Cited by 37Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentElectronic Health Records SystemsMachine Learning in Healthcare

Epic Sepsis Model Inpatient Predictive Analytic Tool: A Validation Study

Open access
Cull, John, Brevetta, Robert, Gerac, Jeff, Kothari, Shanu, Blackhurst, Dawn·2023·Critical Care Explorations

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Earlier treatment of sepsis leads to decreased mortality. Epic is an electronic medical record providing a predictive alert system for sepsis, the Epic Sepsis Model (ESM) Inpatient Predictive Analytic Tool. External validation of this system is lacking. This study aims to evaluate the ESM as a sepsis screening tool and determine whether an association exists between ESM alert system implementation and subsequent sepsis-related mortality. DESIGN: Before-and-after study comparing baseline and intervention period. SETTING: Urban 746-bed academic level 1 trauma center. PATIENTS: Adult acute care inpatients discharged between January 12, 2018, and July 31, 2019. INTERVENTIONS: During the before period, ESM was turned on in the background, but nurses and providers were not alerted of results. The system was then activated to alert providers of scores greater than or equal to 5, a set point determined using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis (area under the curve, 0.834; p < 0.001). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcome was mortality during hospitalization; secondary outcomes were sepsis order set utilization, length of stay, and timing of administration of sepsis-appropriate antibiotics. Of the 11,512 inpatient encounters assessed by ESM, 10.2% (1,171) had sepsis based on diagnosis codes. As a screening test, the ESM had sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value rates of 86.0%, 80.8%, 33.8%, and 98.11%, respectively. After ESM implementation, unadjusted mortality rates in patients with ESM score greater than or equal to 5 and who had not yet received sepsis-appropriate antibiotics declined from 24.3% to 15.9%; multivariable analysis yielded an odds ratio of sepsis-related mortality (95% CI) of 0.56 (0.39–0.80). CONCLUSIONS: In this single-center before-and-after study, utilization of the ESM score as a screening test was associated with a 44% reduction in the odds of sepsis-related mortality. Due to wide utilization of Epic, this is a potentially promising tool to improve sepsis mortality in the United States. This study is hypothesis generating, and further work with more rigorous study design is needed.

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 · 10.1097/cce.0000000000000941

Cites

31 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • The Epic Sepsis model shows divergent performance across hospitals: it is critiqued in a Michigan hospital and affirmed as effective in Greenville.

    “The widely adopted Epic Sepsis model exemplifies these divergent outcomes. Wong et al. [21] critique the model’s performance when applied to a Michigan, U.S. hospital and raise concerns about sepsis care quality, while Cull et al. [45] affirm its effectiveness using data from Greenville, U.S.”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [6]Torio CM Moore BJ: National inpatient hospital costs: The most expensive conditions by payer, 2013: Statistical Brief #204. In: Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Statistical Briefs. Rockville, MD, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), 2006, p 6. 27359025
  2. [21]Glaze J: Epic Systems Draws on Literature Greats for Its Next Expansion. Wisconsin State Journal, 2015. Available at: https://madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/epic-systems-draws-on-literature-greats-for-its-next-expansion/article_4d1cf67c-2abf-5cfd-8ce1-2da60ed84194.html. Accessed June 1, 2022

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cull, J., Brevetta, R., Gerac, J., Kothari, S., & Blackhurst, D.
Affiliations
Prisma Health (US)
Corresponding author
Cull, John
Venue
Critical Care Explorations
Published
2023-06-30
Volume
5
Issue
7
Pages
e0941
ISSN
2639-8028 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4382751277
Cited by
37
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 1
FWCI
7.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Critical Care Explorations (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
sepsis, sepsis prediction model, electronic health record alerts, sepsis screening, sepsis mortality, model validation

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