Association between quality control and outcomes of septic shock caused by intestinal perforation in China: a cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT

Septic shock, largely caused by intestinal perforation, is a common critical disease in intensive care unit (ICU). For hospitals and health systems, a performance improvement program for sepsis was strong recommended in guidelines. Numerous studies have shown that improved quality control improves outcomes in patients with septic shock. Nevertheless, association between quality control and outcomes of septic shock caused by intestinal perforation are not fully revealed. Thus we designed this study to investigate effects of quality control on septic shock caused by intestinal perforation in China. This was a multicenter observational study. A total of 463 hospitals were enrolled in this survey, led by the China National Critical Care Quality Control Center (China-NCCQC) from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018. In this study, the indicators of quality control included the proportion of ICU patient bed occupancy to total inpatient bed occupancy, the proportion of ICU patients with APACHE II score ≥ 15, and the microbiology detection rate before antibiotic use. The outcome indicators included hospital stays, hospitalization costs, complications, and mortality. Generalized linear mixed models were used to analyse the association between quality control and septic shock caused by intestinal perforation. The proportion of ICU patient bed occupancy to total inpatient bed occupancy is positively correlated with hospital stays, incidence of complications (ARDS, AKI) and costs in septic shock caused by intestinal perforation (p < 0.05). The proportion of ICU patients with APACHE II score ≥ 15 was not associated with hospital stays and incidence of ARDS and AKI (p < 0.05). Increasing of the proportion of ICU patients with APACHE II score ≥ 15 decreased the costs of patients with septic shock caused by intestinal perforation (p < 0.05). The microbiology detection rate before antibiotic use was not associated with hospital stays, incidence of AKI and costs of patients with septic shock caused by intestinal perforation (p < 0.05). Surprisingly, the increase of microbiology detection rate before antibiotic use increased the incidence of ARDS in patients with septic shock caused by intestinal perforation (p < 0.05). The above three indicators of quality control were not associated with mortality of the patients with septic shock caused by intestinal perforation. On the one hand, the number of ICU patients admitted should be controlled to reduce the proportion of ICU patients out of total inpatient bed occupancy. On the other hand, intensive care unit admission of severe patients (patients with APACHE II score ≥ 15) should be encouraged to improve the proportion of patients with APACHE II score ≥ 15 in the ICU, so that ICU can focus more on the treatment of severe patients and promote the professionalization of severe patient management. It is not advisable to collect sputum specimens too frequently for patients without pneumonia.