Cited by 65Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentHealthcare Quality and ManagementAcute Kidney Injury Research

Treatment patterns and clinical outcomes after the introduction of the Medicare Sepsis Performance measure (SEP-1).

Open access
Barbash, Ian J., Davis, Billie S., Yabes, Jonathan G., Seymour, Chris W., Angus, Derek C., Kahn, Jeremy M.·2021·Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract

Background: Medicare requires that hospitals report on their adherence to the Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Early Management Bundle (SEP-1). Objective: To evaluate the effect of SEP-1 on treatment patterns and patient outcomes. Design: Longitudinal study of hospitals using repeated cross-sectional cohorts of patients. Setting: 11 hospitals within an integrated health system. Patients: 54 225 encounters between January 2013 and December 2017 for adults with sepsis who were hospitalized through the emergency department. Intervention: Onset of the SEP-1 reporting requirement in October 2015. Measurements: Changes in SEP-1–targeted processes, including antibiotic administration, lactate measurement, and fluid administration at 3 hours from sepsis onset; repeated lactate and vasopressor administration for hypotension within 6 hours of sepsis onset; and sepsis outcomes, including risk-adjusted intensive care unit (ICU) admission, in-hospital mortality, and home discharge among survivors. Results: Two years after its implementation, SEP-1 was associated with variable changes in process measures, with the greatest effect being an increase in lactate measurement within 3 hours of sepsis onset (absolute increase, 23.7 percentage points [95% CI, 20.7 to 26.7 percentage points]; P < 0.001). There were small increases in antibiotic administration (absolute increase, 4.7 percentage points [CI, 1.9 to 7.6 percentage points]; P = 0.001) and fluid administration of 30 mL/kg of body weight within 3 hours of sepsis onset (absolute increase, 3.4 percentage points [CI, 1.5 to 5.2 percentage points]; P < 0.001). There was no change in vasopressor administration. There was a small increase in ICU admissions (absolute increase, 2.0 percentage points [CI, 0 to 4.0 percentage points]; P = 0.055) and no changes in mortality (absolute change, 0.1 percentage points [CI, −0.9 to 1.1 percentage points]; P = 0.87) or discharge to home. Limitation: Data are from a single health system. Conclusion: Implementation of the SEP-1 mandatory reporting program was associated with variable changes in process measures, without improvements in clinical outcomes. Revising the measure may optimize its future effect. Primary Funding Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

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 · 10.7326/m20-5043

Cites

25 of 25 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?

  • Several studies examining the period shortly before and after SEP-1 was introduced in 2015 demonstrated significant increases in broad-spectrum and total antibiotic use in US hospitals without corresponding decreases in sepsis-associated mortality.

    “Several studies examining the period shortly before and after SEP-1 was introduced in 2015 demonstrated significant increases in broad-spectrum and total antibiotic use in US hospitals without corresponding decreases in sepsis-associated mortality.”

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
Barbash, I. J., Davis, B. S., Yabes, J. G., Seymour, C. W., Angus, D. C., & Kahn, J. M.
Affiliations
University of Pittsburgh (US)
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Published
2021-07
Volume
174
Issue
7
Pages
927-935
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
OpenAlex
W3154702719
Cited by
65
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 1
FWCI
7.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annals of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (K24HL133444)
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (K08HS025455)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Acute Kidney Injury Research
Keywords
sepsis, septic shock, hospital quality reporting, sepsis bundle, lactate measurement, fluid resuscitation, antibiotic administration, vasopressors, intensive care unit admission, in-hospital mortality, home discharge, treatment patterns, quality improvement, integrated health system, sepsis mortality
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Fluid Therapy, Medicare, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, United States, Vasoconstrictor Agents, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Sepsis, Mandatory Reporting, Lactic Acid, Guideline Adherence, Quality Improvement, Patient Care Bundles

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