Cargando…

A Multi-Hospital Survey of Current Practices for Supporting Recovery From Sepsis

Sepsis survivors are at increased risk for morbidity and functional impairment. There are recommended practices to support recovery after sepsis, but it is unclear how often they are implemented. We sought to assess the current use of recovery-based practices across hospitals. DESIGN: Electronic sur...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hechtman, Rachel K., Cano, Jennifer, Whittington, Taylor, Hogan, Cainnear K., Seelye, Sarah M., Sussman, Jeremy B., Prescott, Hallie C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10456977/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37637354
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000926
_version_ 1785096830643601408
author Hechtman, Rachel K.
Cano, Jennifer
Whittington, Taylor
Hogan, Cainnear K.
Seelye, Sarah M.
Sussman, Jeremy B.
Prescott, Hallie C.
author_facet Hechtman, Rachel K.
Cano, Jennifer
Whittington, Taylor
Hogan, Cainnear K.
Seelye, Sarah M.
Sussman, Jeremy B.
Prescott, Hallie C.
author_sort Hechtman, Rachel K.
collection PubMed
description Sepsis survivors are at increased risk for morbidity and functional impairment. There are recommended practices to support recovery after sepsis, but it is unclear how often they are implemented. We sought to assess the current use of recovery-based practices across hospitals. DESIGN: Electronic survey assessing the use of best practices for recovery from COVID-related and non-COVID-related sepsis. Questions included four-point Likert responses of “never” to “always/nearly always.” SETTING: Twenty-six veterans affairs hospitals with the highest (n = 13) and lowest (n = 13) risk-adjusted 90-day sepsis survival. SUBJECTS: Inpatient and outpatient clinician leaders. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For each domain, we calculated the proportion of “always/nearly always” responses and mean Likert scores. We assessed for differences by hospital survival, COVID versus non-COVID sepsis, and sepsis case volume. Across eight domains of care, the proportion “always/nearly always” responses ranged from: 80.7% (social support) and 69.8% (medication management) to 22.5% (physical recovery and adaptation) and 0.0% (emotional support). Higher-survival hospitals more often performed screening for new symptoms/limitations (49.2% vs 35.1% “always/nearly always,” p = 0.02) compared with lower-survival hospitals. There was no difference in “always/nearly always” responses for COVID-related versus non-COVID-related sepsis, but small differences in mean Likert score in four domains: care coordination (3.34 vs 3.48, p = 0.01), medication management (3.59 vs 3.65, p = 0.04), screening for new symptoms/limitations (3.13 vs 3.20, p = 0.02), and anticipatory guidance and education (2.97 vs 2.84, p < 0.001). Lower case volume hospitals more often performed care coordination (72.7% vs 43.8% “always/nearly always,” p = 0.02), screening for new symptoms/limitations (60.6% vs 35.8%, p < 0.001), and social support (100% vs 74.2%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show variable adoption of practices for sepsis recovery. Future work is needed to understand why some practice domains are employed more frequently than others, and how to facilitate practice implementation, particularly within rarely adopted domains such as emotional support.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10456977
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104569772023-08-26 A Multi-Hospital Survey of Current Practices for Supporting Recovery From Sepsis Hechtman, Rachel K. Cano, Jennifer Whittington, Taylor Hogan, Cainnear K. Seelye, Sarah M. Sussman, Jeremy B. Prescott, Hallie C. Crit Care Explor Brief Report Sepsis survivors are at increased risk for morbidity and functional impairment. There are recommended practices to support recovery after sepsis, but it is unclear how often they are implemented. We sought to assess the current use of recovery-based practices across hospitals. DESIGN: Electronic survey assessing the use of best practices for recovery from COVID-related and non-COVID-related sepsis. Questions included four-point Likert responses of “never” to “always/nearly always.” SETTING: Twenty-six veterans affairs hospitals with the highest (n = 13) and lowest (n = 13) risk-adjusted 90-day sepsis survival. SUBJECTS: Inpatient and outpatient clinician leaders. