Development and validation of the HMS-Sepsis mortality model.

BACKGROUND: When comparing outcomes after sepsis, it is essential to account for patient case mix to make fair comparisons. We developed a model to assess risk-adjusted 30-day mortality in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety's sepsis initiative (HMS-Sepsis). QUESTION: Can HMS-Sepsis registry data adequately predict risk of 30-day mortality? Do performance assessments using adjusted vs unadjusted data differ? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort of community-onset sepsis hospitalizations in HMS-Sepsis registry (4/2022-9/2023), with split derivation (70%) and validation (30%) cohorts. We fit a risk-adjustment model (HMS-Sepsis mortality model) incorporating acute physiology, demographic, and baseline health data and assessed model performance using c-statistics, Brier's scores, and comparisons of predicted vs observed mortality by deciles of risk. We compared hospital performance (1st quintile, middle quintiles, 5th quintile) using observed versus adjusted mortality to understand the extent to which risk-adjustment impacted hospital performance assessment. RESULTS: Among 17,514 hospitalizations from 66 hospitals during the study period, 12,260 (70%) were used for model derivation and 5,254 (30%) for model validation. 30-day mortality for the total cohort was 19.4%. The final model included 13 physiologic variables, two physiologic interactions, and 16 demographic and chronic health variables. The most significant variables were age, metastatic solid tumor, temperature, altered mental status, and platelet count. The model c-statistic was 0.82 for the derivation cohort, 0.81 for the validation cohort, and ≥0.78 for all subgroups assessed. Overall calibration error was 0.0% and mean calibration error across deciles of risk was 1.5%. Standardized mortality ratios yielded different assessments than observed mortality for 33.9% of hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: The HMS-Sepsis mortality model had strong discrimination, adequate calibration, and reclassified one-third of hospitals to a different performance category from unadjusted mortality. Based on its strong performance, the HMS-Sepsis mortality model can aid in fair hospital benchmarking, assessment of temporal changes, and observational causal inference analysis.

Sepsis Program Activities in Acute Care Hospitals - National Healthcare Safety Network, United States, 2022.

Sepsis, life-threatening organ dysfunction secondary to infection, contributes to at least 1.7 million adult hospitalizations and at least 350,000 deaths annually in the United States. Sepsis care is complex, requiring the coordination of multiple hospital departments and disciplines. Sepsis programs can coordinate these efforts to optimize patient outcomes. The 2022 National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) annual survey evaluated the prevalence and characteristics of sepsis programs in acute care hospitals. Among 5,221 hospitals, 3,787 (73%) reported having a committee that monitors and reviews sepsis care. Prevalence of these committees varied by hospital size, ranging from 53% among hospitals with 0-25 beds to 95% among hospitals with >500 beds. Fifty-five percent of all hospitals provided dedicated time (including assigned protected time or job description requirements) for leaders of these committees to manage a program and conduct daily activities, and 55% of committees reported involvement with antibiotic stewardship programs. These data highlight opportunities, particularly in smaller hospitals, to improve the care and outcomes of patients with sepsis in the United States by ensuring that all hospitals have sepsis programs with protected time for program leaders, engagement of medical specialists, and integration with antimicrobial stewardship programs. CDC's Hospital Sepsis Program Core Elements provides a guide to assist hospitals in developing and implementing effective sepsis programs that complement and facilitate the implementation of existing clinical guidelines and improve patient care. Future NHSN annual surveys will monitor uptake of these sepsis core elements.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Hospital Sepsis Program Core Elements.

This Viewpoint discusses Hospital Sepsis Program Core Elements, a set of guidance provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to help hospitals develop multiprofessional programs that monitor and optimize management and outcomes of sepsis.

Common Risk Stratification of Hospital and Ambulatory Patients.

The care of patients with multiple chronic conditions and those near the end-of-life is often compromised by miscommunications among the healthcare teams. These might be improved by using common risk strata for both hospital and ambulatory settings. We developed, validated, and implemented an all-payer ambulatory risk stratification based on the patients' predicted probability of dying within 30 days, for a large multispecialty practice. Strata had comparable 30-day mortality rates to hospital strata already in use. The high-risk ambulatory strata contained less than 20% of the ambulatory population yet captured 85% of those with 3 or more comorbidities, more than 80% of those who would die 30 or 180 days from the date of scoring, and two-thirds of those with a nonsurgical hospitalization within the next 30 days. We provide examples how the practice and partner hospital have begun to use this common framework for their clinical care model.

Implementing the ABCDEF Bundle: Top 8 Questions Asked During the ICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle Improvement Collaborative.

