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.

Understanding How Clinicians Personalize Fluid and Vasopressor Decisions in Early Sepsis Management.

Importance: Recent sepsis trials suggest that fluid-liberal vs fluid-restrictive resuscitation has similar outcomes. These trials used generalized approaches to resuscitation, and little is known about how clinicians personalize fluid and vasopressor administration in practice. Objective: To understand how clinicians personalize decisions about resuscitation in practice. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study of US clinicians in the Society of Critical Care Medicine membership roster was conducted from November 2022 to January 2023. Surveys contained 10 vignettes of patients with sepsis where pertinent clinical factors (eg, fluid received and volume status) were randomized. Respondents selected the next steps in management. Data analysis was conducted from February to September 2023. Exposure: Online Qualtrics clinical vignette survey. Main Outcomes and Measures: Using multivariable logistic regression, the associations of clinical factors with decisions about fluid administration, vasopressor initiation, and vasopressor route were tested. Results are presented as adjusted proportions with 95% CIs. Results: Among 11 203 invited clinicians, 550 (4.9%; 261 men [47.5%] and 192 women [34.9%]; 173 with >15 years of practice [31.5%]) completed at least 1 vignette and were included. A majority were physicians (337 respondents [61.3%]) and critical care trained (369 respondents [67.1%]). Fluid volume already received by a patient was associated with resuscitation decisions. After 1 L of fluid, an adjusted 82.5% (95% CI, 80.2%-84.8%) of respondents prescribed additional fluid and an adjusted 55.0% (95% CI, 51.9%-58.1%) initiated vasopressors. After 5 L of fluid, an adjusted 17.5% (95% CI, 15.1%-19.9%) of respondents prescribed more fluid while an adjusted 92.7% (95% CI, 91.1%-94.3%) initiated vasopressors. More respondents prescribed fluid when the patient examination found dry vs wet (ie, overloaded) volume status (adjusted proportion, 66.9% [95% CI, 62.5%-71.2%] vs adjusted proportion, 26.5% [95% CI, 22.3%-30.6%]). Medical history, respiratory status, lactate trend, and acute kidney injury had small associations with fluid and vasopressor decisions. In 1023 of 1127 vignettes (90.8%) where the patient did not have central access, respondents were willing to start vasopressors through a peripheral intravenous catheter. In cases where patients were already receiving peripheral norepinephrine, respondents were more likely to place a central line at higher norepinephrine doses of 0.5 µg/kg/min (adjusted proportion, 78.0%; 95% CI, 74.7%-81.2%) vs 0.08 µg/kg/min (adjusted proportion, 25.2%; 95% CI, 21.8%-28.5%) and after 24 hours (adjusted proportion, 59.5%; 95% CI, 56.6%-62.5%) vs 8 hours (adjusted proportion, 47.1%; 95% CI, 44.0%-50.1%). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that fluid volume received is the predominant factor associated with ongoing fluid and vasopressor decisions, outweighing many other clinical factors. Peripheral vasopressor use is common. Future studies aimed at personalizing resuscitation must account for fluid volumes and should incorporate specific tools to help clinicians personalize resuscitation.

Identifying Sources of Inter-hospital Variation in Episode Spending for Sepsis Care.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate inter-hospital variation in 90-day total episode spending for sepsis, estimate the relative contributions of each component of spending, and identify drivers of spending across the distribution of episode spending on sepsis care. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Medicare fee-for-service claims for beneficiaries (n=324,694) discharged from acute care hospitals for sepsis, defined by MS-DRG, between October 2014 and September 2018. RESEARCH DESIGN: Multiple linear regression with hospital-level fixed effects was used to identify average hospital differences in 90-day episode spending. Separate multiple linear regression and quantile regression models were used to evaluate drivers of spending across the episode spending distribution. RESULTS: The mean total episode spending among hospitals in the most expensive quartile was $30,500 compared with $23,150 for the least expensive hospitals (P<0.001). Postacute care spending among the most expensive hospitals was almost double that of least expensive hospitals ($7,045 vs. $3,742), accounting for 51% of the total difference in episode spending between the most expensive and least expensive hospitals. Female patients, patients with more comorbidities, urban hospitals, and BPCI-A-participating hospitals were associated with significantly increased episode spending, with the effect increasing at the right tail of the spending distribution. CONCLUSION: Inter-hospital variation in 90-day episode spending on sepsis care is driven primarily by differences in post-acute care spending.

