Quality Improvement Initiatives in Sepsis in an Emerging Country: Does the Institution's Main Source of Income Influence the Results? An Analysis of 21,103 Patients.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the results of a quality improvement initiative in sepsis in an emerging setting and to analyze it according to the institutions' main source of income (public or private). DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of the Latin American Sepsis Institute database from 2005 to 2014. SETTINGS: Brazilian public and private institutions. PATIENTS: Patients with sepsis admitted in the participant institutions. INTERVENTIONS: The quality improvement initiative was based on a multifaceted intervention. The institutions were instructed to collect data on 6-hour bundle compliance and outcomes in patients with sepsis in all hospital settings. Outcomes and compliance was measured for eight periods of 6 months each, starting at the time of the enrollment in the intervention. The primary outcomes were hospital mortality and compliance with 6-hour bundle. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We included 21,103 patients; 9,032 from public institutions and 12,071 from private institutions. Comparing the first period with the eigth period, compliance with the 6-hour bundle increased from 13.5% to 58.2% in the private institutions (p < 0.0001) and from 7.4% to 15.7% in the public institutions (p < 0.0001). Mortality rates significantly decreased throughout the program in private institutions, from 47.6% to 27.2% in the eighth period (adjusted odds ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.32-0.64). However, in the public hospitals, mortality diminished significantly only in the first two periods. CONCLUSION: This quality improvement initiative in sepsis in an emerging country was associated with a reduction in mortality and with improved compliance with quality indicators. However, this reduction was sustained only in private institutions.

Implementation of sepsis bundles in public hospitals in Brazil: a prospective study with heterogeneous results.

BACKGROUND: Public hospitals in emerging countries pose a challenge to quality improvement initiatives in sepsis. Our objective was to evaluate the results of a quality improvement initiative in sepsis in a network of public institutions and to assess potential differences between institutions that did or did not achieve a reduction in mortality. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of patients with sepsis or septic shock. We collected baseline data on compliance with the Surviving Sepsis Campaign 6-h bundles and mortality. Afterward, we initiated a multifaceted quality improvement initiative for patients with sepsis or septic shock in all hospital sectors. The primary outcome was hospital mortality over time. The secondary outcomes were the time to sepsis diagnosis and compliance with the entire 6-h bundles throughout the intervention. We defined successful institutions as those where the mortality rates decreased significantly over time, using a logistic regression model. We analyzed differences over time in the secondary outcomes by comparing the successful institutions with the nonsuccessful ones. We assessed the predictors of in-hospital mortality using logistic regression models. All tests were two-sided, and a p value less than 0.05 indicated statistical significance. RESULTS: We included 3435 patients from the emergency departments (50.7%), wards (34.1%), and intensive care units (15.2%) of 9 institutions. Throughout the intervention, there was an overall reduction in the risk of death, in the proportion of septic shock, and the time to sepsis diagnosis, as well as an improvement in compliance with the 6-h bundle. The time to sepsis diagnosis, but not the compliance with bundles, was associated with a reduction in the risk of death. However, there was a significant reduction in mortality in only two institutions. The reduction in the time to sepsis diagnosis was greater in the successful institutions. By contrast, the nonsuccessful sites had a greater increase in compliance with the 6-h bundle. CONCLUSIONS: Quality improvement initiatives reduced sepsis mortality in public Brazilian institutions, although not in all of them. Early recognition seems to be a more relevant factor than compliance with the 6-h bundle.