Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.
Emory Critical Care Center, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
Crit Care Med. 2020 Mar;48(3):289-301. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004226.
To distinguish characteristics of Medicare beneficiaries who will have an acute inpatient admission for sepsis from those who have an inpatient admission without sepsis, and to describe their further trajectories during and subsequent to those inpatient admissions.
Analysis of paid Medicare claims via the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services DataLink Project.
All U.S. acute care hospitals, excepting federal hospitals (Veterans Administration and Defense Health Agency).
Medicare beneficiaries, 2012-2018, with an inpatient hospital admission including one or more explicit sepsis codes.
None.
Prevalent diagnoses in the year prior to the inpatient admission; healthcare contacts in the week prior to the inpatient admission; discharges, transfers, readmissions, and deaths (trajectories) for 6 months following discharge from the inpatient admission. Beneficiaries with no sepsis inpatient hospital admission for a year prior to an index hospital admission for sepsis were nearly indistinguishable by accumulated diagnostic codes from beneficiaries who had an index hospital admission without sepsis. Although the timing of healthcare services in the week prior to inpatient hospital admission was similar among beneficiaries who would be admitted for sepsis versus those whose inpatient admission did not include a sepsis code, the setting differed: beneficiaries destined for a sepsis admission were more likely to have received skilled nursing or unskilled nursing (e.g., nursing aide for activities of daily living) care. In contrast, comparing beneficiaries who had been free of any inpatient admission for an entire year and then required an inpatient admission, acute inpatient stays that included a sepsis code led to more than three times as many deaths within 1 week of discharge, with more admissions to skilled nursing facilities and fewer discharges to home. Comparing all beneficiaries who were admitted to a skilled nursing facility after an inpatient hospital admission, those who had sepsis coded during the index admission were more likely to die in the skilled nursing facility; more likely to be readmitted to an acute inpatient hospital and subsequently die in that setting; or if they survive to discharge from the skilled nursing facility, they are more likely to go next to a custodial nursing home.
Although Medicare beneficiaries destined for an inpatient hospital admission with a sepsis code are nearly indistinguishable by other diagnostic codes from those whose admissions will not have a sepsis code, their healthcare trajectories following the admission are worse. This suggests that an inpatient stay that included a sepsis code not only identifies beneficiaries who were less resilient to infection but also signals increased risk for worsening health, for mortality, and for increased use of advanced healthcare services during and postdischarge along with an increased likelihood of an inpatient hospital readmission.
区分因败血症而接受急性住院治疗的医疗保险受益人与因败血症以外的其他原因而接受住院治疗的医疗保险受益人之间的特征,并描述他们在住院期间和之后的进一步轨迹。
通过医疗保险和医疗补助服务数据链接项目对已支付的医疗保险索赔进行分析。
除联邦医院(退伍军人事务部和国防卫生局)外,所有美国急性护理医院。
2012 年至 2018 年间,有一个包括一个或多个明确败血症代码的住院医院入院。
无。
住院前一年的现患诊断;住院前一周的医疗接触;出院后 6 个月的出院、转院、再入院和死亡(轨迹)。在因败血症而住院的索引住院之前的一年内没有因败血症而住院的医疗保险受益人,通过累积诊断代码几乎无法与没有因败血症而住院的医疗保险受益人区分开来。尽管在住院前一周的医疗服务时间在败血症住院患者和没有败血症住院代码的患者之间相似,但治疗地点有所不同:败血症住院患者更有可能接受熟练护理或非熟练护理(例如,日常生活活动的护理助手)。相比之下,比较那些在整整一年中没有任何住院治疗而需要住院治疗的患者,包括败血症代码在内的急性住院治疗会导致出院后一周内的死亡人数增加三倍以上,入住熟练护理设施的人数增加,出院回家的人数减少。比较所有在住院后入住熟练护理机构的医疗保险受益人,在索引入院期间有败血症编码的患者更有可能在熟练护理机构中死亡;更有可能再次入院接受急性住院治疗,并随后在该环境中死亡;或者,如果他们从熟练护理机构出院后幸存下来,他们更有可能去护理养老院。
尽管因败血症住院治疗的医疗保险受益人通过其他诊断代码几乎无法与不会有败血症代码的入院患者区分开来,但他们入院后的医疗轨迹更差。这表明,包括败血症代码的住院治疗不仅可以识别对感染抵抗力较弱的受益人,还可以表明在住院期间和出院后健康状况恶化、死亡率增加以及高级医疗服务的使用增加的风险增加,同时增加再次住院的可能性。