Search

Importance: Patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with hypoxemia often have mixed or uncertain causes of respiratory failure. The optimal treatment for such patients is unclear. Both high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are used., Objectives: We sought to compare the effectiveness of initial treatment with HFNC versus NIV for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure., Design Setting and Participants: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with HFNC or NIV within 24 hours of arrival to the University of Michigan adult ED from January 2018 to December 2022. We matched patients 1:1 using a propensity score for odds of receiving NIV., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was major adverse pulmonary events (28-d mortality, ventilator-free days, noninvasive respiratory support hours) calculated using a win ratio., Results: A total of 1154 patients were included. Seven hundred twenty-six (62.9%) received HFNC and 428 (37.1%) received NIV. We propensity score matched 668 of 1154 (57.9%) patients. Patients on NIV versus HFNC had lower 28-day mortality (16.5% vs. 23.4%, p = 0.033) and required noninvasive treatment for fewer hours (median 7.5 vs. 13.5, p < 0.001), but had no difference in ventilator-free days (median [interquartile range]: 28 [26, 28] vs. 28 [10.5, 28], p = 0.199). Win ratio for composite major adverse pulmonary events favored NIV (1.38; 95% CI, 1.15-1.65; p < 0.001)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this observational study of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, initial treatment with NIV compared with HFNC was associated with lower mortality and fewer composite major pulmonary adverse events calculated using a win ratio. These findings underscore the need for randomized controlled trials to further understand the impact of noninvasive respiratory support strategies., Competing Interests: Dr. Munroe was supported by grant number T32 HL 007749 (Multidisciplinary Training Program in Lung Disease), grant number F32 HL 172463 and grant number L30 HL 170379 (Loan Repayment Award) from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). This work was also supported in part by a grant from NIH (NINDS and NHLBI) for infrastructure for the Clinical Coordinating Center for the Strategies to Innovate EmeRgENcy Care Clinical Trials Network—2U24NS100659. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. This article does not represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the U.S. government. Dr. Mosier has received travel support from Fisher & Paykel. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest.

Objectives: To identify opportunities for improving hospital-based sepsis care and to inform an ongoing statewide quality improvement initiative in Michigan., Design: Surveys on hospital sepsis processes, including a self-assessment of practices using a 3-point Likert scale, were administered to 51 hospitals participating in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium, a Collaborative Quality Initiative sponsored by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, at two time points (2020, 2022). Forty-eight hospitals also submitted sepsis protocols for structured review., Setting: Multicenter quality improvement consortium., Subjects: Fifty-one hospitals in Michigan., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: Of the included hospitals, 92.2% ( n = 47/51) were nonprofit, 88.2% ( n = 45/51) urban, 11.8% ( n = 6/51) rural, and 80.4% ( n = 41/51) teaching hospitals. One hundred percent ( n = 51/51) responded to the survey, and 94.1% ( n = 48/51) provided a sepsis policy/protocol. All surveyed hospitals used at least one quality improvement approach, including audit/feedback (98.0%, n = 50/51) and/or clinician education (68.6%, n = 35/51). Protocols included the Sepsis-1 (18.8%, n = 9/48) or Sepsis-2 (31.3%, n = 15/48) definitions; none ( n = 0/48) used Sepsis-3. All hospitals ( n = 51/51) used at least one process to facilitate rapid sepsis treatment, including order sets (96.1%, n = 49/51) and/or stocking of commonly used antibiotics in at least one clinical setting (92.2%, n = 47/51). Treatment protocols included guidance on antimicrobial therapy (68.8%, n = 33/48), fluid resuscitation (70.8%, n = 34/48), and vasopressor administration (62.5%, n = 30/48). On self-assessment, hospitals reported the lowest scores for peridischarge practices, including screening for cognitive impairment (2.0%, n = 1/51 responded "we are good at this") and providing anticipatory guidance (3.9%, n = 2/51). There were no meaningful associations of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: Management Bundle performance with differences in hospital characteristics or sepsis policy document characteristics., Conclusions: Most hospitals used audit/feedback, order sets, and clinician education to facilitate sepsis care. Hospitals did not consistently incorporate organ dysfunction criteria into sepsis definitions. Existing processes focused on early recognition and treatment rather than recovery-based practices., Competing Interests: Dr. Prescott receives salary support from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) for leadership of sepsis work. Dr. Flanders receives salary support from the BCBSM for oversight of sepsis work. Dr. Heath receives salary support from the BCBSM. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest.

