Development and validation of a pulmonary function test data extraction tool for the US department of veterans affairs electronic health record.

OBJECTIVE: Pulmonary function test (PFT) results are recorded variably across hospitals in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) electronic health record (EHR), using both unstructured and semi-structured notes. We developed and validated a hospital-specific code to extract pre-bronchodilator measures of obstruction (ratio of forced expiratory volume in one second [FEV1] to forced vital capacity [FVC]) and severity of obstruction (percent predicted of FEV1). RESULTS: Among 36 VA facilities with the most PFTs completed between 2018 and 2022 from a parent cohort of veterans receiving long-acting controller inhalers, 12 had a consistent syntactical convention or template for reporting PFT data in the EHR. Of the 42,718 PFTs identified from these 12 facilities, the hospital-specific text processing pipeline yielded 24,860 values for the FEV1:FVC ratio and 23,729 values for FEV1. A ratio of FEV1:FVC less than 0.7 was identified in 17,615 of 24,922 studies (70.7%); 8864 of 24,922 (35.6%) had a severe or very severe reduction in FEV1 (< 50% of the predicted value). Among 100 randomly selected PFT reports reviewed by two pulmonary physicians, the coding solution correctly identified the presence of obstruction in 99 out of 100 studies and the degree of obstruction in 96 out of 100 studies.

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.

Comparison of Administrative versus Electronic Health Record-based Methods for Identifying Sepsis Hospitalizations.

Rationale: Despite the importance of sepsis surveillance, no optimal approach for identifying sepsis hospitalizations exists. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Adult Sepsis Event Definition (CDC-ASE) is an electronic medical record-based algorithm that yields more stable estimates over time than diagnostic coding-based approaches but may still result in misclassification. Objectives: We sought to assess three approaches to identifying sepsis hospitalizations, including a modified CDC-ASE. Methods: This cross-sectional study included patients in the Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System admitted via the emergency department (February 2021 to February 2022) with at least one episode of acute organ dysfunction within 48 hours of emergency department presentation. Patients were assessed for community-onset sepsis using three methods: 1) explicit diagnosis codes, 2) the CDC-ASE, and 3) a modified CDC-ASE. The modified CDC-ASE required at least two systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria instead of blood culture collection and had a more sensitive definition of respiratory dysfunction. Each method was compared with a reference standard of physician adjudication via medical record review. Patients were considered to have sepsis if they had at least one episode of acute organ dysfunction graded as "definitely" or "probably" infection related on physician review. Results: Of 821 eligible hospitalizations, 449 were selected for physician review. Of these, 98 (21.8%) were classified as sepsis by medical record review, 103 (22.9%) by the CDC-ASE, 132 (29.4%) by the modified CDC-ASE, and 37 (8.2%) by diagnostic codes. Accuracy was similar across the three methods of interest (80.6% for the CDC-ASE, 79.6% for the modified CDC-ADE, and 84.2% for diagnostic codes), but sensitivity and specificity varied. The CDC-ASE algorithm had sensitivity of 58.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 47.2-68.1%) and specificity of 86.9% (95% CI, 82.9-90.2%). The modified CDC-ASE algorithm had greater sensitivity (69.4% [95% CI, 59.3-78.3%]) but lower specificity (81.8% [95% CI, 77.3-85.7%]). Diagnostic codes had lower sensitivity (32.7% [95% CI, 23.5-42.9%]) but greater specificity (98.6% [95% CI, 96.7-99.55%]). Conclusions: There are several approaches to identifying sepsis hospitalizations for surveillance that have acceptable accuracy. These approaches yield varying sensitivity and specificity, so investigators should carefully consider the test characteristics of each method before determining an appropriate method for their intended use.

Receipt of Recovery-Oriented Care Practices During Hospitalization for Sepsis.

