Dataset Information

Mortality of patients with hospital-onset sepsis in hospitals with all-day and non-all-day rapid response teams: a prospective nationwide multicenter cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Hospital-onset sepsis is associated with a higher in-hospital mortality rate than community-onset sepsis. Many hospitals have implemented rapid response teams (RRTs) for early detection and timely management of at-risk hospitalized patients. However, the effectiveness of an all-day RRT over a non-all-day RRT in reducing the risk of in-hospital mortality in patient with hospital-onset sepsis is unclear. We aimed to determine the effect of the RRT's operating hours on in-hospital mortality in inpatient patients with sepsis.

Methods

We conducted a nationwide cohort study of adult patients with hospital-onset sepsis prospectively collected from the Korean Sepsis Alliance (KSA) Database from 16 tertiary referral or university-affiliated hospitals in South Korea between September of 2019 and February of 2020. RRT was implemented in 11 hospitals, of which 5 (45.5%) operated 24-h RRT (all-day RRT) and the remaining 6 (54.5%) had part-day RRT (non-all-day RRT). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality between the two groups.

Results

Of the 405 patients with hospital-onset sepsis, 206 (50.9%) were admitted to hospitals operating all-day RRT, whereas 199 (49.1%) were hospitalized in hospitals with non-all-day RRT. A total of 73 of the 206 patients in the all-day group (35.4%) and 85 of the 199 patients in the non-all-day group (42.7%) died in the hospital (P = 0.133). After adjustments for co-variables, the implementation of all-day RRT was associated with a significant reduction in in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio 0.57; 95% confidence interval 0.35-0.93; P = 0.024).

Conclusions

In comparison with non-all-day RRTs, the availability of all-day RRTs was associated with reduced in-hospital mortality among patients with hospital-onset sepsis.

SUBMITTER: Hyun DG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9482246 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Mortality of patients with hospital-onset sepsis in hospitals with all-day and non-all-day rapid response teams: a prospective nationwide multicenter cohort study.

Hyun Dong-Gon DG Lee Su Yeon SY Ahn Jee Hwan JH Huh Jin Won JW Hong Sang-Bum SB Koh Younsuck Y Lim Chae-Man CM

Critical care (London, England) 20220916 1

<h4>Background</h4>Hospital-onset sepsis is associated with a higher in-hospital mortality rate than community-onset sepsis. Many hospitals have implemented rapid response teams (RRTs) for early detection and timely management of at-risk hospitalized patients. However, the effectiveness of an all-day RRT over a non-all-day RRT in reducing the risk of in-hospital mortality in patient with hospital-onset sepsis is unclear. We aimed to determine the effect of the RRT's operating hours on in-hospita ...[more]

PMID: 36114545

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGiven the increased attention to sepsis at the population level there is a need to assess hospital performance in the care of sepsis patients using widely-available administrative data. The goal of this study was to develop an administrative risk-adjustment model suitable for profiling hospitals on their 30-day mortality rates for patients with sepsis.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using hospital discharge data from general acute care hospitals in Pennsylvania in 2012 and 2013. We identified adult patients with sepsis as determined by validated diagnosis and procedure codes. We developed an administrative risk-adjustment model in 2012 data. We then validated this model in two ways: by examining the stability of performance assessments over time between 2012 and 2013, and by examining the stability of performance assessments in 2012 after the addition of laboratory variables measured on day one of hospital admission.ResultsIn 2012 there were 115,213 sepsis encounters in 152 hospitals. The overall unadjusted mortality rate was 18.5%. The final risk-adjustment model had good discrimination (C-statistic = 0.78) and calibration (slope and intercept of the calibration curve = 0.960 and 0.007, respectively). Based on this model, hospital-specific risk-standardized mortality rates ranged from 12.2 to 24.5%. Comparing performance assessments between years, correlation in risk-adjusted mortality rates was good (Pearson's correlation = 0.53) and only 19.7% of hospitals changed by more than one quintile in performance rankings. Comparing performance assessments after the addition of laboratory variables, correlation in risk-adjusted mortality rates was excellent (Pearson's correlation = 0.93) and only 2.6% of hospitals changed by more than one quintile in performance rankings.ConclusionsA novel claims-based risk-adjustment model demonstrated wide variation in risk-standardized 30-day sepsis mortality rates across hospitals. Individual hospitals' performance rankings were stable across years and after the addition of laboratory data. This model provides a robust way to rank hospitals on sepsis mortality while adjusting for patient risk.

