Hello,

I'm very interested in hearing what people are thinking about the newly 
released definitions of Sepsis and Septic shock:

http://www.sccm.org/Research/Quality/Pages/Sepsis-Definitions.aspx

[http://www.sccm.org/images/SCCM_logo.jpg]<http://www.sccm.org/Research/Quality/Pages/Sepsis-Definitions.aspx>

SCCM | Sepsis 
Definitions<http://www.sccm.org/Research/Quality/Pages/Sepsis-Definitions.aspx>
www.sccm.org
About SCCM. Join; Governance; Leadership and Staff. President; Council ; Past 
Presidents; CEO; Staff; SCCM Careers; Support SCCM; Collaborations; Industry 
Partnerships

We are busy trying to digest this information and catalog the potential 
impacts/ramifications. I'm sure many are doing the same.   What do people 
think?  Here are some of my early thoughts/concerns:


[] Should we replace our current SIRS + Infection screening tools (imperfect as 
we've known them to be) in favor of just using infection + qSOFA? Would that 
mean a slower response for many patients? Would that be appropriate or not?

[] Should we train medical teams and/or RNs to use the SOFA tool?  That would 
necessitate a lot of additional ABGs and is unfamiliar to many providers.

[] Will the failure of elevated lactate to "count" as an organ dysfunction 
qualifying for the sepsis diagnosis lead to a de-emphasis of lactate 
measurement? Will people use it less? On the other hand - this is more aligned 
with ICD-10.

[] The new definition for sepsis is very different than the definition of 
severe sepsis used in the SEP-1 measure - so should we continue to teach people 
to apply the bundle to a broader range of patients?  If we did, that would mean 
we teach people to apply the sepsis bundle to patients that don't have "Sepsis".

[] There will be a gap between the Sepsis-3 definition and the ICD-10 codes, 
that could result in under-coding (e.g. patient with SIRS and PNA does not get 
the ICD-10 code for sepsis).  This would adjust our risk adjustment measures, 
reimbursement rates, etc.

[] On the positive side, does this present an opportunity to zero in our 
interventions on the (smaller) subset of patients who are most likely to 
benefit? Could that drive acceptance of the full bundle?


I could probably go on. Apologies for the long post but I'm hoping to start 
what I'm sure will be a very long series of conversations.


Thank you!


Joe


Joseph Clement, MS, RN, CCNS
Clinical Nurse Specialist
San Francisco General Hospital
ph: 415206-6174
pg: 415 327-0220

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

Reply via email to