Survivors of sepsis hospitalization are at high risk for postsepsis morbidity, readmission, and death, but these negative outcomes can be mitigated by receipt of recommended care practices. We sought to assess factors associated with the receipt of recommended recovery-oriented care practices during hospitalization for sepsis. We hypothesized that patients treated in the ICU may be more likely than ward-treated patients to receive recommended care practices given the increasing focus on survivorship in the critical care field. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: Michigan Medicine, a tertiary academic medical center. PATIENTS: Adult patients discharged alive from a hospitalization with a primary diagnosis of sepsis or septic shock in 2019. We further limited our cohort to patients receiving longitudinal care viewable in the Michigan Medicine electronic health record to ensure ability to capture posthospital care and outcomes. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Three-hundred sixty-five sepsis hospitalizations met study inclusion criteria. Using structured chart review, we determined receipt of the following recovery-based care practices during hospitalization: medication optimization, functional status evaluation at discharge, sepsis education, and scheduled follow-up within 2 weeks. The cohort was 46.6% female, 81.1% White, with a median age of 64 years. 51.2% were treated in the ICU. Medication optimization occurred in 93.7%, functional status evaluation in 82.7%, sepsis education in 20.0%, and scheduled follow-up within 2 weeks in 54.5%. ICU-treated patients had lower receipt of medication optimization and follow-up scheduling but greater receipt of functional and mental health status evaluations. In multivariable models, ICU treatment was associated with lower odds of receiving medication optimization (adjusted odds ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.03-0.69) and not associated with receipt of other care practices. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows incomplete receipt of recommended recovery-based care practices during sepsis hospitalization in both ward and ICU-treated patients. Sepsis education and mental health evaluation were particularly uncommon.

Interpretability, credibility, and usability of hospital-specific template matching versus regression-based hospital performance assessments; a multiple methods study.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-specific template matching (HS-TM) is a newer method of hospital performance assessment. OBJECTIVE: To assess the interpretability, credibility, and usability of HS-TM-based vs. regression-based performance assessments. RESEARCH DESIGN: We surveyed hospital leaders (January-May 2021) and completed follow-up semi-structured interviews. Surveys included four hypothetical performance assessment vignettes, with method (HS-TM, regression) and hospital mortality randomized. SUBJECTS: Nationwide Veterans Affairs Chiefs of Staff, Medicine, and Hospital Medicine. MEASURES: Correct interpretation; self-rated confidence in interpretation; and self-rated trust in assessment (via survey). Concerns about credibility and main uses (via thematic analysis of interview transcripts). RESULTS: In total, 84 participants completed 295 survey vignettes. Respondents correctly interpreted 81.8% HS-TM vs. 56.5% regression assessments, p < 0.001. Respondents "trusted the results" for 70.9% HS-TM vs. 58.2% regression assessments, p = 0.03. Nine concerns about credibility were identified: inadequate capture of case-mix and/or illness severity; inability to account for specialized programs (e.g., transplant center); comparison to geographically disparate hospitals; equating mortality with quality; lack of criterion standards; low power; comparison to dissimilar hospitals; generation of rankings; and lack of transparency. Five concerns were equally relevant to both methods, one more pertinent to HS-TM, and three more pertinent to regression. Assessments were mainly used to trigger further quality evaluation (a "check oil light") and motivate behavior change. CONCLUSIONS: HS-TM-based performance assessments were more interpretable and more credible to VA hospital leaders than regression-based assessments. However, leaders had a similar set of concerns related to credibility for both methods and felt both were best used as a screen for further evaluation.

Temporal Trends in Antimicrobial Prescribing During Hospitalization for Potential Infection and Sepsis.

Importance: Some experts have cautioned that national and health system emphasis on rapid administration of antimicrobials for sepsis may increase overall antimicrobial use even among patients without sepsis. Objective: To assess whether temporal changes in antimicrobial timing for sepsis are associated with increasing antimicrobial use, days of therapy, or broadness of antimicrobial coverage among all hospitalized patients at risk for sepsis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is an observational cohort study of hospitalized patients at 152 hospitals in 2 health care systems during 2013 to 2018, admitted via the emergency department with 2 or more systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria. Data analysis was performed from June 10, 2021, to March 22, 2022. Exposures: Hospital-level temporal trends in time to first antimicrobial administration. Outcomes: Antimicrobial outcomes included antimicrobial use, days of therapy, and broadness of antibacterial coverage. Clinical outcomes included in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, length of hospitalization, and new multidrug-resistant (MDR) organism culture positivity. Results: Among 1 559 523 patients admitted to the hospital via the emergency department with 2 or more SIRS criteria (1 269 998 male patients [81.4%]; median [IQR] age, 67 [59-77] years), 273 255 (17.5%) met objective criteria for sepsis. In multivariable models adjusted for patient characteristics, the adjusted median (IQR) time to first antimicrobial administration to patients with sepsis decreased by 37 minutes, from 4.7 (4.1-5.3) hours in 2013 to 3.9 (3.6-4.4) hours in 2018, although the slope of decrease varied across hospitals. During the same period, antimicrobial use within 48 hours, days of antimicrobial therapy, and receipt of broad-spectrum coverage decreased among the broader cohort of patients with SIRS. In-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, length of hospitalization, new MDR culture positivity, and new MDR blood culture positivity decreased over the study period among both patients with sepsis and those with SIRS. When examining hospital-specific trends, decreases in antimicrobial use, days of therapy, and broadness of antibacterial coverage for patients with SIRS did not differ by hospital antimicrobial timing trend for sepsis. Overall, there was no evidence that accelerating antimicrobial timing for sepsis was associated with increasing antimicrobial use or impaired antimicrobial stewardship. Conclusions and Relevance: In this multihospital cohort study, the time to first antimicrobial for sepsis decreased over time, but this trend was not associated with increasing antimicrobial use, days of therapy, or broadness of antimicrobial coverage among the broader population at-risk for sepsis, which suggests that shortening the time to antibiotics for sepsis is feasible without leading to indiscriminate antimicrobial use.