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For each domain, we calculated the proportion of “always/nearly always” responses and mean Likert scores. We assessed for differences by hospital survival, COVID versus non-COVID sepsis, and sepsis case volume. Across eight domains of care, the proportion “always/nearly always” responses ranged from: 80.7% (social support) and 69.8% (medication management) to 22.5% (physical recovery and adaptation) and 0.0% (emotional support). Higher-survival hospitals more often performed screening for new symptoms/limitations (49.2% vs 35.1% “always/nearly always,” p = 0.02) compared with lower-survival hospitals. There was no difference in “always/nearly always” responses for COVID-related versus non-COVID-related sepsis, but small differences in mean Likert score in four domains: care coordination (3.34 vs 3.48, p = 0.01), medication management (3.59 vs 3.65, p = 0.04), screening for new symptoms/limitations (3.13 vs 3.20, p = 0.02), and anticipatory guidance and education (2.97 vs 2.84, p < 0.001). Lower case volume hospitals more often performed care coordination (72.7% vs 43.8% “always/nearly always,” p = 0.02), screening for new symptoms/limitations (60.6% vs 35.8%, p < 0.001), and social support (100% vs 74.2%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show variable adoption of practices for sepsis recovery. Future work is needed to understand why some practice domains are employed more frequently than others, and how to facilitate practice implementation, particularly within rarely adopted domains such as emotional support. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2023-06-05 /pmc/articles/PMC10456977/ /pubmed/37637354 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000926 Text en Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle Brief Report
Hechtman, Rachel K.
Cano, Jennifer
Whittington, Taylor
Hogan, Cainnear K.
Seelye, Sarah M.
Sussman, Jeremy B.
Prescott, Hallie C.
A Multi-Hospital Survey of Current Practices for Supporting Recovery From Sepsis
title A Multi-Hospital Survey of Current Practices for Supporting Recovery From Sepsis
title_full A Multi-Hospital Survey of Current Practices for Supporting Recovery From Sepsis
title_fullStr A Multi-Hospital Survey of Current Practices for Supporting Recovery From Sepsis
title_full_unstemmed A Multi-Hospital Survey of Current Practices for Supporting Recovery From Sepsis
title_short A Multi-Hospital Survey of Current Practices for Supporting Recovery From Sepsis
title_sort multi-hospital survey of current practices for supporting recovery from sepsis
topic Brief Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10456977/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37637354
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000926
work_keys_str_mv AT hechtmanrachelk amultihospitalsurveyofcurrentpracticesforsupportingrecoveryfromsepsis
AT canojennifer amultihospitalsurveyofcurrentpracticesforsupportingrecoveryfromsepsis
AT whittingtontaylor amultihospitalsurveyofcurrentpracticesforsupportingrecoveryfromsepsis
AT hogancainneark amultihospitalsurveyofcurrentpracticesforsupportingrecoveryfromsepsis
AT seelyesarahm amultihospitalsurveyofcurrentpracticesforsupportingrecoveryfromsepsis
AT sussmanjeremyb amultihospitalsurveyofcurrentpracticesforsupportingrecoveryfromsepsis
AT prescotthalliec amultihospitalsurveyofcurrentpracticesforsupportingrecoveryfromsepsis
AT hechtmanrachelk multihospitalsurveyofcurrentpracticesforsupportingrecoveryfromsepsis
AT canojennifer multihospitalsurveyofcurrentpracticesforsupportingrecoveryfromsepsis
AT whittingtontaylor multihospitalsurveyofcurrentpracticesforsupportingrecoveryfromsepsis
AT hogancainneark multihospitalsurveyofcurrentpracticesforsupportingrecoveryfromsepsis
AT seelyesarahm multihospitalsurveyofcurrentpracticesforsupportingrecoveryfromsepsis
AT sussmanjeremyb multihospitalsurveyofcurrentpracticesforsupportingrecoveryfromsepsis
AT prescotthalliec multihospitalsurveyofcurrentpracticesforsupportingrecoveryfromsepsis