Sepsis survivors are at increased risk for morbidity and functional impairment. There are recommended practices to support recovery after sepsis, but it is unclear how often they are implemented. We sought to assess the current use of recovery-based practices across hospitals., Design: Electronic survey assessing the use of best practices for recovery from COVID-related and non-COVID-related sepsis. Questions included four-point Likert responses of "never" to "always/nearly always.", Setting: Twenty-six veterans affairs hospitals with the highest ( n = 13) and lowest ( n = 13) risk-adjusted 90-day sepsis survival., Subjects: Inpatient and outpatient clinician leaders., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: For each domain, we calculated the proportion of "always/nearly always" responses and mean Likert scores. We assessed for differences by hospital survival, COVID versus non-COVID sepsis, and sepsis case volume. Across eight domains of care, the proportion "always/nearly always" responses ranged from: 80.7% (social support) and 69.8% (medication management) to 22.5% (physical recovery and adaptation) and 0.0% (emotional support). Higher-survival hospitals more often performed screening for new symptoms/limitations (49.2% vs 35.1% "always/nearly always," p = 0.02) compared with lower-survival hospitals. There was no difference in "always/nearly always" responses for COVID-related versus non-COVID-related sepsis, but small differences in mean Likert score in four domains: care coordination (3.34 vs 3.48, p = 0.01), medication management (3.59 vs 3.65, p = 0.04), screening for new symptoms/limitations (3.13 vs 3.20, p = 0.02), and anticipatory guidance and education (2.97 vs 2.84, p < 0.001). Lower case volume hospitals more often performed care coordination (72.7% vs 43.8% "always/nearly always," p = 0.02), screening for new symptoms/limitations (60.6% vs 35.8%, p < 0.001), and social support (100% vs 74.2%, p = 0.01)., Conclusions: Our findings show variable adoption of practices for sepsis recovery. Future work is needed to understand why some practice domains are employed more frequently than others, and how to facilitate practice implementation, particularly within rarely adopted domains such as emotional support., Competing Interests: The authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.)

The extent to which postintensive care unit (ICU) clinics may improve patient safety for those discharged after receiving intensive care remains unclear. This observational cohort study conducted at an academic, tertiary care medical center used qualitative survey data analyzed via conventional content analysis to describe patient safety threats encountered in the post-ICU clinic. For 83 included patients, safety threats were identified for 60 patients resulting in 96 separate safety threats. These were categorized into 7 themes: medication errors (27%); inadequate medical follow-up (25%); inadequate patient support (16%); high-risk behaviors (5%); medical complications (5%); equipment/supplies failures (4%); and other (18%). Of the 96 safety threats, 41% were preventable, 27% ameliorable, and 32% were neither preventable nor ameliorable. Nearly 3 out of 4 patients within a post-ICU clinic had an identifiable safety threat. Medication errors and delayed medical follow-up were the most common safety threats identified; most were either preventable or ameliorable., (Copyright © 2023 the American College of Medical Quality.)

Survivors of sepsis hospitalization are at high risk for postsepsis morbidity, readmission, and death, but these negative outcomes can be mitigated by receipt of recommended care practices. We sought to assess factors associated with the receipt of recommended recovery-oriented care practices during hospitalization for sepsis. We hypothesized that patients treated in the ICU may be more likely than ward-treated patients to receive recommended care practices given the increasing focus on survivorship in the critical care field., Design: Observational cohort study., Setting: Michigan Medicine, a tertiary academic medical center., Patients: Adult patients discharged alive from a hospitalization with a primary diagnosis of sepsis or septic shock in 2019. We further limited our cohort to patients receiving longitudinal care viewable in the Michigan Medicine electronic health record to ensure ability to capture posthospital care and outcomes., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: Three-hundred sixty-five sepsis hospitalizations met study inclusion criteria. Using structured chart review, we determined receipt of the following recovery-based care practices during hospitalization: medication optimization, functional status evaluation at discharge, sepsis education, and scheduled follow-up within 2 weeks. The cohort was 46.6% female, 81.1% White, with a median age of 64 years. 51.2% were treated in the ICU. Medication optimization occurred in 93.7%, functional status evaluation in 82.7%, sepsis education in 20.0%, and scheduled follow-up within 2 weeks in 54.5%. ICU-treated patients had lower receipt of medication optimization and follow-up scheduling but greater receipt of functional and mental health status evaluations. In multivariable models, ICU treatment was associated with lower odds of receiving medication optimization (adjusted odds ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.03-0.69) and not associated with receipt of other care practices., Conclusions: Our study shows incomplete receipt of recommended recovery-based care practices during sepsis hospitalization in both ward and ICU-treated patients. Sepsis education and mental health evaluation were particularly uncommon., Competing Interests: Dr. Prescott serves on Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.)

