The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Organizational Factors Associated with Sepsis Bundle Compliance: A Nationwide Study
Open accessAbstract
Sepsis is one of the leading causes of mortality in the United States (U.S.), accounting for over 220 000 deaths annually. To address the issue of mortality, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) launched a core measure with an associated clinical bundle. This measure requires completion of time‐sensitive bundled interventions (eg, fluid resuscitation, antibiotics). Completion of these interventions is known to improve the odds of survival. CMS reimbursement is not currently tied to a certain compliance level; however, it is under consideration. Hospitals’ compliance with the bundle is publicly reported as the SEP‐1 measure. The objective of this study was to examine which hospital organizational factors were associated with high and low compliance with the SEP‐1 measure. This study used a cross‐sectional design with 2017 hospital‐level data from the CMS Timely and Effective Care dataset, and the American Hospital Association (AHA)’s Annual Survey. A multivariate logistic regression with outcome variable of hospital compliance (high/low) with the SEP‐1 measure (0 = less than overall average on SEP‐1 score; 1 = greater than overall average) was performed. Control variables included: number of beds ( 250), teaching status (teaching, nonteaching), technology level (high, low), intensive care unit (ICU) beds (none, 1‐4, 5‐14, 15‐29, 30 or more), ownership (government, non‐for‐profit, for‐profit), sepsis case volume (0‐100, 101‐200, 201 or more), nurse hours per pat…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
A nationwide study linked lower odds of SEP-1 compliance to larger hospital size and teaching status.
“A nationwide study linked lower odds of SEP-1 compliance to larger hospital size and teaching status, suggesting that case-mix complexity, competing priorities, and operational load may interact with performance [17].”
From Artificial Intelligence to Facilitate SEP-1 Measure Compliance and Fluid Management in Sepsis (2026) · cites this paper as [17]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Artificial Intelligence to Facilitate SEP-1 Measure Compliance and Fluid Management in Sepsis
Nguyen, H. B., Krishtopaytis, E., Lopez, E., Farnoudi, N., Van, T., Kharalampova, V., & Coz Yataco, A. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm15093477
“A nationwide study linked lower odds of SEP-1 compliance to larger hospital size and teaching status, suggesting that case-mix complexity, competing priorities, and operational load may interact with performance [17].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Peach, B. C., & Ng, B. P.
- Affiliations
- University of Central Florida (US)
- Corresponding author
- Peach, B.C.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Health Services Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-08
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- S1
- Pages
- 82-83
- ISSN
- 0017-9124 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-6773
- PMC
- PMC7440497
- OpenAlex
- W3089812492
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 2
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Health Services Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Healthcare Quality and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Infection Control in Healthcare
- Keywords
- sepsis bundle compliance, sepsis mortality, hospital ownership, for-profit hospitals, teaching hospitals, quality of care, fluid resuscitation, antibiotic administration, hospital characteristics, intensive care unit beds, technological level
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