Project description:ObjectivesPrior studies have reported that hospital-onset sepsis is associated with higher mortality rates than community-onset sepsis. Most studies, however, have used inconsistent case-finding methods and applied limited risk-adjustment for potential confounders. We used consistent sepsis criteria and detailed electronic clinical data to elucidate the epidemiology and mortality associated with hospital-onset sepsis.DesignRetrospective cohort study.Setting136 U.S. hospitals in the Cerner HealthFacts dataset.PatientsAdults hospitalized in 2009-2015.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsWe identified sepsis using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Adult Sepsis Event criteria and estimated the risk of in-hospital death for hospital-onset sepsis versus community-onset sepsis using logistic regression models. In patients admitted without community-onset sepsis, we estimated risk of death associated with hospital-onset sepsis using Cox regression models with sepsis as a time-varying covariate. Models were adjusted for baseline characteristics and severity of illness. Among 2.2 million hospitalizations, there were 95,154 sepsis cases: 83,620 (87.9%) community-onset sepsis and 11,534 (12.1%) hospital-onset sepsis (0.5% of hospitalized cohort). Compared to community-onset sepsis, hospital-onset sepsis patients were younger (median 66 vs 68 yr) but had more comorbidities (median Elixhauser score 14 vs 11), higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores (median 4 vs 3), higher ICU admission rates (61% vs 44%), longer hospital length of stay (median 19 vs 8 d), and higher in-hospital mortality (33% vs 17%) (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). On multivariate analysis, hospital-onset sepsis was associated with higher mortality versus community-onset sepsis (odds ratio, 2.1; 95% CI, 2.0-2.2) and patients admitted without sepsis (hazard ratio, 3.0; 95% CI, 2.9-3.2).ConclusionsHospital-onset sepsis complicated one in 200 hospitalizations and accounted for one in eight sepsis cases, with one in three patients dying in-hospital. Hospital-onset sepsis preferentially afflicted ill patients but even after risk-adjustment, they were twice as likely to die as community-onset sepsis patients; in patients admitted without sepsis, hospital-onset sepsis tripled the risk of death. Hospital-onset sepsis is an important target for surveillance, prevention, and quality improvement initiatives.