The ABCDEF bundle (A, assess, prevent, and manage pain; B, both spontaneous awakening and spontaneous breathing trials; C, choice of analgesic and sedation; D, delirium: assess, prevent, and manage; E, early mobility and exercise; and F, family engagement and empowerment) improves intensive care unit patient-centered outcomes and promotes interprofessional teamwork and collaboration. The Society of Critical Care Medicine recently completed the ICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle Improvement Collaborative, a 20-month, multicenter, national quality improvement initiative that formalized dissemination and implementation strategies to promote effective adoption of the ABCDEF bundle. The purpose of this article is to describe 8 of the most frequently asked questions during the Collaborative and to provide practical advice from leading experts to other institutions implementing the ABCDEF bundle.

Common Challenges to Effective ABCDEF Bundle Implementation: The ICU Liberation Campaign Experience.

Although growing evidence supports the safety and effectiveness of the ABCDEF bundle (A, assess, prevent, and manage pain; B, both spontaneous awakening and spontaneous breathing trials; C, choice of analgesic and sedation; D, delirium: assess, prevent, and manage; E, early mobility and exercise; and F, family engagement and empowerment), intensive care unit providers often struggle with how to reliably and consistently incorporate this interprofessional, evidence-based intervention into everyday clinical practice. Recently, the Society of Critical Care Medicine completed the ICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle Improvement Collaborative, a 20-month, nationwide, multicenter quality improvement initiative that formalized dissemination and implementation strategies and tracked key performance metrics to overcome barriers to ABCDEF bundle adoption. The purpose of this article is to discuss some of the most challenging implementation issues that Collaborative teams experienced, and to provide some practical advice from leading experts on ways to overcome these barriers.

Caring for Critically Ill Patients with the ABCDEF Bundle: Results of the ICU Liberation Collaborative in Over 15,000 Adults.

OBJECTIVE: Decades-old, common ICU practices including deep sedation, immobilization, and limited family access are being challenged. We endeavoured to evaluate the relationship between ABCDEF bundle performance and patient-centered outcomes in critical care. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, cohort study from a national quality improvement collaborative. SETTING: 68 academic, community, and federal ICUs collected data during a 20-month period. PATIENTS: 15,226 adults with at least one ICU day. INTERVENTIONS: We defined ABCDEF bundle performance (our main exposure) in two ways: 1) complete performance (patient received every eligible bundle element on any given day) and 2) proportional performance (percentage of eligible bundle elements performed on any given day). We explored the association between complete and proportional ABCDEF bundle performance and three sets of outcomes: patient-related (mortality, ICU and hospital discharge), symptom-related (mechanical ventilation, coma, delirium, pain, restraint use), and system-related (ICU readmission, discharge destination). All models were adjusted for a minimum of 18 a priori determined potential confounders. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Complete ABCDEF bundle performance was associated with lower likelihood of seven outcomes: hospital death within 7 days (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.32; CI, 0.17-0.62), next-day mechanical ventilation (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.28; CI, 0.22-0.36), coma (AOR, 0.35; CI, 0.22-0.56), delirium (AOR, 0.60; CI, 0.49-0.72), physical restraint use (AOR, 0.37; CI, 0.30-0.46), ICU readmission (AOR, 0.54; CI, 0.37-0.79), and discharge to a facility other than home (AOR, 0.64; CI, 0.51-0.80). There was a consistent dose-response relationship between higher proportional bundle performance and improvements in each of the above-mentioned clinical outcomes (all p < 0.002). Significant pain was more frequently reported as bundle performance proportionally increased (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: ABCDEF bundle performance showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements in outcomes including survival, mechanical ventilation use, coma, delirium, restraint-free care, ICU readmissions, and post-ICU discharge disposition.

Improving Health Care for Critically Ill Patients Using an Evidence-Based Collaborative Approach to ABCDEF Bundle Dissemination and Implementation.

BACKGROUND: Patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) often experience pain, oversedation, prolonged mechanical ventilation, delirium, and weakness. These conditions are important in that they often lead to protracted physical, neurocognitive, and mental health sequelae now termed postintensive care syndrome. Changing current ICU practice will not only require the adoption of evidence-based interventions but the development of effective and reliable teams to support these new practices. OBJECTIVES: To build on the success of bundled care and bridge an ongoing evidence-practice gap, the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) recently launched the ICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle Improvement Collaborative. The Collaborative aimed to foster the bedside application of the SCCM's Pain, Agitation, and Delirium Guidelines via the ABCDEF bundle. The purpose of this paper is to describe the history of the Collaborative, the evidence-based implementation strategies used to foster change and teamwork, and the performance and outcome metrics used to monitor progress. METHODS: Collaborative participants were required to attend four in-person meetings, monthly colearning calls, database training sessions, an e-Community listserv, and select in-person site visits. Teams submitted patient-level data and completed pre- and postimplementation questionnaires focused on the assessment of teamwork and collaboration, work environment, and overall ICU care. Faculty shared the evidence used to derive each bundle element as well as team-based implementation strategies for improvement and sustainment. RESULTS: Retention in the Collaborative was high, with 67 of 69 adult and eight of nine pediatric ICUs fully completing the program. Baseline and prospective data were collected on over 17,000 critically ill patients. A variety of evidence-based professional behavioral change interventions and novel implementation techniques were utilized and shared among Collaborative members. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Hospitals and health systems can use the Collaborative structure, strategies, and tools described in this paper to help successfully implement the ABCDEF bundle in their ICUs.

