Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO.
Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO.
Crit Care Med. 2023 Nov 1;51(11):1479-1491. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000005973. Epub 2023 Jun 20.
Regionalized sepsis care could improve sepsis outcomes by facilitating the interhospital transfer of patients to higher-capability hospitals. There are no measures of sepsis capability to guide the identification of such hospitals, although hospital case volume of sepsis has been used as a proxy. We evaluated the performance of a novel hospital sepsis-related capability (SRC) index as compared with sepsis case volume.
Principal component analysis (PCA) and retrospective cohort study.
A total of 182 New York (derivation) and 274 Florida and Massachusetts (validation) nonfederal hospitals, 2018.
A total of 89,069 and 139,977 adult patients (≥ 18 yr) with sepsis were directly admitted into the derivation and validation cohort hospitals, respectively.
None.
We derived SRC scores by PCA of six hospital resource use characteristics (bed capacity, annual volumes of sepsis, major diagnostic procedures, renal replacement therapy, mechanical ventilation, and major therapeutic procedures) and classified hospitals into capability score tertiles: high, intermediate, and low. High-capability hospitals were mostly urban teaching hospitals. Compared with sepsis volume, the SRC score explained more variation in hospital-level sepsis mortality in the derivation (unadjusted coefficient of determination [ R2 ]: 0.25 vs 0.12, p < 0.001 for both) and validation (0.18 vs 0.05, p < 0.001 for both) cohorts; and demonstrated stronger correlation with outward transfer rates for sepsis in the derivation (Spearman coefficient [ r ]: 0.60 vs 0.50) and validation (0.51 vs 0.45) cohorts. Compared with low-capability hospitals, patients with sepsis directly admitted into high-capability hospitals had a greater number of acute organ dysfunctions, a higher proportion of surgical hospitalizations, and higher adjusted mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.55; 95% CI, 1.25-1.92). In stratified analysis, worse mortality associated with higher hospital capability was only evident among patients with three or more organ dysfunctions (OR, 1.88 [1.50-2.34]).
The SRC score has face validity for capability-based groupings of hospitals. Sepsis care may already be de facto regionalized at high-capability hospitals. Low-capability hospitals may have become more adept at treating less complicated sepsis.
区域脓毒症护理可以通过促进患者向更高能力医院的院内转院来改善脓毒症的预后。虽然医院脓毒症的病例量已被用作替代指标,但没有衡量脓毒症能力的措施来指导这些医院的识别。我们评估了一种新的医院脓毒症相关能力(SRC)指数与脓毒症病例量的表现。
主成分分析(PCA)和回顾性队列研究。
2018 年,纽约(推导)和佛罗里达州和马萨诸塞州(验证)的共 182 家非联邦医院。
分别有 89069 名和 139977 名成年(≥18 岁)脓毒症患者直接入住推导和验证队列医院。
无。
我们通过 PCA 得出 SRC 评分,方法是分析六个医院资源利用特征(床位数、每年脓毒症量、主要诊断程序、肾脏替代疗法、机械通气和主要治疗程序),并将医院分为能力评分三分位数:高、中、低。高能力医院主要是城市教学医院。与脓毒症量相比,SRC 评分在推导(调整后的决定系数[ R2 ]:0.25 与 0.12,两者均<0.001)和验证(0.18 与 0.05,两者均<0.001)队列中解释了更多的医院水平脓毒症死亡率变化;并且与推导队列中脓毒症向外转移率的相关性更强(Spearman 系数[r]:0.60 与 0.50)和验证队列(0.51 与 0.45)。与低能力医院相比,直接入住高能力医院的脓毒症患者急性器官功能障碍数量更多,手术住院比例更高,调整后死亡率更高(比值比[OR],1.55;95%置信区间[CI],1.25-1.92)。在分层分析中,只有在有三个或更多器官功能障碍的患者中,更高的医院能力与更差的死亡率相关(OR,1.88 [1.50-2.34])。
SRC 评分对医院能力分组具有表面有效性。脓毒症护理可能已经在高能力医院实现了事实上的区域化。低能力医院可能已经更擅长治疗不太复杂的脓毒症。