Temporal Trends and Hospital Variation in Time-to-Antibiotics Among Veterans Hospitalized With Sepsis.

Importance: It is unclear whether antimicrobial timing for sepsis has changed outside of performance incentive initiatives. Objective: To examine temporal trends and variation in time-to-antibiotics for sepsis in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational cohort study included 130 VA hospitals from 2013 to 2018. Participants included all patients admitted to the hospital via the emergency department with sepsis from 2013 to 2018, using a definition adapted from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Adult Sepsis Event definition, which requires evidence of suspected infection, acute organ dysfunction, and systemic antimicrobial therapy within 12 hours of presentation. Data were analyzed from October 6, 2020, to July 1, 2021. Exposures: Time from presentation to antibiotic administration. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was differences in time-to-antibiotics across study periods, hospitals, and patient subgroups defined by presenting temperature and blood pressure. Temporal trends in time-to-antibiotics were measured overall and by subgroups. Hospital-level variation in time-to-antibiotics was quantified after adjusting for differences in patient characteristics using multilevel linear regression models. Results: A total of 111 385 hospitalizations for sepsis were identified, including 107 547 men (96.6%) men and 3838 women (3.4%) with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 68 (62-77) years. A total of 7574 patients (6.8%) died in the hospital, and 13 855 patients (12.4%) died within 30 days. Median (IQR) time-to-antibiotics was 3.9 (2.4-6.5) hours but differed by presenting characteristics. Unadjusted median (IQR) time-to-antibiotics decreased over time, from 4.5 (2.7-7.1) hours during 2013 to 2014 to 3.5 (2.2-5.9) hours during 2017 to 2018 (P < .001). In multilevel models adjusted for patient characteristics, median time-to-antibiotics declined by 9.0 (95% CI, 8.8-9.2) minutes per calendar year. Temporal trends in time-to-antibiotics were similar across patient subgroups, but hospitals with faster baseline time-to-antibiotics had less change over time, with hospitals in the slowest tertile decreasing time-to-antibiotics by 16.6 minutes (23.1%) per year, while hospitals in the fastest tertile decreased time-to-antibiotics by 7.2 minutes (13.1%) per year. In the most recent years (2017-2018), median time-to-antibiotics ranged from 3.1 to 6.7 hours across hospitals (after adjustment for patient characteristics), 6.8% of variation in time-to-antibiotics was explained at the hospital level, and odds of receiving antibiotics within 3 hours increased by 65% (95% CI, 56%-77%) for the median patient if moving to a hospital with faster time-to-antibiotics. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study across nationwide VA hospitals found that time-to-antibiotics for sepsis has declined over time. However, there remains significant variability in time-to-antibiotics not explained by patient characteristics, suggesting potential unwarranted practice variation in sepsis treatment. Efforts to further accelerate time-to-antibiotics must be weighed against risks of overtreatment.

Measurement of Sepsis in a National Cohort Using Three Different Methods to Define Baseline Organ Function.

