Surveillance Strategies for Tracking Sepsis Incidence and Outcomes
- PMID: 32691830
- PMCID: PMC9011360
- DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiaa102
Surveillance Strategies for Tracking Sepsis Incidence and Outcomes
Abstract
Sepsis is a leading cause of death and the target of intense efforts to improve recognition, management and outcomes. Accurate sepsis surveillance is essential to properly interpreting the impact of quality improvement initiatives, making meaningful comparisons across hospitals and geographic regions, and guiding future research and resource investments. However, it is challenging to reliably track sepsis incidence and outcomes because sepsis is a heterogeneous clinical syndrome without a pathologic reference standard, allowing for subjectivity and broad discretion in assigning diagnoses. Most epidemiologic studies of sepsis to date have used hospital discharge codes and have suggested dramatic increases in sepsis incidence and decreases in mortality rates over time. However, diagnosis and coding practices vary widely between hospitals and are changing over time, complicating the interpretation of absolute rates and trends. Other surveillance approaches include death records, prospective clinical registries, retrospective medical record reviews, and analyses of the usual care arms of randomized controlled trials. Each of these strategies, however, has substantial limitations. Recently, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released an "Adult Sepsis Event" definition that uses objective clinical indicators of infection and organ dysfunction that can be extracted from most hospitals' electronic health record systems. Emerging data suggest that electronic health record-based clinical surveillance, such as surveillance of Adult Sepsis Event, is accurate, can be applied uniformly across diverse hospitals, and generates more credible estimates of sepsis trends than administrative data. In this review, we discuss the advantages and limitations of different sepsis surveillance strategies and consider future directions.
Keywords: Adult Sepsis Event; epidemiology; sepsis; surveillance; trends.
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Conflict of interest statement
References
-
- Rudd KE, J. S, Tsoi D, Agesa K, Kievlan DR, Colombara D, Shackelford K, Dwyer-Lindgren L, Kissoon N, Finfer S, Fleishmann-Struzek C, Ikuta K, Machado F, Reinhart K, Rowan K, Seymour CW, Watson RS, West TE, Lopez AD, Jurray CJL, Angus DC, Naghavi M, Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990–2017. Lancet, 2020. - PMC - PubMed
-
- Rhodes A, et al., Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med, 2017. 43(3): p. 304–377. - PubMed
-
- Faust JS and Weingart SD, The Past, Present, and Future of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Quality Measure SEP-1: The Early Management Bundle for Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock. Emerg Med Clin North Am, 2017. 35(1): p. 219–231. - PubMed
-
- Marshall JC, Dellinger RP, and Levy M, The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: a history and a perspective. Surg Infect (Larchmt), 2010. 11(3): p. 275–81. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
