Heterogeneity of Benefit from Earlier Time-to-Antibiotics for Sepsis.

Rationale: Shorter time-to-antibiotics improves survival from sepsis, particularly among patients in shock. There may be other subgroups for whom faster antibiotics are particularly beneficial.Objectives: Identify patient characteristics associated with greater benefit from shorter time-to-antibiotics.Methods: Observational cohort study of patients hospitalized with community-onset sepsis at 173 hospitals and treated with antimicrobials within 12 hours. We used three approaches to evaluate heterogeneity of benefit from shorter time-to-antibiotics: 1) conditional average treatment effects of shorter (⩽3 h) versus longer (>3-12 h) time-to-antibiotics on 30-day mortality using multivariable Poisson regression; 2) causal forest to identify characteristics associated with greatest benefit from shorter time-to-antibiotics; and 3) logistic regression with time-to-antibiotics modeled as a spline.Measurements and Main Results: Among 273,255 patients with community-onset sepsis, 131,094 (48.0%) received antibiotics within 3 hours. In Poisson models, shorter time-to-antibiotics was associated with greater absolute mortality reduction among patients with metastatic cancer (5.0% [95% confidence interval; CI: 4.3-5.7] vs. 0.4% [95% CI: 0.2-0.6] for patients without cancer, P < 0.001); patients with shock (7.0% [95% CI: 5.8-8.2%] vs. 2.8% [95% CI: 2.7-3.5%] for patients without shock, P = 0.005); and patients with more acute organ dysfunctions (4.8% [95% CI: 3.9-5.6%] for three or more dysfunctions vs. 0.5% [95% CI: 0.3-0.8] for one dysfunction, P < 0.001). In causal forest, metastatic cancer and shock were associated with greatest benefit from shorter time-to-antibiotics. Spline analysis confirmed differential nonlinear associations of time-to-antibiotics with mortality in patients with metastatic cancer and shock.Conclusions: In patients with community-onset sepsis, the mortality benefit of shorter time-to-antibiotics varied by patient characteristics. These findings suggest that shorter time-to-antibiotics for sepsis is particularly important among patients with cancer and/or shock.

A Multi-Hospital Survey of Current Practices for Supporting Recovery From Sepsis.

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.

Interviews with primary care physicians identify unmet transition needs after ICU.

AIM: We sought to explore unmet needs in transitions of care for critical illness survivors that concern primary care physicians. FINDINGS: Semi-structured interviews with primary care physicians identified three categories of concerns about unmet transition needs after patients' ICU stays: patients' understanding of their ICU stay and potential complications, treatments or support needs not covered by insurance, and starting and maintaining needed rehabilitation and assistance across transitions of care. CONCLUSION: Given current constraints of access to coordinated post-ICU care, efforts to identify and address the post-hospitalization needs of critical illness survivors may be improved through coordinated work across the health system.

Hospital Discharge Summaries Are Insufficient Following ICU Stays: A Qualitative Study.

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.

Interventions to reduce aggressive care at end of life among patients with cancer: a systematic review.

Little is known about effective interventions to reduce aggressive end-of-life care in patients with cancer. We did a systematic review to assess what interventions are associated with reductions in aggressive end-of-life cancer care. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, and PsychINFO for randomised control trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental, and observational studies published before Jan 19, 2018, which aimed to improve measures of aggressive end-of-life care for patients with cancer. We developed a taxonomy of interventions using the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model to summarise existing interventions that addressed aggressive care for patients with cancer. Of the 6451 studies identified by our search, five RCTs and 31 observational studies met the final inclusion criteria. Using the SEIPS framework, 16 subcategories of interventions were identified. With the exception of documentation of end-of-life discussions in the electronic medical record, no single intervention type or SEIPS domain led to consistent improvements in aggressive end-of-life care measures. The ability to discern the interventions' effectiveness was limited by inconsistent use of validated measures of aggressive care. Seven (23%) of 31 observational studies and no RCTs were at low risk of bias according to Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool. Evidence for improving aggressive end-of-life cancer care is limited by the absence of standardised measurements and poor study design. Policies and studies to address the gaps present in end-of-life care for cancer are necessary.