I just wanted to throw this out there as I have been rolling out our
sepsis program in our facility.



In working with our Case Managers, I specifically looked through the
Interqual Guidelines that qualify in-patient stays for a regular---
basic sepsis diagnosis. The qualifications are the exact same
requirements as the SSC states that divides them into categories-The
first basic sepsis dx is the two SIRS markers - meaning this could
simply imply tachypnea and a hr >90bpm + 1 possible source of infection.
This would qualify for a standard Sepsis diagnosis and insurance would
reimburse based on those items alone. The other two categories do
require more. For severe sepsis and septic shock: severe-- 1 sign of
organ dysfunction with the previous stated and Septic Shock requiring
the previous two + vasopressors to sustain MAP place them in higher
levels of care.



Often the source can be unknown: but if someone presents with cough and
SOB and a chest x-ray is non-definitive - they still technically meet
criteria and should be treated accordingly. Where the trick lies is in
someone with something like strep throat. They may have a fever +
tachycardia and their possible source is streptococcus - it's absurd to
admit the patient who technically qualifies as "Septic". But, many
issues with this roll out is that it will over diagnose patients but not
under diagnose. There will be judgments that must be made, regardless
there should not be any issue from any auditing source until those
definitions change.



In reviewing our own data we have seen MOST not diagnosed when they are
admitted with anything infectious. Primarily pneumonia. We have
engrained the cultures and abx pathway, but we have not concluded that
these patients meet sepsis criteria. Because of this, our pneumonia
death rate is extremely high. This would be adjusted if we could get
clinicians to utilize the sepsis diagnosis more often. The other group
who is not keen on the "sepsis" label are surgeons. If a patient is
admitted with gangrene of his toe and has SIRS markers, they are most
certainly septic. From what I read, even with appropriate treatment ----
not diagnosing this patient as "Septic" is a loss of at least $9,000.



What have you all found? Anything different on your end? How have you
dealt with this if so?







Madison Vahle BSN, RN, SANE

Clinical Educator

CITIZENS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

1500 North Oakland

Bolivar, Missouri 65613-3099



Phone: 417-328-7957

Mobile: 417-414-1800

Email: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>



From: Sepsisgroups [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Mitchell Levy
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2015 2:27 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Sepsis Groups] SIRS/Sepsis Criteria and Coding



By the current definition, sepsis is defined at 2/4 SIRS + documented or
suspected infection.  So yes, even mild bronchitis by that definition is
"sepsis."   Most clinicians use "sepsis" as synomous with Severe Sepsis,
which includes organ dysfunction.



Having said that, there is  a task force that has been re-visiting the
definitions of sepsis.    We have been meeting for the past year, and
the results will be presented today at SCCM meeting in Phoenix.  Stay
tuned.....





Mitchell



From: <[email protected]>
Date: Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 12:16 PM
To: <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Sepsis Groups] SIRS/Sepsis Criteria and Coding



This is what I am been predicting!



  I have spoke directly with Dr Levy on several occasions and he
maintains if you have  TWO  sustained abnormalities of the SIRS criteria
and not due to a non- inflammatory condition then he and the literature
states that is sepsis... and this should stand with external reviewers.



However, as a clinician I have trouble with this  and I am sure I have a
lot of patients with acute infective bronchitis who meet the criteria
for sepsis in my office that I send home on antibiotics...Hardly are
they septic!



  So at least make sure that the SIRS criteria are sustained till
treatment is begun and not just a triage VS done in the ER. I also
(unlike Dr Levy's advice) don't count an increased heart rate or RR in
patients who are hypoxic, as in pneumonia.

 Good luck!







William E. Haik, M.D., F.C.C.P., C.D.I.P.
AHIMA Approved ICD-10-CM/PCS Trainer
Office: (850) 863-2110 <tel:(850)%20863-2110>
Cell: (850) 803-5854 <tel:(850)%20803-5854>
Fax: (850) 864-4438 <tel:(850)%20864-4438>

  <tel:(850)%20864-4438>



<tel:(850)%20864-4438>

In a message dated 1/17/2015 9:45:57 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[email protected] writes: <tel:(850)%20864-4438>



<tel:(850)%20864-4438>

I am writing to inquire how other institutions are handling or if you
are even encountering concerns, that we are "over-calling"  early
sepsis, especially when the only SIRS criteria are tachycardia and
tachypnea (sometimes only a single set of VS). We are reviewing all
short stay (Observation, 1-2 day stays) and see "septic" patients who
are "in no acute distress", are only here in Observation status and
never Inpatient, or stay as IP only 1-2 days, are not sent home on any
antibiotics or only a short course of oral antibiotics.
<tel:(850)%20864-4438>

  <tel:(850)%20864-4438>

Often their only SIRS criteria are tachycardia and tachypnea-which are
quite non-specific markers that can be seen with anxiety, pain, etc. but
when paired with a suspected or documented infection role up to Sepsis?!
<tel:(850)%20864-4438>

  <tel:(850)%20864-4438>

Since Sepsis is a high-paying condition it's also a high audit DRG
(mainly because, in the past, many patients were in ICU, very ill, and
expending lots of resources). Now that "early sepsis" is being diagnosed
quite frequently, external auditors are reviewing sepsis DRG charts, and
disagree that  sepsis was present at all, recode the chart, reassign the
DRG and reduce payment to UTI, pneumonia, etc.  This is so frustrating
as we are trying to educated our providers and nurses on the importance
of having a high suspicion for sepsis and early recognition and now are
turning around and saying don't say 'Sepsis' unless they are "sick"
because we need to be able to defend it!? L <tel:(850)%20864-4438>

  <tel:(850)%20864-4438>

Any feedback, thoughts, or tools on how other institutions are handling
this, would be greatly appreciated especially when it comes to the SIRS
criteria which most of our clinicians call "soft criteria"?
<tel:(850)%20864-4438>

  <tel:(850)%20864-4438>

Thank you in advance for your time and expertise! <tel:(850)%20864-4438>


Claudia <tel:(850)%20864-4438>

Claudia Orth BSN, RN, CCRN-K <tel:(850)%20864-4438>

Regional Sepsis Coordinator <tel:(850)%20864-4438>

Munson Medical Center <tel:(850)%20864-4438>

(231) 935-5692 (Voice) <tel:(850)%20864-4438>



[email protected]

<tel:(850)%20864-4438>

  <tel:(850)%20864-4438>





_______________________________________________
Sepsisgroups mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.sepsisgroups.org/listinfo.cgi/sepsisgroups-sepsisgroups.org
<tel:(850)%20864-4438>

_______________________________________________ Sepsisgroups mailing
list [email protected]
http://lists.sepsisgroups.org/listinfo.cgi/sepsisgroups-sepsisgroups.org



_________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Sepsisgroups mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.sepsisgroups.org/listinfo.cgi/sepsisgroups-sepsisgroups.org

Reply via email to