Cited by 26Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentHealthcare Quality and ManagementTrauma and Emergency Care Studies

New Mandated Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Requirements for Sepsis Reporting: Caution from the Field

Aaronson, Emily L., Filbin, Michael R., Brown, David F.M., Tobin, Kathy, Mort, Elizabeth A.·2017·The Journal of Emergency Medicine

Abstract

Background The release of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Service's (CMS) latest quality measure, Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock Early Management Bundle (SEP-1), has intensified the long-standing debate over optimal care for severe sepsis and septic shock. Although the last decade of research has demonstrated the importance of comprehensive bundled care in conjunction with compliance mechanisms to reduce patient mortality, it is not clear that SEP-1 achieves this aim. The heterogeneous and often cryptic presentation of severe sepsis and septic shock, along with the multifaceted criteria for the definition of this clinical syndrome, pose a particular challenge for fitting requirements to this disease, and implementation could have unintended consequences. Objective Following a simulated reporting exercise, in which 50 charts underwent expert review, we aimed to detail the challenges of, and offer suggestions on how to rethink, measuring performance in severe sepsis and septic shock care. Discussion There were several challenges associated with the design and implementation of this measure. The ambiguous definition of severe sepsis and septic shock, prescriptive fluid volume requirements, rigid reassessment, and complex abstraction logic all raise significant concern. Conclusions Although SEP-1 represents an important first step in requiring hospitals to improve outcomes for patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, the current approach must be revisited. The volume and co…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jemermed.2016.08.009

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • SEP-1's administrative burden and prescriptive timing rules may incentivize unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotics or fixed-volume fluid administration in patients with tenuous cardiopulmonary reserve, shifting attention from physiology-driven resuscitation to documentation-driven completion.

    “From the clinician perspective, strict requirements may incentivize unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotics or fixed-volume fluid administration in patients with tenuous cardiopulmonary reserve, shifting attention from physiology-driven resuscitation to documentation-driven completion [7,18].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aaronson, E. L., Filbin, M. R., Brown, D. F. M., Tobin, K., & Mort, E. A.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Aaronson, Emily L.
Venue
The Journal of Emergency Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-01
Volume
52
Issue
1
Pages
109-116
ISSN
0736-4679 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2527946475
Cited by
26
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2
FWCI
3.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Emergency Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Trauma and Emergency Care Studies
Keywords
severe sepsis, septic shock, quality of care measurement, hospital accountability, fluid resuscitation, data abstraction
MeSH terms
Humans, Research Design, United States, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S., Sepsis, Quality Indicators, Health Care

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