate Hospital Comparisons Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Adult Sepsis Event Criteria and Routine Electronic Clinical Data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets