Cited by 156Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentMedical Coding and Health InformationNursing Diagnosis and Documentation

Severe sepsis cohorts derived from claims-based strategies appear to be biased toward a more severely ill patient population.

Open access
Whittaker, Stacey-Ann, Mikkelsen, Mark E., Gaieski, David F., Koshy, Sherine, Kean, Craig, Fuchs, Barry D.·2013·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The epidemiology of severe sepsis is derived from administrative databases that rely on International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes to select cases. We compared the sensitivity of two code abstraction methods in identifying severe sepsis cases using a severe sepsis registry. DESIGN: Single-center retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary care, Academic, University Hospital. PATIENTS: One thousand seven hundred thirty-five patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: Proportion identified as severe sepsis using two code abstraction methods: 1) the new specific ICD-9 codes for severe sepsis and septic shock, and 2) a validated method requiring two ICD-9 codes for infection and end-organ dysfunction. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine sociodemographics and clinical characteristics associated with documentation and coding accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: The strategy combining a code for infection and end-organ dysfunction was more sensitive in identifying cases than the method requiring specific ICD-9 codes for severe sepsis or septic shock (47% vs. 21%). Elevated serum lactate level (p<0.001), ICU admission (p<0.001), presence of shock (p<0.001), bacteremia as the source of sepsis (p=0.02), and increased Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (p<0.001) were independently associated with being appropriately documented and coded. The 28-day mortality was significantly higher in those who were accurately documented/coded (41%, compared with 14% in those who were not, p<0.001), reflective of a more severe presentation on admission. CONCLUSIONS: Patients admitted with severe sepsis and septic shock were incompletely documented and under-coded, using either ICD-9 code abstracting method. Documentation of subsequent coding of severe sepsis was more common in more severely ill patients. These findings are important when evaluating current national estimates and when interpreting epidemiologic studies of severe sepsis as cohorts derived from claims-based strategies appear to be biased toward a more severely ill patient population.

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.0b013e31827466f1

Cites

23 of 23 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

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. [9]Poulose JT Cartin-Ceba R Shoja A Comparison of International Classification of Disease Ninth Revision (ICD-9) coding with retrospective case review for the diagnosis of septic shock Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2009 179 A4361
  2. [27]Dombrovskiy VY Martin AA Sunderram J Rapid increase in hospitalization and mortality rates for severe sepsis in the United States: a trend analysis from 1993 to 2003 Crit Care Med 2007 35 1244 1250 17414736

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Whittaker, S.-A., Mikkelsen, M. E., Gaieski, D. F., Koshy, S., Kean, C., & Fuchs, B. D.
Affiliations
  • Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania Health System (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2013-04
Volume
41
Issue
4
Pages
945-953
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1986836608
Cited by
156
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 7
FWCI
15.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Critical Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (L30 HL115698)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (L30 GM086101)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Keywords
severe sepsis, septic shock, ICD-9-CM coding, end-organ dysfunction, documentation accuracy, 28-day mortality, sepsis epidemiology, APACHE II score, lactate
MeSH terms
Abstracting and Indexing, Adult, Aged, Critical Care, Female, Hospitals, University, Humans, Male, Medical Records, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Sensitivity and Specificity, Severity of Illness Index, Shock, Septic, Cohort Studies, Critical Illness, Risk Assessment, Sepsis, International Classification of Diseases

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