Post-intensive cardiac care outpatient long-term outreach clinic (PICCOLO clinic): Defining health care needs and outcomes among coronary care unit survivors.

Objective: Patients who survive critical illness endure complex physical and mental health conditions, referred to as post-intensive care syndrome (PICS). The University of Michigan's post-intensive cardiac care outpatient long-term outreach (PICCOLO) clinic is designed for patients recently admitted to the coronary care unit (CCU). The long-term goal of this clinic is to understand post-CCU patients' needs and design targeted interventions to reduce their morbidity and mortality post-discharge. As a first step toward this goal, we aimed to define the post-discharge needs of CCU survivors. Design setting particpants: We retrospectively reviewed case-mix data (including rates of depression, PTSD, disability, and cognitive abnormalities) and health outcomes for patients referred to the PICCOLO clinic from July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2021 at Michigan Medicine. Results: Of the 134 referred patients meeting inclusion criteria, 74 (55 %) patients were seen in the PICCOLO clinic within 30 days of discharge. Patients seen in the clinic frequently screened positive for depression (PHQ-2 score ≥3, 21.4 %) and cognitive impairment (MOCA <26, 38.8 %). Further, patients also reported high rates of physical difficulty (mean WHODAS 2.0 score 28.4 %, consistent with moderate physical difficulty). Consistent with medical intensive care unit (ICU) patients, CCU survivors experience PICS. Conclusion: This work highlights the feasibility of an outpatient care model and the need to leverage information gathered from this care model to develop treatment strategies and pathways to address symptoms of PICS in CCU survivors, including depression, cognitive impairment, and physical disability.

Reframing sepsis immunobiology for translation: towards informative subtyping and targeted immunomodulatory therapies.

Sepsis is a common and deadly condition. Within the current model of sepsis immunobiology, the framing of dysregulated host immune responses into proinflammatory and immunosuppressive responses for the testing of novel treatments has not resulted in successful immunomodulatory therapies. Thus, the recent focus has been to parse observable heterogeneity into subtypes of sepsis to enable personalised immunomodulation. In this Personal View, we highlight that many fundamental immunological concepts such as resistance, disease tolerance, resilience, resolution, and repair are not incorporated into the current sepsis immunobiology model. The focus for addressing heterogeneity in sepsis should be broadened beyond subtyping to encompass the identification of deterministic molecular networks or dominant mechanisms. We explicitly reframe the dysregulated host immune responses in sepsis as altered homoeostasis with pathological disruption of immune-driven resistance, disease tolerance, resilience, and resolution mechanisms. Our proposal highlights opportunities to identify novel treatment targets and could enable successful immunomodulation in the future.

Temporal Trends in Mortality of Critically Ill Patients with Sepsis in the United Kingdom, 1988-2019.

Rationale: Sepsis is a frequent cause of ICU admission and mortality. Objectives: To evaluate temporal trends in the presentation and outcomes of patients admitted to the ICU with sepsis and to assess the contribution of changing case mix to outcomes. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to 261 ICUs in the United Kingdom during 1988-1990 and 1996-2019 with nonsurgical sepsis. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 426,812 patients met study inclusion criteria. The patients had a median (interquartile range) age of 66 (53-75) years, and 55.6% were male. The most common sites of infection were respiratory (60.9%), genitourinary (11.5%), and gastrointestinal (10.3%). Compared with patients in 1988-1990, patients in 2017-2019 were older (median age, 66 vs. 63 yr), were less acutely ill (median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II acute physiology score, 14 vs. 20), and more often had genitourinary sepsis (13.4% vs. 2.0%). Hospital mortality decreased from 54.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 51.0-58.1%) in 1988-1990 to 32.4% (95% CI, 32.1-32.7%) in 2017-2019, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.54-0.75). The adjusted absolute hospital mortality reduction from 1988-1990 to 2017-2019 was 8.8% (95% CI, 5.6-12.1). Thus, of the observed 22.2-percentage point reduction in hospital mortality, 13.4 percentage points (60% of total reduction) were explained by case mix changes, whereas 8.8 percentage points (40% of total reduction) were not explained by measured factors and may be a result of improvements in ICU management. Conclusions: Over a 30-year period, mortality for ICU admissions with sepsis decreased substantially. Although changes in case mix accounted for the majority of observed mortality reduction, there was an 8.8-percentage point reduction in mortality not explained by case mix.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities 2023.