Primary care providers (PCPs) receive limited information about their patients' ICU stays; we sought to understand what additional information PCPs desire to support patients' recovery following critical illness., Design: Semistructured interviews with PCPs conducted between September 2020 and April 2021., Setting: Academic health system with central quaternary-care hospital and associated Veterans Affairs medical center., Subjects: Fourteen attending internal medicine or family medicine physicians working in seven clinics across Southeast Michigan (median, 10.5 yr in practice)., Main Outcomes and Measures: We analyzed using a modified Rigorous and Accelerated Data Reduction (RADaR) technique to identify gaps in current discharge summaries for patients with ICU stays, impacts of these gaps, and desired ICU-specific information. We employed RADaR to efficiently consolidate data in Excel Microsoft (Redmond, WA) tables across multiple formats (lists, themes, etc.)., Results: PCPs reported receiving limited ICU-specific information in hospital discharge summaries. PCPs often spent significant time reading inpatient records for additional information. Information desired included life-support interventions provided and duration (mechanical ventilation, dialysis, etc.), reasons for treatment decisions (code status changes, medication changes, etc.), and potential complications (delirium, dysphagia, postintensive care syndrome, etc.). Pervasive discharge gaps (ongoing needs, incidental findings, etc.) were described as worse among patients with ICU stays due to more complex illness and required interventions. Insufficient information was felt to lead to incomplete follow-up on critical issues, PCP frustration, and patient harm. PCPs stated that the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated gaps due to decreased staffing, limited visitation policies, and reliance on telehealth follow-up visits., Conclusions and Relevance: Our results identified key data elements sought by PCPs about patients' ICU stays and suggest opportunities to improve care through developing tools/templates to provide PCPs with ICU-specific information for outpatient follow-up., Competing Interests: The authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.)

Objectives: Early recognition and treatment are critical to improving sepsis outcomes. We sought to identify the frequency and types of encounters that patients have with the healthcare system in the week prior to a sepsis hospitalization., Data Sources: PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library., Study Selection: Observational cohort studies of patients hospitalized with sepsis or septic shock that were assessed for an outpatient or emergency department encounter with the healthcare system in the week prior to hospital admission., Data Extraction: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a healthcare encounter in the time period assessed (up to 1 week) prior to a hospitalization with sepsis., Data Synthesis: Six retrospective observational studies encompassing 6,785,728 sepsis admissions were included for evaluation, ranging from a 263-patient single-center cohort to a large database evaluating 6,731,827 sepsis admissions. The average (unweighted) proportion of patients having an encounter with the healthcare system in the week prior to a sepsis hospitalization was 32.7% and ranged from 10.3% to 52.9%. These encounters commonly involved presentation or potential symptoms of infectious diseases, antibiotic prescriptions, and appeared to increase in frequency closer to a sepsis hospitalization admission. No consistent factors were identified that distinguished a healthcare encounter as more or less likely to precede a sepsis hospitalization in the subsequent week., Conclusions: Patients that present to the hospital with sepsis are frequently evaluated in the healthcare system in the week prior to admission. Further research is necessary to understand if these encounters offer earlier opportunities for intervention to prevent the transition from infection to sepsis, whether they merely reflect the comorbidities of sepsis patients with a high baseline rate of healthcare encounters, or the declining trajectory of a patient's overall health in response to infection., Competing Interests: Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s website (http://journals.lww.com/ccejournal). The authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.)