Protocol-Based Resuscitation Bundle to Improve Outcomes in Septic Shock Patients: Evaluation of the Michigan Health and Hospital Association Keystone Sepsis Collaborative.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of a multi-ICU quality improvement collaborative implementing a protocol-based resuscitation bundle to treat septic shock patients. DESIGN: A difference-in-differences analysis compared patient outcomes in hospitals participating in the Michigan Health & Hospital Association Keystone Sepsis collaborative (n = 37) with noncollaborative hospitals (n = 50) pre- (2010-2011) and postimplementation (2012-2013). Collaborative hospitals were also stratified as high (n = 19) and low (n = 18) adherence based on their overall bundle adherence. SETTING: Eighty-seven Michigan hospitals with ICUs. PATIENTS: We compared 22,319 septic shock patients in collaborative hospitals compared to 26,055 patients in noncollaborative hospitals using the Michigan Inpatient Database. INTERVENTIONS: Multidisciplinary ICU teams received informational toolkits, standardized screening tools, and continuous quality improvement, aided by cultural improvement. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In-hospital mortality and hospital length of stay significantly improved between pre- and postimplementation periods for both collaborative and noncollaborative hospitals. Comparing collaborative and noncollaborative hospitals, we found no additional reductions in mortality (odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.87-1.01; p = 0.106) or length of stay (-0.3 d; 95% CI, -0.7 to 0.1 d; p = 0.174). Compared to noncollaborative hospitals, high adherence hospitals had significant reductions in mortality (odds ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.79-0.93; p < 0.001) and length of stay (-0.7 d; 95% CI, -1.1 to -0.2; p < 0.001), whereas low adherence hospitals did not (odds ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.97-1.19; p = 0.197; 0.2 d; 95% CI, -0.3 to 0.8; p = 0.367). CONCLUSIONS: Participation in the Keystone Sepsis collaborative was unable to improve patient outcomes beyond concurrent trends. High bundle adherence hospitals had significantly greater improvements in outcomes, but further work is needed to understand these findings.

Implementation of a mortality prediction rule for real-time decision making: feasibility and validity.

BACKGROUND: A previously published, retrospectively derived prediction rule for death within 30 days of hospital admission has the potential to launch parallel interdisciplinary team activities. Whether or not patient care improves will depend on the validity of prospectively generated predictions, and the feasibility of generating them on demand for a critical proportion of inpatients. OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of generating mortality predictions on admission and to validate their accuracy using the scoring weights of the retrospective rule. DESIGN: Prospective, sequential cohort. SETTING: Large, tertiary care, community hospital in the Midwestern United States PATIENTS: Adult patients admitted from the emergency department or scheduled for elective surgery RESULTS: Mortality predictions were generated on demand at the beginning of the hospitalization for 9312 (92.9%) out of a possible 10,027 cases. The area under the receiver operating curve for 30-day mortality was 0.850 (95% confidence interval: 0.833-0.866), indicating very good to excellent discrimination. The prospectively generated 30-day mortality risk had a strong association with the receipt of palliative care by hospital discharge, in-hospital mortality, and 180-day mortality, a fair association with the risk for 30-day readmissions and unplanned transfers to intensive care, and weak associations with receipt of intensive unit care ever within the hospitalization or the development of a new diagnosis that was not present on admission (ie, complication). CONCLUSIONS: Important prognostic information is feasible to obtain in a real-time, single-assessment process for a sizeable proportion of hospitalized patients.

Elimination of central line-associated bloodstream infections: application of the evidence.

Central line-associated bloodstream infections are considered to be an avoidable complication of care delivery. In addition to considerable morbidity and use of resources, central line-associated bloodstream infections carry an attributable morality between 12% and 25%. The estimated cost per infection is approximately 25,000 US dollars. Research over the last decade has focused on a number of care activities that have been shown to reduce the incidence of bloodstream infections related to central line placement in the critically ill patient. A significant reduction or elimination of central line-associated bloodstream infections can occur with implementation of a comprehensive central line-associated bloodstream infection prevention program that includes staff education, hand hygiene, use of maximal sterile barrier precautions, chlorhexidine gluconate skin antisepsis, avoidance of femoral lines, empowerment of staff to stop the procedure if sterile technique is broken, and daily assessment of the continued need for a central line. This article focuses on strategies for implementing a comprehensive central line-associated bloodstream infections prevention program and a tool and process for defect analysis as part of a statewide collaborative in Michigan.