OBJECTIVES: To identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome, and pathophysiology of sepsis and septic shock. DESIGN: Shortly after publication of the most recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines, the Surviving Sepsis Research Committee, a multiprofessional group of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine, convened virtually and iteratively developed the article and recommendations, which represents an update from the 2018 Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities. METHODS: Each task force member submitted five research questions on any sepsis-related subject. Committee members then independently ranked their top three priorities from the list generated. The highest rated clinical and basic science questions were developed into the current article. RESULTS: A total of 81 questions were submitted. After merging similar questions, there were 34 clinical and ten basic science research questions submitted for voting. The five top clinical priorities were as follows: 1) what is the best strategy for screening and identification of patients with sepsis, and can predictive modeling assist in real-time recognition of sepsis? 2) what causes organ injury and dysfunction in sepsis, how should it be defined, and how can it be detected? 3) how should fluid resuscitation be individualized initially and beyond? 4) what is the best vasopressor approach for treating the different phases of septic shock? and 5) can a personalized/precision medicine approach identify optimal therapies to improve patient outcomes? The five top basic science priorities were as follows: 1) How can we improve animal models so that they more closely resemble sepsis in humans? 2) What outcome variables maximize correlations between human sepsis and animal models and are therefore most appropriate to use in both? 3) How does sepsis affect the brain, and how do sepsis-induced brain alterations contribute to organ dysfunction? How does sepsis affect interactions between neural, endocrine, and immune systems? 4) How does the microbiome affect sepsis pathobiology? 5) How do genetics and epigenetics influence the development of sepsis, the course of sepsis and the response to treatments for sepsis? CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge advances in multiple clinical domains have been incorporated in progressive iterations of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, allowing for evidence-based recommendations for short- and long-term management of sepsis. However, the strength of existing evidence is modest with significant knowledge gaps and mortality from sepsis remains high. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.

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.

Impact of Reducing Time-to-Antibiotics on Sepsis Mortality, Antibiotic Use, and Adverse Events.

Rationale: Shorter time-to-antibiotics is lifesaving in sepsis, but programs to hasten antibiotic delivery may increase unnecessary antibiotic use and adverse events. Objectives: We sought to estimate both the benefits and harms of shortening time-to-antibiotics for sepsis. Methods: We conducted a simulation study using a cohort of 1,559,523 hospitalized patients admitted through the emergency department with meeting two or more systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria (2013-2018). Reasons for hospitalization were classified as septic shock, sepsis, infection, antibiotics stopped early, and never treated (no antibiotics within 48 h). We simulated the impact of a 50% reduction in time-to-antibiotics for sepsis across 12 hospital scenarios defined by sepsis prevalence (low, medium, or high) and magnitude of "spillover" antibiotic prescribing to patients without infection (low, medium, high, or very high). Outcomes included mortality and adverse events potentially attributable to antibiotics (e.g., allergy, organ dysfunction, Clostridiodes difficile infection, and culture with multidrug-resistant organism). Results: A total of 933,458 (59.9%) hospitalized patients received antimicrobial therapy within 48 hours of presentation, including 38,572 (2.5%) with septic shock, 276,082 (17.7%) with sepsis, 370,705 (23.8%) with infection, and 248,099 (15.9%) with antibiotics stopped early. A total of 199,937 (12.8%) hospitalized patients experienced an adverse event; most commonly, acute liver injury (5.6%), new MDRO (3.5%), and Clostridiodes difficile infection (1.7%). Across the scenarios, a 50% reduction in time-to-antibiotics for sepsis was associated with a median of 1 to 180 additional antibiotic-treated patients and zero to seven additional adverse events per death averted from sepsis. Conclusions: The impacts of faster time-to-antibiotics for sepsis vary markedly across simulated hospital types. However, even in the worst-case scenario, new antibiotic-associated adverse events were rare.

