Prevalence, Characteristics, and Outcomes of Emergency Department Discharge Among Patients With Sepsis.

Importance: Sepsis guidelines and research have focused on patients with sepsis who are admitted to the hospital, but the scope and implications of sepsis that is managed in an outpatient setting are largely unknown. Objective: To identify the prevalence, risk factors, practice variation, and outcomes for discharge to outpatient management of sepsis among patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted at the EDs of 4 Utah hospitals, and data extraction and analysis were performed from 2017 to 2021. Participants were adult ED patients who presented to a participating ED from July 1, 2013, to December 31, 2016, and met sepsis criteria before departing the ED alive and not receiving hospice care. Exposures: Patient demographic and clinical characteristics, health system parameters, and ED attending physician. Main Outcomes and Measures: Information on ED disposition was obtained from electronic medical records, and 30-day mortality data were acquired from Utah state death records and the US Social Security Death Index. Factors associated with ED discharge rather than hospital admission were identified using penalized logistic regression. Variation in ED discharge rates between physicians was estimated after adjustment for potential confounders using generalized linear mixed models. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used in the primary analysis to assess the noninferiority of outpatient management for 30-day mortality (noninferiority margin of 1.5%) while adjusting for multiple potential confounders. Results: Among 12 333 ED patients with sepsis (median [IQR] age, 62 [47-76] years; 7017 women [56.9%]) who were analyzed in the study, 1985 (16.1%) were discharged from the ED. After penalized regression, factors associated with ED discharge included age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.90 per 10-y increase; 95% CI, 0.87-0.93), arrival to ED by ambulance (aOR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.52-0.71), organ failure severity (aOR, 0.58 per 1-point increase in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score; 95% CI, 0.54-0.60), and urinary tract (aOR, 4.56 [95% CI, 3.91-5.31] vs pneumonia), intra-abdominal (aOR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.39-0.65] vs pneumonia), skin (aOR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.14-1.72] vs pneumonia) or other source of infection (aOR, 1.67 [95% CI, 1.40-1.97] vs pneumonia). Among 89 ED attending physicians, adjusted ED discharge probability varied significantly (likelihood ratio test, P < .001), ranging from 8% to 40% for an average patient. The unadjusted 30-day mortality was lower in discharged patients than admitted patients (0.9% vs 8.3%; P < .001), and their adjusted 30-day mortality was noninferior (propensity-adjusted odds ratio, 0.21 [95% CI, 0.09-0.48]; adjusted risk difference, 5.8% [95% CI, 5.1%-6.5%]; P < .001). Alternative confounder adjustment strategies yielded odds ratios that ranged from 0.21 to 0.42. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, discharge to outpatient treatment of patients who met sepsis criteria in the ED was more common than previously recognized and varied substantially between ED physicians, but it was not associated with higher mortality compared with hospital admission. Systematic, evidence-based strategies to optimize the triage of ED patients with sepsis are needed.

Evaluating the Balance Between Privacy and Access in Digital Information Sharing.

OBJECTIVES: Access to personal health records in an ICU by persons involved in the patient's care (referred to broadly as "family members" below) has the potential to increase engagement and reduce the negative psychologic sequelae of such hospitalizations. Currently, little is known about patient preferences for information sharing with a designated family member in the ICU. We sought to understand the information-sharing preferences of former ICU patients and their family members and to identify predictors of information-sharing preferences. DESIGN: We performed an internet survey that was developed by a broad, multidisciplinary team of stakeholders. Formal pilot testing of the survey was conducted prior to internet survey administration to study subjects. SETTING: Internet survey. SUBJECTS: Subjects included English-speaking adults who had an ICU experience or a family member with ICU experience between 2013 and 2016. We used panel sampling to ensure an ethnically representative sample of the U.S. population. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One thousand five hundred twenty surveys were submitted, and 1,470 were included in analysis. The majority of respondents (93.6%) stated that they would want to share present and past medical history, either all or that related to their ICU stay, with a designated family member of their choosing. The majority (79%) would also want their designated family member to be able to access that information from a home computer. Although most respondents preferred to share all types of information, they indicated varying levels of willingness to share specific types of more sensitive information. Information-sharing preferences did not differ by age, sex, ethnicity, or type of prior experience in the ICU (i.e., patient or family member). CONCLUSIONS: In the context of an ICU admission, sharing personal health information with a person of the patient's choosing appears desirable for most patients and family members. Policies and implementation of regulations should take this into consideration.

A Retrospective Analysis of Precision Medicine Outcomes in Patients With Advanced Cancer Reveals Improved Progression-Free Survival Without Increased Health Care Costs.

PURPOSE: The advent of genomic diagnostic technologies such as next-generation sequencing has recently enabled the use of genomic information to guide targeted treatment in patients with cancer, an approach known as precision medicine. However, clinical outcomes, including survival and the cost of health care associated with precision cancer medicine, have been challenging to measure and remain largely unreported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a matched cohort study of 72 patients with metastatic cancer of diverse subtypes in the setting of a large, integrated health care delivery system. We analyzed the outcomes of 36 patients who received genomic testing and targeted therapy (precision cancer medicine) between July 1, 2013, and January 31, 2015, compared with 36 historical control patients who received standard chemotherapy (n = 29) or best supportive care (n = 7). RESULTS: The average progression-free survival was 22.9 weeks for the precision medicine group and 12.0 weeks for the control group ( P = .002) with a hazard ratio of 0.47 (95% CI, 0.29 to 0.75) when matching on age, sex, histologic diagnosis, and previous lines of treatment. In a subset analysis of patients who received all care within the Intermountain Healthcare system (n = 44), per patient charges per week were $4,665 in the precision treatment group and $5,000 in the control group ( P = .126). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that precision cancer medicine may improve survival for patients with refractory cancer without increasing health care costs. Although the results of this study warrant further validation, this precision medicine approach may be a viable option for patients with advanced cancer.