Cited by 86Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentMedical Coding and Health InformationElectronic Health Records Systems

Variation in Identifying Sepsis and Organ Dysfunction Using Administrative Versus Electronic Clinical Data and Impact on Hospital Outcome Comparisons*

Open access
Rhee, Chanu, Jentzsch, Maximilian S., Kadri, Sameer S., Seymour, Christopher W., Angus, Derek C., Murphy, David J., Martin, Greg S., Dantes, Raymund B. +13 more·2019·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

Objectives: Administrative claims data are commonly used for sepsis surveillance, research, and quality improvement. However, variations in diagnosis, documentation, and coding practices for sepsis and organ dysfunction may confound efforts to estimate sepsis rates, compare outcomes, and perform risk adjustment. We evaluated hospital variation in the sensitivity of claims data relative to clinical data from electronic health records and its impact on outcome comparisons. Design, Setting, and Patients: Retrospective cohort study of 4.3 million adult encounters at 193 U.S. hospitals in 2013–2014. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Sepsis was defined using electronic health record–derived clinical indicators of presumed infection (blood culture draws and antibiotic administrations) and concurrent organ dysfunction (vasopressors, mechanical ventilation, doubling in creatinine, doubling in bilirubin to ≥ 2.0 mg/dL, decrease in platelets to < 100 cells/µL, or lactate ≥ 2.0 mmol/L). We compared claims for sepsis prevalence and mortality rates between both methods. All estimates were reliability adjusted to account for random variation using hierarchical logistic regression modeling. The sensitivity of hospitals’ claims data was low and variable: median 30% (range, 5–54%) for sepsis, 66% (range, 26–84%) for acute kidney injury, 39% (range, 16–60%) for thrombocytopenia, 36% (range, 29–44%) for hepatic injury, and 66% (range, 29–84%) for shock. Correlation between claims and clinical data was moderate for sepsis prevalence (Pearson coefficient, 0.64) and mortality (0.61). Among hospitals in the lowest sepsis mortality quartile by claims, 46% shifted to higher mortality quartiles using clinical data. Using implicit sepsis criteria based on infection and organ dysfunction codes also yielded major differences versus clinical data. Conclusions: Variation in the accuracy of claims data for identifying sepsis and organ dysfunction limits their use for comparing hospitals’ sepsis rates and outcomes. Using objective clinical data may facilitate more meaningful hospital comparisons.

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/ccm.0000000000003554

Cites

40 of 40 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?

  • This study used Sepsis-3 clinical criteria to label sepsis cases, an approach that has imperfect concordance with the criterion standard approach of manual physician review.

    “First, this study used Sepsis-3 clinical criteria to label sepsis cases, an approach that has imperfect concordance with the criterion standard approach of manual physician review.25,26,27,28”

    From Multicenter Prospective Validation of an Updated Proprietary Sepsis Prediction Model (2026) · cites this paper as [27]

    The Discussion says the paper’s EHR-based clinical criteria are an imperfect reference standard and that there is no true gold standard for sepsis. But the paper did not review medical records to confirm its criteria (Discussion, limitations), so it does not establish their concordance with manual physician review or describe that review as the criterion standard. The citing study’s own use of Sepsis-3 is not a finding attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Sepsis discharge diagnosis codes are variably applied and miss many patients initially treated for sepsis but ultimately diagnosed with other conditions.

    “We did not use sepsis discharge diagnosis codes because these are variably applied and miss many patients initially treated for sepsis but ultimately diagnosed with other conditions.”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rhee, C., Jentzsch, M. S., Kadri, S. S., Seymour, C. W., Angus, D. C., Murphy, D. J., Martin, G. S., Dantes, R. B., Epstein, L., Fiore, A. E., Jernigan, J. A., Danner, R. L., Warren, D. K., Septimus, E. J., Hickok, J., Poland, R. E., Jin, R., Fram, D., Schaaf, R., Wang, R., & Klompas, M.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Emory University (US)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • Texas A&M Health Science Center (US)
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2019-04
Volume
47
Issue
4
Pages
493-500
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2901221479
Cited by
85
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 1
FWCI
6.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Critical Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U54CK000172)
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (K08HS025008)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R35GM119519)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
sepsis, organ dysfunction, administrative claims data, electronic health records, sepsis surveillance, risk adjustment, sepsis mortality, acute kidney injury, thrombocytopenia, liver injury, shock, diagnostic sensitivity, ICD-10 coding
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Multiple Organ Failure, Retrospective Studies, United States, Hospital Mortality, Sepsis, Quality Indicators, Health Care, Electronic Health Records

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