Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T03:53:06.704Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Variability in determining sepsis time zero and bundle compliance rates for the centers for medicare and medicaid services SEP-1 measure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 June 2018

Chanu Rhee*
Affiliation:
Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
Sarah R. Brown
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
Travis M. Jones
Affiliation:
Duke Center for Antimicrobial Stewardship and Infection Prevention, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
Cara O’Brien
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
Anupam Pande
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri
Yasir Hamad
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri
Amy L. Bulger
Affiliation:
Department of Quality and Safety, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
Kathleen A. Tobin
Affiliation:
Lawrence Center for Quality and Safety, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
Anthony F. Massaro
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
Deverick J. Anderson
Affiliation:
Duke Center for Antimicrobial Stewardship and Infection Prevention, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
David K. Warren
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri
Michael Klompas
Affiliation:
Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
for the CDC Prevention Epicenters Program
Affiliation:
Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts Duke Center for Antimicrobial Stewardship and Infection Prevention, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri Department of Quality and Safety, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts Lawrence Center for Quality and Safety, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
*
Author for correspondence: Chanu Rhee, MD, MPH, Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, 401 Park Drive, Suite 401, Boston, MA 02215. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

We compared sepsis “time zero” and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) SEP-1 pass rates among 3 abstractors in 3 hospitals. Abstractors agreed on time zero in 29 of 80 (36%) cases. Perceived pass rates ranged from 9 of 80 cases (11%) to 19 of 80 cases (23%). Variability in time zero and perceived pass rates limits the utility of SEP-1 for measuring quality.

Type
Concise Communication
Copyright
© 2018 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved. 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. QualityNet—Inpatient Hospitals Specifications Manual. Quality website. https://www.qualitynet.org. Accessed March 19, 2018.Google Scholar
2. Venkatesh, AK, Slesinger, T, Whittle, J, et al. Preliminary performance on the new CMS Sepsis-1 national quality measure: early insights from the emergency quality network (E-QUAL). Ann Emerg Med 2018;71:1015.Google Scholar
3. Barbash, IJ, Rak, KJ, Kuza, CC, Kahn, JM. Hospital perceptions of Medicare’s sepsis quality reporting initiative. J Hosp Med 2017;12:963968.Google Scholar
4. Klompas, M, Rhee, C. The CMS sepsis mandate: right disease, wrong measure. Ann Intern Med 2016;165:517518.Google Scholar
5. Aaronson, EL, Filbin, MR, Brown, DF, Tobin, K, Mort, EA. New mandated Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services requirements for sepsis reporting: caution from the field. J Emerg Med 2017;52:109116.Google Scholar
6. McHugh, ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2012;22:276282.Google Scholar
7. Stevens, JP, Kachniarz, B, Wright, SB, et al. When policy gets it right: variability in US hospitals’ diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia*. Crit Care Med 2014;42:497503.Google Scholar
8. ReCal3: Reliability for 3+ coders. dfreelon.org website. http://dfreelon.org/utils/recalfront/recal3/. Accessed March 19, 2018.Google Scholar
9. Rhee, C, Kadri, SS, Danner, RL, et al. Diagnosing sepsis is subjective and highly variable: a survey of intensivists using case vignettes. Crit Care 2016;20:89.Google Scholar
10. Angus, DC, Seymour, CW, Coopersmith, CM, et al. A framework for the development and interpretation of different sepsis definitions and clinical criteria. Crit Care Med 2016;44:e113e121.Google Scholar