Cited by 149Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentInfection Control in HealthcareHealthcare Quality and Management

Association between state-mandated protocolized sepsis care and in-hospital mortality among adults with sepsis.

Open access
Kahn, Jeremy M., Davis, Billie S., Yabes, Jonathan G., Chang, Chung-Chou H., Chong, David H., Hershey, Tina Batra, Martsolf, Grant R., Angus, Derek C.·2019·JAMA

Abstract

Importance: Beginning in 2013, New York State implemented regulations mandating that hospitals implement evidence-based protocols for sepsis management, as well as report data on protocol adherence and clinical outcomes to the state government. The association between these mandates and sepsis outcomes is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the association between New York State sepsis regulations and the outcomes of patients hospitalized with sepsis. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of adult patients hospitalized with sepsis in New York State and in 4 control states (Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey) using all-payer hospital discharge data (January 1, 2011-September 30, 2015) and a comparative interrupted time series analytic approach. Exposures: Hospitalization for sepsis before (January 1, 2011-March 31, 2013) vs after (April 1, 2013-September 30, 2015) implementation of the 2013 New York State sepsis regulations. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 30-day in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were intensive care unit admission rates, central venous catheter use, Clostridium difficile infection rates, and hospital length of stay. Results: The final analysis included 1 012 410 sepsis admissions to 509 hospitals. The mean age was 69.5 years (SD, 16.4 years) and 47.9% were female. In New York State and in the control states, 139 019 and 289 225 patients, respectively, were admitted before implementation of the sepsis regulations and 186 767 and 397 399 patients, respectively, were admitted after implementation of the sepsis regulations. Unadjusted 30-day in-hospital mortality was 26.3% in New York State and 22.0% in the control states before the regulations, and was 22.0% in New York State and 19.1% in the control states after the regulations. Adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics as well as preregulation temporal trends and season, mortality after implementation of the regulations decreased significantly in New York State relative to the control states (P = .02 for the joint test of the comparative interrupted time series estimates). For example, by the 10th quarter after implementation of the regulations, adjusted absolute mortality was 3.2% (95% CI, 1.0% to 5.4%) lower than expected in New York State relative to the control states (P = .004). The regulations were associated with no significant differences in intensive care unit admission rates (P = .09) (10th quarter adjusted difference, 2.8% [95% CI, -1.7% to 7.2%], P = .22), a significant relative decrease in hospital length of stay (P = .04) (10th quarter adjusted difference, 0.50 days [95% CI, -0.47 to 1.47 days], P = .31), a significant relative decrease in the C difficile infection rate (P < .001) (10th quarter adjusted difference, -1.8% [95% CI, -2.6% to -1.0%], P < .001), and a significant relative increase in central venous catheter use (P = .02) (10th quarter adjusted difference, 4.8% [95% CI, 2.3% to 7.4%], P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In New York State, mandated protocolized sepsis care was associated with a greater decrease in sepsis mortality compared with sepsis mortality in control states that did not implement sepsis regulations. Because baseline mortality rates differed between New York and comparison states, it is uncertain whether these findings are generalizable to other states.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2019.9021

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In a retrospective cohort of 1,012,410 sepsis admissions to 509 US hospitals, mortality was lower in hospitals with higher compliance with achieving sepsis bundles after implementation of New York state sepsis regulations.

    “In this comparative interrupted time series, mortality was lower in hospitals with higher compliance with achieving the sepsis bundles successfully.”

    From Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. (2021) · cites this paper as [38]

    The Abstract and Primary and Secondary Outcome Analyses report a retrospective cohort of 1,012,410 admissions to 509 hospitals and lower adjusted mortality in New York after the regulations, relative to control states. They do not report that hospitals with higher sepsis-bundle compliance had lower mortality; the comparison was between states before and after implementation, not between hospitals by compliance. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In a retrospective cohort of 1,012,410 sepsis admissions to 509 US hospitals, mortality was lower in hospitals with higher compliance with achieving sepsis bundles after implementation of New York state sepsis regulations.

    “A retrospective cohort study of 1,012,410 sepsis admissions to 509 hospitals in the United States in a retrospective cohort examined mortality before (27 months) and after (30 months) implementation of New York state sepsis regulations, with a concurrent control population from 4 other states [38]. In this comparative interrupted time series, mortality was lower in hospitals with higher compliance”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 31 · Cited by 149

Authors
Kahn, J. M., Davis, B. S., Yabes, J. G., Chang, C.-C. H., Chong, D. H., Hershey, T. B., Martsolf, G. R., & Angus, D. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
  • RAND Corporation (US)
Corresponding author
Kahn, Jeremy M.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2019-07-16
Volume
322
Issue
3
Pages
240
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2956360324
Cited by
149
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 8
FWCI
14.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • New York State Department of Health
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01 HS025146)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Infection Control in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
Keywords
sepsis, sepsis management guidelines, in-hospital mortality, protocol adherence, intensive care unit admission, Clostridium difficile infection, length of hospital stay, hospital discharge data, health policy evaluation, adult sepsis
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Clostridium Infections, Female, Hospitalization, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Length of Stay, Male, Middle Aged, New York, Retrospective Studies, United States, Hospital Mortality, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Sepsis, Government Regulation, Central Venous Catheters, Interrupted Time Series Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review