Higher versus lower oxygenation targets in adult ICU patients: A rapid practice guideline.

The aim of this Intensive Care Medicine Rapid Practice Guideline (ICM-RPG) was to provide evidence-based clinical guidance about the use of higher versus lower oxygenation targets for adult patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). The guideline panel comprised 27 international panelists, including content experts, ICU clinicians, methodologists, and patient representatives. We adhered to the methodology for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines, including the use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of evidence, and used the Evidence-to-Decision framework to generate recommendations. A recently published updated systematic review and meta-analysis constituted the evidence base. Through teleconferences and web-based discussions, the panel provided input on the balance and magnitude of the desirable and undesirable effects, the certainty of evidence, patients' values and preferences, costs and resources, equity, feasibility, acceptability, and research priorities. The updated systematic review and meta-analysis included data from 17 randomized clinical trials with 10,248 participants. There was little to no difference between the use of higher versus lower oxygenation targets for all outcomes with available data, including all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, stroke, functional outcomes, cognition, and health-related quality of life (very low certainty of evidence). The panel felt that values and preferences, costs and resources, and equity favored the use of lower oxygenation targets. The ICM-RPG panel issued one conditional recommendation against the use of higher oxygenation targets: "We suggest against the routine use of higher oxygenation targets in adult ICU patients (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). Remark: an oxygenation target of SpO2 88%-92% or PaO2 8 kPa/60 mmHg is relevant and safe for most adult ICU patients."

Return to work after hospitalization for sepsis: a nationwide, registry-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis survivors commonly experience functional impairment, which may limit return to work. We investigated return to work (RTW) of patients hospitalized with sepsis and the associations with patient and clinical characteristics. METHODS: Working-age patients (18-60 years) admitted to a Norwegian hospital with sepsis between 2010 and 2021 were identified using the Norwegian Patient Registry and linked to sick-leave data from the Norwegian National Social Security System Registry. The main outcome was proportion of RTW in patients hospitalized with sepsis at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after discharge. Secondary outcomes were time trends in age-standardized proportions of RTW and probability of sustainable RTW (31 days of consecutive work). The time trends were calculated for each admission year, reported as percentage change with 95% confidence interval (CI). Time-to-event analysis, including crude and adjusted hazard risk (HRs), was used to explore the association between sustainable RTW, characteristics and subgroups of sepsis patients (intensive care unit (ICU) vs. non-ICU and COVID-19 vs. non-COVID-19). RESULTS: Among 35.839 hospitalizations for sepsis among patients aged 18-60 years, 12.260 (34.2%) were working prior to hospitalization and included in this study. The mean age was 43.7 years. At 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years post-discharge, overall estimates showed that 58.6%, 67.5%, and 63.4%, respectively, were working. The time trends in age-standardized RTW for ICU and non-ICU sepsis patients remained stable over the study period, except the 2-year age-standardized RTW for non-ICU patients that declined by 1.51% (95% CI - 2.22 to - 0.79) per year, from 70.01% (95% CI 67.21 to 74.80) in 2010 to 57.04% (95% CI 53.81-60.28) in 2019. Characteristics associated with sustainable RTW were younger age, fewer comorbidities, and fewer acute organ dysfunctions. The probability of sustainable RTW was lower in ICU patients compared to non-ICU patients (HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.52-0.61) and higher in patients with COVID-19-related sepsis than in sepsis patients (HR 1.31; 95% CI 1.15-1.49). CONCLUSION: Absence of improvement in RTW proportions over time and the low probability of sustainable RTW in sepsis patients need attention, and further research to enhance outcomes for sepsis patients is required.

Institutional Structures and Processes to Support Sepsis Care: A Multihospital Study.