Project description:ImportanceRapid response teams (RRTs) are foundational to hospital response to deteriorating conditions of patients. However, little is known about differences in RRT organization and function across top-performing and non-top-performing hospitals for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) care.ObjectiveTo evaluate differences in design and implementation of RRTs at top-performing and non-top-performing sites for survival of IHCA, which is known to be associated with hospital performance on IHCA incidence.Design, setting, and participantsA qualitative analysis was performed of data from semistructured interviews of 158 hospital staff members (nurses, physicians, administrators, and staff) during site visits to 9 hospitals participating in the Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation program and consistently ranked in the top, middle, and bottom quartiles for IHCA survival during 2012-2014. Site visits were conducted from April 19, 2016, to July 27, 2017. Data analysis was completed in January 2019.Main outcomes and measuresSemistructured in-depth interviews were performed and thematic analysis was conducted on strategies for IHCA prevention, including RRT roles and responsibilities.ResultsOf the 158 participants, 72 were nurses (45.6%), 27 physicians (17.1%), 27 clinical staff (17.1%), and 32 administrators (20.3%). Between 12 and 30 people at each hospital participated in interviews. Differences in RRTs at top-performing and non-top-performing sites were found in the following 4 domains: team design and composition, RRT engagement in surveillance of at-risk patients, empowerment of bedside nurses to activate the RRT, and collaboration with bedside nurses during and after a rapid response. At top-performing hospitals, RRTs were typically staffed with dedicated team members without competing clinical responsibilities, who provided expertise to bedside nurses in managing patients who were at risk for deterioration, and collaborated with nurses during and after a rapid response. Bedside nurses were empowered to activate RRTs based on their judgment and experience without fear of reprisal from physicians or hospital staff. In contrast, RRT members at non-top-performing hospitals had competing clinical responsibilities and were generally less engaged with bedside nurses. Nurses at non-top-performing hospitals reported concerns about potential consequences from activating the RRT.Conclusions and relevanceThis qualitative study's findings suggest that top-performing hospitals feature RRTs with dedicated staff without competing clinical responsibilities, that work collaboratively with bedside nurses, and that can be activated without fear of reprisal. These findings provide unique insights into RRTs at hospitals with better IHCA outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundSepsis is the leading cause of in-hospital death. The SEP-1 sepsis bundle is a protocol for early sepsis care that requires providers to diagnose and treat sepsis quickly. Limited evidence suggests that adherence to the sepsis bundle is lower in cases of hospital-onset sepsis.ObjectiveTo compare sepsis bundle adherence in hospital-onset vs. community-onset sepsis.DesignRetrospective cohort study using multivariable analysis of clinical data.ParticipantsA total of 4658 inpatients age 18 or older were identified by diagnosis codes consistent with sepsis or disseminated infection.SettingFour university hospitals in California between 2014 and 2016.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was adherence to key components of the sepsis bundle defined by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in their core measure, SEP-1. Covariates included clinical characteristics related to the patient, infection, and pathogen.Key resultsCompared with community-onset, cases of hospital-onset sepsis were less likely to receive SEP-1 adherent care (relative risk 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.29-0.38, p < 0.001). With the exception of vasopressors (RR 1.11, p = 0.002), each component of SEP-1 evaluated-blood cultures (RR 0.76, p < 0.001), serum lactate (RR 0.51, p < 0001), broad-spectrum antibiotics (RR 0.62, p < 0.001), intravenous fluids (0.47, p < 0.001), and follow-up lactate (RR 0.71, p < 0.001)-was less likely to be performed within the recommended time frame in hospital-onset sepsis. Within the hospital, cases of hospital-onset sepsis arising on the ward were less likely to receive SEP-1-adherent care than were cases arising in the intensive care unit (RR 0.68, p = 0.004).ConclusionsInpatients with hospital-onset sepsis receive different management than individuals with community-onset sepsis. It remains to be determined whether system-level factors, provider-level factors, or factors related to measurement explain the observed variation in care or whether variation in care affects outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundBased on sparse evidence, the current Surviving Sepsis Campaign guideline suggests that critically ill patients with sepsis be admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) within 6 h. However, limited ICU bed availability often makes immediate transfer difficult, and it is unclear whether all patients will benefit from early admission to the ICU. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the association between the timing of ICU admission and mortality in patients with hospital-onset sepsis.MethodsThis nationwide prospective cohort study analyzed patients with hospital-onset sepsis admitted to the ICUs of 19 tertiary hospitals between September 2019 and December 2020. ICU admission was classified as either early (within 6 h) or delayed (beyond 6 h). The primary outcome of in-hospital mortality was compared using logistic regression adjusted for key prognostic factors in the unmatched and 1:1 propensity-score-matched cohorts. Subgroup and interaction analyses assessed whether in-hospital mortality varied according to baseline characteristics.ResultsA total of 470 and 286 patients were included in the early and delayed admission groups, respectively. Early admission to the ICU did not significantly result in lower in-hospital mortality in both the unmatched (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-1.85) and matched cohorts (aOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.94-2.02). Subgroup analyses showed that patients with increasing lactate levels (aOR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.37-3.23; P for interaction = 0.003), septic shock (aOR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.31-3.22; P for interaction = 0.019), and those who needed mechanical ventilation (aOR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.24-2.96; P for interaction = 0.027) or vasopressor support (aOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.17-2.44; P for interaction = 0.042) on the day of ICU admission had a higher risk of mortality with delayed admission.ConclusionsAmong patients with hospital-onset sepsis, in-hospital mortality did not differ significantly between those with early and delayed ICU admission. However, as early intensive care may benefit those with increasing lactate levels, septic shock, and those who require vasopressors or ventilatory support, admission to the ICU within 6 h should be considered for these subsets of patients.

