• Critical care medicine · Aug 2018

    Mortality Measures to Profile Hospital Performance for Patients With Septic Shock.

    • Allan J Walkey, Meng-Shiou Shieh, Vincent X Liu, and Peter K Lindenauer.
    • Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care, Center for Implementation and Improvement Sciences, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA.
    • Crit. Care Med. 2018 Aug 1; 46 (8): 124712541247-1254.

    ObjectivesSepsis care is becoming a more common target for hospital performance measurement, but few studies have evaluated the acceptability of sepsis or septic shock mortality as a potential performance measure. In the absence of a gold standard to identify septic shock in claims data, we assessed agreement and stability of hospital mortality performance under different case definitions.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingU.S. acute care hospitals.PatientsHospitalized with septic shock at admission, identified by either implicit diagnosis criteria (charges for antibiotics, cultures, and vasopressors) or by explicit International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, codes.InterventionsNone.Measurements And Main ResultsWe used hierarchical logistic regression models to determine hospital risk-standardized mortality rates and hospital performance outliers. We assessed agreement in hospital mortality rankings when septic shock cases were identified by either explicit International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, codes or implicit diagnosis criteria. Kappa statistics and intraclass correlation coefficients were used to assess agreement in hospital risk-standardized mortality and hospital outlier status, respectively. Fifty-six thousand six-hundred seventy-three patients in 308 hospitals fulfilled at least one case definition for septic shock, whereas 19,136 (33.8%) met both the explicit International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, and implicit septic shock definition. Hospitals varied widely in risk-standardized septic shock mortality (interquartile range of implicit diagnosis mortality: 25.4-33.5%; International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, diagnosis: 30.2-38.0%). The median absolute difference in hospital ranking between septic shock cohorts defined by International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, versus implicit criteria was 37 places (interquartile range, 16-70), with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.72, p value of less than 0.001; agreement between case definitions for identification of outlier hospitals was moderate (kappa, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.30-0.58]).ConclusionsRisk-standardized septic shock mortality rates varied considerably between hospitals, suggesting that septic shock is an important performance target. However, efforts to profile hospital performance were sensitive to septic shock case definitions, suggesting that septic shock mortality is not currently ready for widespread use as a hospital quality measure.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.