OBJECTIVES: To identify opportunities for improving hospital-based sepsis care and to inform an ongoing statewide quality improvement initiative in Michigan. DESIGN: Surveys on hospital sepsis processes, including a self-assessment of practices using a 3-point Likert scale, were administered to 51 hospitals participating in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium, a Collaborative Quality Initiative sponsored by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, at two time points (2020, 2022). Forty-eight hospitals also submitted sepsis protocols for structured review. SETTING: Multicenter quality improvement consortium. SUBJECTS: Fifty-one hospitals in Michigan. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the included hospitals, 92.2% (n = 47/51) were nonprofit, 88.2% (n = 45/51) urban, 11.8% (n = 6/51) rural, and 80.4% (n = 41/51) teaching hospitals. One hundred percent (n = 51/51) responded to the survey, and 94.1% (n = 48/51) provided a sepsis policy/protocol. All surveyed hospitals used at least one quality improvement approach, including audit/feedback (98.0%, n = 50/51) and/or clinician education (68.6%, n = 35/51). Protocols included the Sepsis-1 (18.8%, n = 9/48) or Sepsis-2 (31.3%, n = 15/48) definitions; none (n = 0/48) used Sepsis-3. All hospitals (n = 51/51) used at least one process to facilitate rapid sepsis treatment, including order sets (96.1%, n = 49/51) and/or stocking of commonly used antibiotics in at least one clinical setting (92.2%, n = 47/51). Treatment protocols included guidance on antimicrobial therapy (68.8%, n = 33/48), fluid resuscitation (70.8%, n = 34/48), and vasopressor administration (62.5%, n = 30/48). On self-assessment, hospitals reported the lowest scores for peridischarge practices, including screening for cognitive impairment (2.0%, n = 1/51 responded "we are good at this") and providing anticipatory guidance (3.9%, n = 2/51). There were no meaningful associations of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: Management Bundle performance with differences in hospital characteristics or sepsis policy document characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Most hospitals used audit/feedback, order sets, and clinician education to facilitate sepsis care. Hospitals did not consistently incorporate organ dysfunction criteria into sepsis definitions. Existing processes focused on early recognition and treatment rather than recovery-based practices.

Use and Outcomes of Peripheral Vasopressors in Early Sepsis-Induced Hypotension Across Michigan Hospitals: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Vasopressors traditionally are administered via central access, but newer data suggest that peripheral administration may be safe and may avoid delays and complications associated with central line placement. RESEARCH QUESTION: How commonly are vasopressors initiated through peripheral IV lines in routine practice? Is vasopressor initiation route associated with in-hospital mortality? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included adults hospitalized with sepsis (November 2020-September 2022) at 29 hospitals in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium, a Collaborative Quality Initiative sponsored by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. We assessed route of early vasopressor initiation, factors and outcomes associated with peripheral initiation, and timing of central line placement. RESULTS: Five hundred ninety-four patients received vasopressors within 6 h of hospital arrival and were included in this study. Peripheral vasopressor initiation was common (400/594 [67.3%]). Patients with peripheral vs central initiation were similar; BMI was the only patient factor associated independently with initiation route (adjusted OR [aOR] of peripheral initiation [per 1-kg/m2 increase], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-1.00; P = .015). The specific hospital showed a large impact on initiation route (median OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.31-3.07). Compared with central initiation, peripheral initiation was faster (median, 2.5 h vs 2.7 h from hospital arrival; P = .002), but was associated with less initial norepinephrine use (84.3% vs 96.8%; P = .001). We found no independent association between initiation route and in-hospital mortality (32.3% vs 42.2%; aOR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.39-1.12). No tissue injury from peripheral vasopressors was documented. Of patients with peripheral initiation, 135 of 400 patients (33.8%) never received a central line. INTERPRETATION: Peripheral vasopressor initiation was common across Michigan hospitals and had practical benefits, including expedited vasopressor administration and avoidance of central line placement in one-third of patients. However, the findings of wide practice variation that was not explained by patient case mix and lower use of first-line norepinephrine with peripheral administration suggest that additional standardization may be needed.

