Determining the Electronic Signature of Infection in Electronic Health Record Data.

OBJECTIVES: Recent sepsis studies have defined patients as "infected" using a combination of culture and antibiotic orders rather than billing data. However, the accuracy of these definitions is unclear. We aimed to compare the accuracy of different established criteria for identifying infected patients using detailed chart review. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Six hospitals from three health systems in Illinois. PATIENTS: Adult admissions with blood culture or antibiotic orders, or Angus International Classification of Diseases infection codes and death were eligible for study inclusion as potentially infected patients. Nine-hundred to 1,000 of these admissions were randomly selected from each health system for chart review, and a proportional number of patients who did not meet chart review eligibility criteria were also included and deemed not infected. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The accuracy of published billing code criteria by Angus et al and electronic health record criteria by Rhee et al and Seymour et al (Sepsis-3) was determined using the manual chart review results as the gold standard. A total of 5,215 patients were included, with 2,874 encounters analyzed via chart review and a proportional 2,341 added who did not meet chart review eligibility criteria. In the study cohort, 27.5% of admissions had at least one infection. This was most similar to the percentage of admissions with blood culture orders (26.8%), Angus infection criteria (28.7%), and the Sepsis-3 criteria (30.4%). Sepsis-3 criteria was the most sensitive (81%), followed by Angus (77%) and Rhee (52%), while Rhee (97%) and Angus (90%) were more specific than the Sepsis-3 criteria (89%). Results were similar for patients with organ dysfunction during their admission. CONCLUSIONS: Published criteria have a wide range of accuracy for identifying infected patients, with the Sepsis-3 criteria being the most sensitive and Rhee criteria being the most specific. These findings have important implications for studies investigating the burden of sepsis on a local and national level.

Patient Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of a Sepsis Care Quality Improvement Program in a Health System.

OBJECTIVES: Assess patient outcomes in patients with suspected infection and the cost-effectiveness of implementing a quality improvement program. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted an observational single-center study of 13,877 adults with suspected infection between March 1, 2014, and July 31, 2017. The 18-month period before and after the effective date for mandated reporting of the sepsis bundle was examined. The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score and culture and antibiotic orders were used to identify patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria from the electronic health record. INTERVENTIONS: The following interventions were performed as follows: 1) multidisciplinary sepsis committee with sepsis coordinator and data abstractor; 2) education campaign; 3) electronic health record tools; and 4) a Modified Early Warning System. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary health outcomes were in-hospital death and length of stay. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated and the empirical 95% CI for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated from 5,000 bootstrap samples. RESULTS: In multivariable analysis, the odds ratio for in-hospital death in the post- versus pre-implementation periods was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.57-0.86) in those with suspected infection, and the hazard ratio for time to discharge was 1.25 (95% CI, 1.20-1.29). Similarly, a decrease in the odds for in-hospital death and an increase in the speed to discharge was observed for the subset that met Sepsis-3 criteria. The program was cost saving in patients with suspected infection (-$272,645.7; 95% CI, -$757,970.3 to -$79,667.7). Cost savings were also observed in the Sepsis-3 group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our health system's program designed to adhere to the sepsis bundle metrics led to decreased mortality and length of stay in a cost-effective manner in a much larger catchment than just the cohort meeting the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services measures. Our single-center model of interventions may serve as a practice-based benchmark for hospitalized patients with suspected infection.