Rationale: In 2017, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) developed a new surveillance definition of sepsis, the adult sepsis event (ASE), to better track sepsis epidemiology. The ASE requires evidence of acute organ dysfunction and defines baseline organ function pragmatically as the best in-hospital value. This approach may undercount sepsis if new organ dysfunction does not resolve by discharge.Objectives: To understand how sepsis identification and outcomes differ when using the best laboratory values during hospitalization versus methods that use historical lookbacks to define baseline organ function.Methods: We identified all patients hospitalized at 138 Veterans Affairs hospitals (2013-2018) admitted via the emergency department with two or more systemic inflammatory response criteria, were treated with antibiotics within 48 hours (i.e., had potential infection), and completed 4+ days of antibiotics (i.e., had suspected infection). We considered the following three approaches to defining baseline renal, hematologic, and liver function: the best values during hospitalization (as in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's ASE), the best values during hospitalization plus the prior 90 days (3-mo baseline), and the best values during hospitalization plus the prior 180 days (6-mo baseline). We determined how many patients met the criteria for sepsis by each approach, and then compared characteristics and outcomes of sepsis hospitalizations between the three approaches.Results: Among 608,128 hospitalizations with potential infection, 72.1%, 68.5%, and 58.4% had creatinine, platelet, and total bilirubin measured, respectively, in the prior 3 months. A total of 86.0%, 82.6%, and 74.8%, respectively, had these labs in the prior 6 months. Using the hospital baseline, 100,568 hospitalizations met criteria for community-acquired sepsis. By contrast, 111,983 and 117,435 met criteria for sepsis using the 3- and 6-month baselines, for a relative increase of 11% and 17%, respectively. Patient characteristics were similar across the three approaches. In-hospital mortality was 7.2%, 7.0%, and 6.8% for sepsis hospitalizations identified using the hospital, 3-month baseline, and 6-month baseline. The 30-day mortality was 12.5%, 12.7%, and 12.5%, respectively.Conclusions: Among veterans hospitalized with potential infection, the majority had laboratory values in the prior 6 months. Using 3- and 6-month lookbacks to define baseline organ function resulted in an 11% and 17% relative increase, respectively, in the number of sepsis hospitalizations identified.

Comparison of Recruitment Strategies for Engaging Older Minority Adults: Results From Take Heart.

BACKGROUND: Few published studies report lessons learned for recruiting older adults from racial/ethnic minority, low SES communities for behavioral interventions. In this article, we describe recruitment processes and results for Take Heart, a randomized controlled trial testing the effectiveness of an adapted heart disease self-management program for primarily African American, urban, low SES adults 50 years or older living in Detroit. METHODS: Older adults were recruited via community-based (CB), electronic medical record (EMR), and in-person hospital clinic (HC) methods. Recruitment processes, demographic characteristics of enrolled participants, yield and cost, lessons learned, and best practices for each method are described. RESULTS: Within 22 months, 1,478 potential participants were identified, 1,223 were contacted and 453 enrolled, resulting in an overall recruitment yield of 37%. The CB method had the highest yield at 49%, followed by HC at 36% and EMR at 16%. Of six CB approaches, information sessions and flyers had the highest yields at 60% and 59%, respectively. The average cost of recruiting and enrolling one participant was $142. CONCLUSIONS: CB, EMR, and HC methods each made important contributions to reaching our recruitment goal. The CB method resulted in the highest recruitment yield, while EMR had the lowest. Face-to-face interaction with community members and hiring a community health worker were particularly useful in engaging this population. Further research is needed to confirm these findings in urban, minority, low SES populations of older adults.

Using the Replicating Effective Programs Framework to Adapt a Heart Health Intervention.

Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States. African Americans and people of low socioeconomic status suffer disproportionately from heart disease-related morbidity and mortality. In Detroit, Michigan, a primarily African American and low-income urban area, heart disease mortality is at twice the national rate. Despite evidence for the effectiveness of self-management support interventions in reducing chronic disease burden for older adults, few are adapted for communities most in need. This article describes the process of adapting Take PRIDE, an evidence-based heart disease self-management intervention, for older adults in Detroit via the Replicating Effective Programs (REP) framework. Working within a community-academic partnership, we found REP useful in facilitating the identification of diverse stakeholders, core versus adaptable elements of the intervention and barriers to implementation. We also made several modifications to the REP framework in order to better fit our project needs. Overall, we found REP to be an effective, flexible tool that allowed us to successfully adapt a disease-management intervention for this setting. Processes, lessons learned, and recommendations offered in this article may help researchers and practitioners working to expand access to self-management support for populations most affected by chronic disease.