I think this is a good question, because we have a very recent case that the 
auditors are marking as a sepsis case with the documentation of "sepsis" as the 
source of infection.

I think I will send a query to Q-Net to determine what their opinion is of this 
documentation.


Holly Heyer 
Holly Heyer, RN, BSN | Quality Specialist | Quality Department
Beaumont Hospital-Taylor | 10000 Telegraph Road | Taylor, MI 48180
(313).295.5040 (office) | [email protected]

     

This document is CONFIDENTIAL.  Its use is for a professional/peer review 
function which is for the purpose of reducing morbidity and mortality and 
evaluating and improving the quality of care rendered to patients, and 
reviewing the necessity and appropriateness of care rendered.  Any records, 
data, and knowledge collected for or by individuals assigned a professional / 
peer review function are confidential subject to MCLA 331.531, 331.532, 
331.533, 333.20175, 333.21513, 333.21515, 330.1143A and 330.1748(9) and other 
state and federal laws.




-----Original Message-----
From: Sepsisgroups [mailto:[email protected]] On 
Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 4:08 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Sepsis Groups] Sepsisgroups Digest, Vol 194, Issue 9

Good afternoon

Since clarification came out regarding the ability to use "sepsis" as suspected 
infection, I would think that an order for a sepsis order set would also 
indicate as such. Unless, sepsis ordersets could possibly be utilized for other 
disease processes. I have not seen anything official indicating this, it is 
only my opinion to add to the discussion.


Thank you

Tammy Lightner RN, MHA, MSPM 
Director of Performance Improvement
Research Medical Center
2316 E Meyer Blvd
Kansas City, MO 64132
[email protected]
816- 276-3948 (o)/816-304-5898 ( c )


CONFIDENTIAL - Contains proprietary information.  Not intended for external 
distribution.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sepsisgroups [mailto:[email protected]] On 
Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 2:27 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Sepsisgroups Digest, Vol 194, Issue 9

Send Sepsisgroups mailing list submissions to
        [email protected]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://lists.sepsisgroups.org/listinfo.cgi/sepsisgroups-sepsisgroups.org

or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        [email protected]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [email protected]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: 
Contents of Sepsisgroups digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Documentation of Suspected infection (Orth, Claudia)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 15:13:12 +0000
From: "Orth, Claudia" <[email protected]>
To: "hiqrimprove-poc-discuss
        ([email protected])"
        <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]"
        <[email protected]>
Subject: [Sepsis Groups] Documentation of Suspected infection
Message-ID:
        <b482f481b7b4d745be676ceff55ec94051a80...@mmc-exchmbs03.ad.mhc.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Good Morning,
We have had lots of debate at our facilility regarding the documentation of 
suspected source of clinical infection. As we all know in the clinical world 
most providers (as they should be in my opinion), are focused on providing the 
care and not on the documentation of said care! Having said that it's my 
understanding from the definition below that the documentation of suspected 
infection has to occur within 6 hours of the other criteria to meet Severe 
Sepsis. Our providers are arguing that the ordering of a Sepsis orderset should 
be enough "documentation/proof" that they are "suspecting a source of clinical 
infection". The documentation by nurses and providers is often the last 
criteria being met which feels like it skews our data because many of the 3 and 
even 6 hour bundle elements will have already been completed by the time the 
documentation occurs. Has anyone else encountered this issue and/or heard of us 
being able to use an orderset as proof that infection is suspected  ?

Thank you in advance for your time and expertise!

[cid:[email protected]][cid:[email protected]]

~Claudia
Claudia Orth BSN, RN, CCRN-K
Regional Sepsis Coordinator
Clinical Quality
Munson Medical Center
1105 Sixth Street
Traverse City, MI 49684-2386
(231) 935-5692 (Voice)
(231) 318-0394 (Pager)
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.sepsisgroups.org/pipermail/sepsisgroups-sepsisgroups.org/attachments/20160303/4624f159/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 645 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: 
<http://lists.sepsisgroups.org/pipermail/sepsisgroups-sepsisgroups.org/attachments/20160303/4624f159/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 176929 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: 
<http://lists.sepsisgroups.org/pipermail/sepsisgroups-sepsisgroups.org/attachments/20160303/4624f159/attachment-0001.png>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

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


------------------------------

End of Sepsisgroups Digest, Vol 194, Issue 9
********************************************

_______________________________________________
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