Hi Ryan, I think you do have it incorrect.  Answering you in reverse, if 
lactate is greater than 4, that's shock at that point provided all the other 
elements of severe sepsis exist.  There is no assessment of a lactate level 
after some fluids are given to ensure it remains greater than 4 after those 
fluids.  Those patients do qualify for the fluid challenge element however, 
which does not assess volume, and they also qualify for the crystalloid fluid 
administered element, so the total volume is assessed.

As regards the case of a patient who would be qualifying for septic shock on 
the basis of persistent hypotension however, that patient has to pass the fluid 
challenge element, which does not specify a volume, then also the crystalloid 
fluid administered element which does contain a volume.  The time of 
presentation has to be the time of the next episode of hypotension in the hour 
after the full 30 ml/kg is infused.  Thus, if that patient ends up only getting 
29 ml/kg, and is hypotensive in the hour after that infusion, I can never 
define a septic shock start time -- unless the md has documented a time in 
their note (just because they say so) or if lactate returns greater than 4.  
This means the patient will pass the severe sepsis with hypotension metric and 
never qualify for the septic shock components of the measure.

This is not what was intended.

The most likely solution is a future version of the specs will have to have the 
fluid challenge element specify a volume. If that were the case, the measure 
would have failed for giving 29 ml/kg.

Sean

On Oct 8, 2015, at 6:10 PM, Ryan Arnold 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

Sean,
I am reading the amount of fluids in order to treat the initial hypotension 
episode differently differently than you are.

My source is the “Specifications Manual for the National Hospital Inpatient 
Quality Measures: Discharges 10-1-15 through 6-30-16” in which all new measures 
of SEP-1 are defined. page 1-331.

Per these metric definitions, septic shock is present if “tissue hypoperfusion 
persists after crystalloid fluid administration, evidenced by SBP < 90, MAP 
<65, SBP decrease by 40, or lactate >4”.

I am unaware of any further definition that specifies what volume has to be 
administered in order to define the presence of septic shock. For severe 
sepsis, there is no mandated fluid administration. If hypotension is the 
qualifying organ dysfunction for severe sepsis, they need a fluid challenge, 
but not a 30 ml/kg challenge per se, at least not require per CMS. They need 
“fluid”, amount unspecified.

Once the patient meets septic shock criteria, after meeting criteria, then they 
need 30 ml/kg administered within 3 hours for the metric.
The patient, to my read, does not require 30 ml/kg before septic shock can be 
diagnosed.

Technically, per the strict interpretation of this section, if lactate is >4 
after IVF, then the patient meets septic shock. A lactate measured without any 
fluid resuscitation ≥ 4 should not then meet septic shock criteria unless it 
remains > 4 after fluid, correct?

Are there documents from CMS that better specify this differently than I have 
understood?

Ryan



On Oct 2, 2015, at 4:31 PM, Townsend, Sean, M.D. 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

I would say that is incorrect.  The 30 ml/kg is triggered by the "initial 
hypotension."  Initial hypotension requires the fluid administration.  Thus you 
would fail for not giving fluids for initial hypotension.

It's only shock if you become recurrently hypotensive after fluids.



On Oct 2, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Cynthia Wells 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

Hello,

It is my interpretation from the CMS algorithm,
In the scenario below the patient would not fail fluids because they would be 
excluded from that component.  In the algorithm you would have to answer no to 
shock present (because enough fluid was not given) and the case would not make 
it to the fluid step. It looks like in the algorithm first you determine if 
shock is present and then evaluate fluids. It seems backwards.

Correct? It definitely does not make sense.

Cindy

Cynthia Wells
Steward Health Care
Director of Clinical Performance Analytics
(508) 404-8647


-----Original Message-----
From: Sepsisgroups [mailto:[email protected]] On 
Behalf Of Townsend, Sean, M.D.
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 8:20 PM
To: Jennifer L Halligan [SJGH]
Cc: 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Sepsis Groups] Determining Septic Shock PRESENT -if 30ml/kg not 
given

In thinking about this more, although it feels clinically odd, by the CMS 
definition we cannot formally declare shock.  While I agree any clinician after 
a prolonged period of hypotension even if under-resuscitated would eventually 
call that shock (and it probably would be given prolonged hypoperfusion) for 
purposes of this measure it's not shock.

Of course it doesn't clearly matter however because the measure will be failed 
for not giving the fluid.  So it's a failure in any event.  It's just that the 
bucket it would be assigned to is a severe sepsis failure rather than shock if 
you had the ability to parse these out.



On Sep 29, 2015, at 2:34 PM, Jennifer L Halligan [SJGH] 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>> 
wrote:

Hi,
This question is for those abstractors out there (or maybe Dr. Townsend knows 
the answer), Am I correct to say that I cannot determine using "clinical 
criteria" if Septic Shock was PRESENT (septic shock present data element) if 
the crystalloids given did not total 30ml/kg needed? In my scenario the pt 
weight is 68.8 kg. (requires 2064 ml to meet 30ml/kg). Pt received 2 liters NS 
and in the hour after receiving this 2 L the BP did not respond (remained less 
than 90/map<65). In this scenario I can only use MD documentation of septic 
shock present, correct???
Thank you!!

Jennifer Halligan, RN
Quality Review Nurse
San Joaquin General Hospital
Tel: 209-468-7471
Fax: 209-468-7011

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