Background: In 2018, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) issued a protocol for the treatment of sepsis. This bundle protocol, titled SEP-1 is a multicomponent 3 h and 6 h resuscitation treatment for p...Background: In 2018, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) issued a protocol for the treatment of sepsis. This bundle protocol, titled SEP-1 is a multicomponent 3 h and 6 h resuscitation treatment for patients with the diagnosis of either severe sepsis or septic shock. The SEP-1 bundle includes antibiotic administration, fluid bolus, blood cultures, lactate measurement, vasopressors for fluid-refractory hypotension, and a reevaluation of volume status. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with either severe sepsis or septic shock comparing mortality outcomes based on compliance with the updated SEP-1 bundle at a rural community hospital. Methods: Mortality outcome and readmission data were extracted from an electronic medical records database from January 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020. International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes were used to identify patients with either severe sepsis or septic shock. Once identified, patients were separated into four populations: patients with severe sepsis who met SEP-1, patients with severe sepsis who failed SEP-1, patients with septic shock who met SEP-1, and patients with septic shock who failed SEP-1. A patient who met bundle criteria (SEP-1 criteria) received each component of the bundle in the time allotted. Using chi-squared test of homogeneity, mortality outcomes for population proportions were investigated. Two sample proportion summary hypothesis test and 95% confidence intervals (CI) determined significance in mortality outcomes. Results: Out of our 1122 patient population, 437 patients qualified to be measured by CMS criteria. Of the 437 patients, 195 met the treatment bundle and 242 failed the treatment bundle. Upon comparing the two groups, we found the probable difference in mortality rate between the met(14.87%) and failed bundle(27.69%) groups to be significant(95% CI: 5.28-20.34, P = 0.0013). However, the driving force of this result lies in the subgroup of patients with severe sepsis with septic shock, which show a higher mortality rate compared to the subgroup with just severe sepsis. The difference was within the range of 3.31% to 29.71%. Conclusion: This study shows that with septic shock obtained a benefit, decreased mortality, when the SEP-1 bundle was met. However, meeting the SEP-1 bundle had no benefit for patients who had the diagnosis of severe sepsis alone. The significant difference in mortality, found between the met and failed bundle groups, is primarily due to the number of patients with septic shock, and whether or not those patients with septic shock met or failed the bundle.展开更多
文摘Background: In 2018, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) issued a protocol for the treatment of sepsis. This bundle protocol, titled SEP-1 is a multicomponent 3 h and 6 h resuscitation treatment for patients with the diagnosis of either severe sepsis or septic shock. The SEP-1 bundle includes antibiotic administration, fluid bolus, blood cultures, lactate measurement, vasopressors for fluid-refractory hypotension, and a reevaluation of volume status. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with either severe sepsis or septic shock comparing mortality outcomes based on compliance with the updated SEP-1 bundle at a rural community hospital. Methods: Mortality outcome and readmission data were extracted from an electronic medical records database from January 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020. International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes were used to identify patients with either severe sepsis or septic shock. Once identified, patients were separated into four populations: patients with severe sepsis who met SEP-1, patients with severe sepsis who failed SEP-1, patients with septic shock who met SEP-1, and patients with septic shock who failed SEP-1. A patient who met bundle criteria (SEP-1 criteria) received each component of the bundle in the time allotted. Using chi-squared test of homogeneity, mortality outcomes for population proportions were investigated. Two sample proportion summary hypothesis test and 95% confidence intervals (CI) determined significance in mortality outcomes. Results: Out of our 1122 patient population, 437 patients qualified to be measured by CMS criteria. Of the 437 patients, 195 met the treatment bundle and 242 failed the treatment bundle. Upon comparing the two groups, we found the probable difference in mortality rate between the met(14.87%) and failed bundle(27.69%) groups to be significant(95% CI: 5.28-20.34, P = 0.0013). However, the driving force of this result lies in the subgroup of patients with severe sepsis with septic shock, which show a higher mortality rate compared to the subgroup with just severe sepsis. The difference was within the range of 3.31% to 29.71%. Conclusion: This study shows that with septic shock obtained a benefit, decreased mortality, when the SEP-1 bundle was met. However, meeting the SEP-1 bundle had no benefit for patients who had the diagnosis of severe sepsis alone. The significant difference in mortality, found between the met and failed bundle groups, is primarily due to the number of patients with septic shock, and whether or not those patients with septic shock met or failed the bundle.
