Survival Benefit and Cost Savings From Compliance With a Simplified 3-Hour Sepsis Bundle in a Series of Prospective, Multisite, Observational Cohorts.

OBJECTIVES: To determine mortality and costs associated with adherence to an aggressive, 3-hour sepsis bundle versus noncompliance with greater than or equal to one bundle element for severe sepsis and septic shock patients. DESIGN: Prospective, multisite, observational study following three sequential, independent cohorts, from a single U.S. health system, through their hospitalization. SETTING: Cohort 1: five tertiary and six community hospitals. Cohort 2: single tertiary, academic medical center. Cohort 3: five tertiary and four community hospitals. PATIENTS: Consecutive sample of all severe sepsis and septic shock patients (defined: infection, ≥ 2 systemic inflammatory response syndrome, and hypoperfusive organ dysfunction) identified by a quality initiative. The exposure was full 3-hour bundle compliance. Bundle elements are as follows: 1) blood cultures before antibiotics; 2) parenteral antibiotics administered less than or equal to 180 minutes from greater than or equal to two systemic inflammatory response syndrome "and" lactate ordered, or less than or equal to 60 minutes from "time-zero," whichever occurs earlier; 3) lactate result available less than or equal to 90 minutes postorder; and 4) 30 mL/kg IV crystalloid bolus initiated less than or equal to 30 minutes from "time-zero." Main outcomes were in-hospital mortality (all cohorts) and total direct costs (cohorts 2 and 3). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Cohort 1: 5,819 total patients; 1,050 (18.0%) bundle compliant. Mortality: 604 (22.6%) versus 834 (26.5%); CI, 0.9-7.1%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.72; CI, 0.61-0.86; p value is less than 0.001. Cohort 2: 1,697 total patients; 739 (43.5%) bundle compliant. Mortality: 99 (13.4%) versus 171 (17.8%), CI, 1.0-7.9%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.60; CI, 0.44-0.80; p value is equal to 0.001. Mean costs: $14,845 versus $20,056; CI, -$4,798 to -5,624; adjusted ß, -$2,851; CI, -$4,880 to -822; p value is equal to 0.006. Cohort 3: 7,239 total patients; 2,115 (29.2%) bundle compliant. Mortality: 383 (18.1%) versus 1,078 (21.0%); CI, 0.9-4.9%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.84; CI, 0.73-0.96; p value is equal to 0.013. Mean costs: $17,885 versus $22,108; CI, -$2,783 to -5,663; adjusted ß, -$1,423; CI, -$2,574 to -272; p value is equal to 0.015. CONCLUSIONS: In three independent cohorts, 3-hour bundle compliance was associated with improved survival and cost savings.

Evaluation of the influence of correcting for gillnet selectivity on the estimation of population parameters.

Gill nets are a common sampling technique in inland and marine fisheries. However, gill nets are size selective and may result in bias estimates of population parameters. As such, selectivity is commonly assessed using indirect estimation techniques. Indirect estimates of gillnet selectivity have been suggested to improve estimates of important populations metrics (e.g., total annual mortality), but this assertion has not been assessed. In the current study, we simulated hypothetical populations of channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus, lake trout Salvelinus namaycush, walleye Sander vitreus, and white crappie Pomoxis annularis and sampled the populations based on published gillnet encounter and retention probabilities. Total annual mortality and von Bertalanffy parameters were then estimated using unadjusted (not "correcting" for selectivity processes) and adjusted ("correcting" for selectivity processes) age and(or) length data to evaluate the value of accounting for gillnet selectivity when estimating these metrics. Our results indicate that adjusting for retention and encounter probabilities rarely leads to improved estimates of total annual mortality, K, and L∞. For instance, estimates of annual mortality of lake trout based on age data adjusted for retention probability resulted in an overestimate of A by 14.4%. As such, we suggest that analysis of gillnet selectivity only be used when specific questions are being addressed (e.g., catch-at-age models) or in situation when all processes contributing to gillnet selectivity (e.g., contact probability, size-specific availability) are known.

Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) Telementoring in the Military: Where We Are Now, Opportunities and Challenges.

INTRODUCTION: In collaboration with the ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) Institute since 2012, the Army, Navy, and Air Force have developed medical teleECHO programs to address various health and safety issues affecting military personnel. This article describes and compares the current state of military teleECHOs as well as the growth and change over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study evaluated continuing education units (CEUs) offered, average session attendance, and number of spoke sites for current military teleECHO programs across the service branches. RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2019, the military teleECHO initiative grew from one program to seven different teleECHO programs, covering topics from pain to diabetes to amputee care. Military ECHOs now provide training to 10 countries and 27 states in the United States. Between October 2018 and September 2019, the military ECHO programs provided a total of 51,769 continuing medical education (CME) hours to a total of 3,575 attendees from 223 spoke sites. CONCLUSIONS: The military has successfully used the ECHO model to improve the health and safety of active-duty military, retirees, and dependents.

Implementation of Hip Fracture Co-Management Program (AGS CoCare: Ortho®) in a Large Health System.

OBJECTIVES: Acute hip fracture is common and leads to significant morbidity and mortality. Co-management programs, such as American Geriatric Society (AGS) CoCare: Ortho®, that optimize perioperative care of older adults, have demonstrated improved outcomes. Yet there is substantial variation in hip fracture care nationally. Our objective was to describe the implementation of AGS CoCare: Ortho® across a large integrated health system. DESIGN: Program implementation of four phases. SETTING: Large integrated health system. PARTICIPANTS: One tertiary and three community hospitals. MEASUREMENTS: The first two phases were communication and system-level planning. The communication phase consisted of getting health system leadership buy-in, creating an interdisciplinary steering committee, and building a business model. The planning phase consisted of choosing process and outcome measures, ensuring accurate and timely data collection, and creating standardized order sets and physician documentation. RESULTS: The second two phases were hospital-level planning and implementation. The planning phase consisted of identifying sites and developing the co-management structure. The implementation phase consisted of identifying and engaging frontline staff, rolling out the program, optimizing workflow, and educating providers. CONCLUSION: The program was implemented at four diverse sites. Major lessons learned included the need for an engaged steering committee to oversee the program; the importance of standardizing order sets and documentation; the utilization of hospitalists as co-managers; the benefit of developing and actively using a data dashboard; the challenge of ensuring wide uptake of education modules; and the need to take proactive steps to improve multidisciplinary communication. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1706-1713, 2020.