Project description:ImportanceThe Early Management Bundle for Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock (SEP-1) is a quality metric based on a care bundle for early sepsis management. Published evidence on the association of SEP-1 with mortality is mixed and largely excludes cases of hospital-onset sepsis.ObjectiveTo assess the association of the SEP-1 bundle with mortality and organ dysfunction in cohorts with hospital-onset or community-onset sepsis.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used data from 4 University of California hospitals from October 1, 2014, to October 1, 2017. Adult inpatients with a diagnosis consistent with sepsis or disseminated infection and laboratory or vital signs meeting the Sepsis-3 (Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock) criteria were divided into community-onset sepsis and hospital-onset sepsis cohorts based on whether time 0 of sepsis occurred after arrival in the emergency department or an inpatient area. Data were analyzed from April to October 2019. Additional analyses were performed from December 2019 to January 2020.ExposuresAdministration of SEP-1 and 4 individual bundle components (serum lactate level testing, blood culture, broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotic treatment, and intravenous fluid treatment).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcome was days requiring vasopressor support, measured as vasopressor days.ResultsAmong the 6404 patient encounters identified (3535 men [55.2%]; mean [SD] age, 64.0 [18.2] years), 2296 patients (35.9%) had hospital-onset sepsis. Among 4108 patients (64.1%) with community-onset sepsis, serum lactate level testing within 3 hours of time 0 was associated with reduced mortality (absolute difference, -7.61%; 95% CI, -14.70% to -0.54%). Blood culture (absolute difference, -1.10 days; 95% CI, -1.85 to -0.34 days) and broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotic treatment (absolute difference, -0.62 days; 95% CI, -1.02 to -0.22 days) were associated with fewer vasopressor days. Among patients with hospital-onset sepsis, broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotic treatment was the only bundle component significantly associated with any improved outcome (mortality difference, -5.20%; 95% CI, -9.84% to -0.56%). Care that was adherent to the complete SEP-1 bundle was associated with increased vasopressor days in patients with community-onset sepsis (absolute difference, 0.31 days; 95% CI, 0.11-0.51 days) but was not significantly associated with reduced mortality in either cohort (absolute difference, -0.07%; 95% CI, -3.02% to 2.88% in community-onset; absolute difference, -0.42%; 95% CI, -6.77% to 5.93% in hospital-onset).Conclusions and relevanceSEP-1-adherent care was not associated with improved outcomes of sepsis. Although multiple components of SEP-1 were associated with reduced mortality or decreased days of vasopressor therapy for patients who presented with sepsis in the emergency department, only broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotic treatment was associated with reduced mortality when time 0 occurred in an inpatient unit. Current sepsis quality metrics may need refinement.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Implementation of medical emergency teams has been identified as a potential strategy to reduce hospital deaths, because these teams respond to patients with acute physiological decline in an effort to prevent in-hospital cardiac arrest. However, prior studies of the association between medical emergency teams and hospital mortality have been limited and typically have not accounted for preimplementation mortality trends. METHODS:Within the Pediatric Health Information System for freestanding pediatric hospitals, annual risk-adjusted mortality rates were calculated for sites between 2000 and 2015. A random slopes interrupted time series analysis then examined whether implementation of a medical emergency team was associated with lower-than-expected mortality rates based on preimplementation trends. RESULTS:Across 38 pediatric hospitals, mean annual hospital admission volume was 15?854 (range, 6684-33?024), and there were a total of 1?659?059 hospitalizations preimplementation and 4?392?392 hospitalizations postimplementation. Before medical emergency team implementation, hospital mortality decreased by 6.0% annually (odds ratio [OR], 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-0.96) across all hospitals. After medical emergency team implementation, hospital mortality continued to decrease by 6% annually (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.93-0.95), with no deepening of the mortality slope (ie, not lower OR) in comparison with the preimplementation trend, for the overall cohort (P=0.98) or when analyzed separately within each of the 38 study hospitals. Five years after medical emergency team implementation across study sites, there was no difference between predicted (hospital mean of 6.18 deaths per 1000 admissions based on preimplementation trends) and actual mortality rates (hospital mean of 6.48 deaths per 1000 admissions; P=0.57). CONCLUSIONS:Implementation of medical emergency teams in a large sample of pediatric hospitals in the United States was not associated with a reduction in hospital mortality beyond existing preimplementation trends.

Dataset Information

Mortality of patients with hospital-onset sepsis in hospitals with all-day and non-all-day rapid response teams: a prospective nationwide multicenter cohort study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Mortality of patients with hospital-onset sepsis in hospitals with all-day and non-all-day rapid response teams: a prospective nationwide multicenter cohort study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets