Improving Sepsis Outcomes in the Era of Pay-for-Performance and Electronic Quality Measures: A Joint IDSA/ACEP/PIDS/SHEA/SHM/SIDP Position Paper.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced the Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock Management Bundle (SEP-1) as a pay-for-reporting measure in 2015 and is now planning to make it a pay-for-performance measure by incorporating it into the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program. This joint IDSA/ACEP/PIDS/SHEA/SHM/SIPD position paper highlights concerns with this change. Multiple studies indicate that SEP-1 implementation was associated with increased broad-spectrum antibiotic use, lactate measurements, and aggressive fluid resuscitation for patients with suspected sepsis but not with decreased mortality rates. Increased focus on SEP-1 risks further diverting attention and resources from more effective measures and comprehensive sepsis care. We recommend retiring SEP-1 rather than using it in a payment model and shifting instead to new sepsis metrics that focus on patient outcomes. CMS is developing a community-onset sepsis 30-day mortality electronic clinical quality measure (eCQM) that is an important step in this direction. The eCQM preliminarily identifies sepsis using systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, antibiotic administrations or diagnosis codes for infection or sepsis, and clinical indicators of acute organ dysfunction. We support the eCQM but recommend removing SIRS criteria and diagnosis codes to streamline implementation, decrease variability between hospitals, maintain vigilance for patients with sepsis but without SIRS, and avoid promoting antibiotic use in uninfected patients with SIRS. We further advocate for CMS to harmonize the eCQM with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Adult Sepsis Event surveillance metric to promote unity in federal measures, decrease reporting burden for hospitals, and facilitate shared prevention initiatives. These steps will result in a more robust measure that will encourage hospitals to pay more attention to the full breadth of sepsis care, stimulate new innovations in diagnosis and treatment, and ultimately bring us closer to our shared goal of improving outcomes for patients.

A Quality Framework to Address Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Emergency Department Care.

The emergency department serves as a vital source of health care for residents in the United States, including as a safety net. However, patients from minoritized racial and ethnic groups have historically experienced disproportionate barriers to accessing health care services and lower quality of services than White patients. Quality measures and their application to quality improvement initiatives represent a critical opportunity to incentivize health care systems to advance health equity and reduce health disparities. Currently, there are no nationally recognized quality measures that track the quality of emergency care delivery by race and ethnicity and no published frameworks to guide the development and prioritization of quality measures to reduce health disparities in emergency care. To address these gaps, the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) convened a working group of experts in quality measurement, health disparities, and health equity to develop guidance on establishing quality measures to address racial and ethnic disparities in the provision of emergency care. Based on iterative discussion over 3 working group meetings, we present a summary of existing emergency medicine quality measures that should be adapted to track racial and ethnic disparities, as well as a framework for developing new measures that focus on disparities in access to emergency care, care delivery, and transitions of care.

The future of value-based emergency care: Development of an emergency medicine MIPS value pathway framework.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) to accelerate the transition of physician payment toward value-based care models and away from traditional fee-for-service payment programs. In recent years, CMS has sought to modify the program by developing a MIPS Value Pathway (MVP) framework intended to use existing and future physician quality and cost measures to reward value-based care delivery. This article describes the multi-step process of the MVP Task Force, convened by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) to develop an emergency medicine-specific MVP proposal informed by diverse stakeholder perceptions regarding: (1) which existing quality measures reflect high quality emergency care, and (2) the degree to which emergency clinicians can impact clinical outcomes and cost for the care domains captured by existing quality measures. The MVP Task Force synthesized stakeholder feedback and underwent a consensus-building approach to develop the "Adopting Best Practices and Promoting Patient Safety within Emergency Medicine" MVP, recently reviewed and approved by CMS for national implementation starting in 2023. Our process and findings have broad implications for clinicians, administrators, and policymakers navigating the continued transition to value-based care in conjunction with CMS's implementation of the MVP framework.

Emergency Department Utilization for Emergency Conditions During COVID-19.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We use a national emergency medicine clinical quality registry to describe recent trends in emergency department (ED) visitation overall and for select emergency conditions. METHODS: Data were drawn from the Clinical Emergency Department Registry, including 164 ED sites across 35 states participating in the registry with complete data from January 2019 through November 15, 2020. Overall ED visit counts, as well as specific emergency medical conditions identified by International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification code (myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, cardiac arrest/ventricular fibrillation, and venous thromboembolisms), were tabulated. We plotted biweekly visit counts overall and across specific geographic regions. RESULTS: The largest declines in visit counts occurred early in the pandemic, with a nadir in April 46% lower than the 2019 monthly average. By November, overall ED visit counts had increased, but were 23% lower than prepandemic levels. The proportion of all ED visits that were for the select emergency conditions increased early in the pandemic; however, total visit counts for acute myocardial infarction and cerebrovascular disease have remained lower in 2020 compared with 2019. Despite considerable geographic and temporal variation in the trajectory of the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak, the overall pattern of ED visits observed was similar across regions and time. CONCLUSION: The persistent decline in ED visits for these time-sensitive emergency conditions raises the concern that coronavirus disease 2019 may continue to impede patients from seeking essential care. Efforts thus far to encourage individuals with concerning signs and symptoms to seek emergency care may not have been sufficient.