Barriers to and Facilitators of Family Caregiving of Patients With COVID-19 Early in the Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: In 2020, many family members were thrust into the role of caregiving for a relative with COVID-19 with little preparation, training, or understanding of the disease and its symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To explore the barriers to and facilitators of caregiving experienced by family caregivers of patients with COVID-19 who had been in intensive care in the pandemic's earliest months. METHODS: In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted by web conference with 16 adults recovering at home after intubation for COVID-19 in an intensive care unit at a major academic medical center and their primary caregivers from March to August 2020 (N = 32). Thematic qualitative analysis was done using Watkins' rigorous and accelerated data reduction technique with MAXQDA software. RESULTS: Seven themes emerged regarding factors that facilitated or posed barriers to care: other health conditions that increased complexity of care, interactions and experiences in the health care system, COVID-19's proliferation into other areas of life, the psychological well-being of the patient-caregiver dyad, experience of support from the dyad's network, the role of caregiving in the dyad, and contextual circumstances of the dyad. The themes often included both barriers and facilitators, depending on the experience of the dyad (eg, feeling encouraged vs fatigued by their support network). CONCLUSIONS: Understanding how patients with COVID-19 and their caregivers experience illness management across the recovery journey can help clarify the COVID-19 care-giving process and identify intervention targets to improve overall health and well-being of the care dyad.

High-flow nasal cannula vs non-invasive ventilation in acute hypoxia: Propensity score matched study.

RATIONALE: The optimal treatment for early hypoxemic respiratory failure is unclear, and both high-flow nasal cannula and non-invasive ventilation are used. Determining clinically relevant outcomes for evaluating non-invasive respiratory support modalities remains a challenge. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of initial treatment with high-flow nasal cannula versus non-invasive ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with high-flow nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation within 24 hours of Emergency Department arrival (1/2018-12/2022). We matched patients 1:1 using a propensity score for odds of receiving non-invasive ventilation. The primary outcome was major adverse pulmonary events (28-day mortality, ventilator-free days, non-invasive respiratory support hours) calculated using a Win Ratio. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: 1,265 patients met inclusion criteria. 795 (62.8%) received high-flow oxygen and 470 (37.2%) received non-invasive ventilation. We propensity score matched 736/1,265 (58.2%) patients. There was no difference between non-invasive ventilation vs high-flow nasal cannula in 28-day mortality (17.7% vs 23.1%, p=0.08) or ventilator-free days (median [Interquartile Range]: 28 [25, 28] vs 28 [13, 28], p=0.50), but patients on non-invasive ventilation required treatment for fewer hours (median 7 vs 13, p< 0.001). Win Ratio for composite major adverse pulmonary events favored non-invasive ventilation (1.26, 95%CI 1.06-1.49, p< 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this observational study of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, initial treatment with non-invasive ventilation was superior to high-flow nasal cannula for major pulmonary adverse events. Evaluation of composite outcomes is important in the assessment of respiratory support modalities.

Sepsis Program Activities in Acute Care Hospitals - National Healthcare Safety Network, United States, 2022.

Sepsis, life-threatening organ dysfunction secondary to infection, contributes to at least 1.7 million adult hospitalizations and at least 350,000 deaths annually in the United States. Sepsis care is complex, requiring the coordination of multiple hospital departments and disciplines. Sepsis programs can coordinate these efforts to optimize patient outcomes. The 2022 National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) annual survey evaluated the prevalence and characteristics of sepsis programs in acute care hospitals. Among 5,221 hospitals, 3,787 (73%) reported having a committee that monitors and reviews sepsis care. Prevalence of these committees varied by hospital size, ranging from 53% among hospitals with 0-25 beds to 95% among hospitals with >500 beds. Fifty-five percent of all hospitals provided dedicated time (including assigned protected time or job description requirements) for leaders of these committees to manage a program and conduct daily activities, and 55% of committees reported involvement with antibiotic stewardship programs. These data highlight opportunities, particularly in smaller hospitals, to improve the care and outcomes of patients with sepsis in the United States by ensuring that all hospitals have sepsis programs with protected time for program leaders, engagement of medical specialists, and integration with antimicrobial stewardship programs. CDC's Hospital Sepsis Program Core Elements provides a guide to assist hospitals in developing and implementing effective sepsis programs that complement and facilitate the implementation of existing clinical guidelines and improve patient care. Future NHSN annual surveys will monitor uptake of these sepsis core elements.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Hospital Sepsis Program Core Elements.

This Viewpoint discusses Hospital Sepsis Program Core Elements, a set of guidance provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to help hospitals develop multiprofessional programs that monitor and optimize management and outcomes of sepsis.

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.