Background Severe sepsis is a common and costly problem. Although consistently defined clinically by consensus conference since 1991, there have been several different implementations of the severe sepsis definition using ICD-9-CM codes for research. We conducted a single center, patient-level validation of one common implementation of the severe sepsis definition, the so-called “Angus” implementation. Methods Administrative claims for all hospitalizations for patients initially admitted to general medical services from an academic medical center in 2009–2010 were reviewed. On the basis of ICD-9-CM codes, hospitalizations were sampled for review by three internal medicine-trained hospitalists. Chart reviews were conducted with a structured instrument, and the gold standard was the hospitalists’ summary clinical judgment on whether the patient had severe sepsis. Results 3,146 (13.5%) hospitalizations met ICD-9-CM criteria for severe sepsis by the Angus implementation (“Angus-positive”) and 20,142 (86.5%) were Angus-negative. Chart reviews were performed for 92 randomly-selected Angus-positive and 19 randomly-selected Angus-negative hospitalizations. Reviewers had a kappa of 0.70. The Angus implementation’s positive predictive value (PPV) was 70.7% (95%CI: 51.2%, 90.5%). The negative predictive value was 91.5% (95%CI: 79.0%, 100%). The sensitivity was 50.4% (95%CI: 14.8%, 85.7%). Specificity was 96.3% (95%CI: 92.4%, 100%). Two alternative ICD-9-CM implementations had high PPVs but sensitivities of less than 20%. Conclusions The Angus implementation of the international consensus conference definition of severe sepsis offers a reasonable but imperfect approach to identifying patients with severe sepsis when compared with a gold standard of structured review of the medical chart by trained hospitalists.

Background Severe sepsis is a common, costly, and complex problem, the epidemiology of which has only been well studied in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, nearly half of all patients with severe sepsis are cared for outside the ICU. Objective To determine rates of infection and organ system dysfunction in patients with severe sepsis admitted to non-ICU services Design Retrospective cohort study Setting A large tertiary academic medical center in the United States Patients Adult patients initially admitted to non-ICU medical services from 2009–2010 Measurements All ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes were screened for severe sepsis. Three hospitalists reviewed a sample of medical records evaluating the characteristics of severe sepsis. Results Of 23,288 hospitalizations, 14% screened positive for severe sepsis. A sample of 111 cases was manually reviewed identifying 64 cases of severe sepsis. The mean age of patients with severe sepsis was 63 years, and 39% were immunosuppressed prior to presentation. The most common site of infection was the urinary tract (41%). The most common organ system dysfunctions were cardiovascular (hypotension) and renal dysfunction occurring in 66% and 64% of patients respectively. An increase in the number of organ systems affected was associated with an increase in mortality and eventual ICU utilization. Severe sepsis was documented by the treating clinicians in 47% of cases. Conclusions Severe sepsis was commonly found and poorly documented on the wards at our medical center. The epidemiology and organ dysfunctions among patients with severe sepsis appear to be different from previously described ICU severe sepsis populations.

Sepsis is a leading cause of in‐hospital death, and evidence suggests a higher mortality in patients presenting with sepsis on the ward compared to those presenting to the emergency department. Ward patients who develop severe sepsis may have poor outcomes for a variety of reasons, including delayed diagnosis, lack of readily available staffing, and delayed treatment. We report on a multihospital quality improvement program for early detection and treatment of sepsis on general medical–surgical wards. We describe a multipronged approach to improve severe sepsis outcomes using the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Plan‐Do‐Study‐Act model. Sixty sites engaged in a collaborative implementation process that aligned people, process, and technology. Based on our experience, we recommend a stepwise approach to implement such a program: (1) both administrative and clinical leadership commit to a common goal; (2) appoint clinical champions and give them authority to engage other clinicians to improve timeliness of interventions; (3) map workflows and processes to rely heavily on the nursing staff's ability to evaluate and report severe sepsis screening results; (4) if available, design and deploy technology with the assistance of clinical informaticians (eg, to enable electronic health records–based continuous screening); (5) to determine success, consider tracking screening compliance and process, and outcome measures such as length of stay and mortality. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;S11:32–S39. © 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine

Severe sepsis is a leading cause of long-term morbidity in the United States. Up to half of severe sepsis is treated in non-intensive care unit (ICU) settings, making it applicable to hospitalist practice. Evidence has demonstrated benefits from physical therapy (PT) in myriad conditions; whether PT may benefit severe sepsis patients either within or outside the ICU is unknown. Therefore, we conduct a review of the literature to understand whether early mobilization improves outcomes in patients with severe sepsis in non-ICU settings. We summarize the pathophysiology of functional decline in severe sepsis, the efficacy of PT in other patient populations, and the potential rationale for PT interventions in patients with severe sepsis. Multiple databases were searched for keywords including length of stay, mortality, costs, mobilization and PT. Two authors (SG and VC) independently determined the eligibility of each study. A secondary review including studies of any infectious pathology with PT interventions or sepsis patients within the ICU was also conducted. Our search did not yield any primary literature regarding the impact of mobilization on severe sepsis outcomes in non-ICU settings. Only one retrospective study showed potential benefit of therapy in sepsis patients in the ICU. Similarly, in non-ICU settings, only one study that included patients with bacterial pneumonia reported outcomes after implementing an intervention consisting of early mobilization. These findings suggest that scant data regarding the efficacy of early mobilization following severe sepsis exists. Since hospitalists often care for this patient population, an opportunity for research in this area exists.

BackgroundSevere sepsis is a common cause for admission to the general medical ward. Previous work has demonstrated substantial new long-term disability in patients with severe sepsis, but the short-term functional outcomes of patients admitted to the general medical floor -- where the majority of severe sepsis is treated -- are largely unknown.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was performed of patients initially admitted to non-ICU medical wards at a tertiary care academic medical center. Severe sepsis was confirmed by three physician reviewers, using the International Consensus Conference definition of sepsis. Baseline functional status, disposition location, and receipt of post-acute skilled care were recorded using a structured abstraction instrument.Results3,146 discharges had severe sepsis by coding algorithm; from a random sample of 111 patients, 64 had the diagnosis of severe sepsis confirmed by reviewers. The mean age of the 64 patients was 63.5 years +/- 18.0. Prior to admission, 80% of patients lived at home and 50.8% of patients were functionally independent. Inpatient mortality was 12.5% and 37.5% of patients were discharged to a nursing facility. Of all patients in the cohort, 50.0% were discharged home, and 66.7% of patients who were functionally independent at baseline were discharged to home.ConclusionsNew physical debility is a common feature of severe sepsis in patients initially cared for on the general medical floor. Debility occurs even in those with good baseline physical function. Interventions to improve the poor functional outcomes of this population are urgently needed.