Effect of performance improvement programs on compliance with sepsis bundles and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Elisa Damiani, Abele Donati, Giulia Serafini, Laura Rinaldi, Erica Adrario, Paolo Pelaia, Stefano Busani, Massimo Girardis, Elisa Damiani, Abele Donati, Giulia Serafini, Laura Rinaldi, Erica Adrario, Paolo Pelaia, Stefano Busani, Massimo Girardis

Abstract

Background: Several reports suggest that implementation of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines is associated with mortality reduction in sepsis. However, adherence to the guideline-based resuscitation and management sepsis bundles is still poor.

Objective: To perform a systematic review of studies evaluating the impact of performance improvement programs on compliance with Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guideline-based bundles and/or mortality.

Data sources: Medline (PubMed), Scopus and Intercollegiate Studies Institute Web of Knowledge databases from 2004 (first publication of the SSC guidelines) to October 2014.

Study selection: Studies on adult patients with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock that evaluated changes in compliance to individual/combined bundle targets and/or mortality following the implementation of performance improvement programs. Interventions may consist of educational programs, process changes or both.

Data extraction: Data from the included studies were extracted independently by two authors. Unadjusted binary data were collected in order to calculate odds ratios (OR) for compliance to individual/combined bundle targets. Adjusted (if available) or unadjusted data of mortality were collected. Random-effects models were used for the data synthesis.

Results: Fifty observational studies were selected. Despite high inconsistency across studies, performance improvement programs were associated with increased compliance with the complete 6-hour bundle (OR = 4.12 [95% confidence interval 2.95-5.76], I(2) = 87.72%, k = 25, N = 50,081) and the complete 24-hour bundle (OR = 2.57 [1.74-3.77], I(2) = 85.22%, k = 11, N = 45,846) and with a reduction in mortality (OR = 0.66 [0.61-0.72], I(2) = 87.93%, k = 48, N = 434,447). Funnel plots showed asymmetry.

Conclusions: Performance improvement programs are associated with increased adherence to resuscitation and management sepsis bundles and with reduced mortality in patients with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1. Flow-chart showing the study selection…
Fig 1. Flow-chart showing the study selection process.
Fig 2. Forest plot showing individual and…
Fig 2. Forest plot showing individual and overall ES of studies that evaluated changes in compliance with the complete 6-hour bundle following the implementation of the performance improvement program (k = 25).
The size of the boxes is inversely proportional to the size of the result study variance, so that more precise studies have larger boxes. The ES is expressed as odds ratio (OR) and the correspondent 95% confidence interval (CI). An OR above 1.00 (right side of the plot) indicates an association between the intervention and increased compliance. ES = effect size; CI = confidence interval; Sig. = p value.
Fig 3. Forest plots showing individual and…
Fig 3. Forest plots showing individual and overall ES of studies that evaluated changes in compliance with individual 6-hour bundle targets following the implementation of the performance improvement program. (A) Measure lactate (k = 31); (B) Blood cultures (k = 28); (C) Antibiotics (k = 35); (D) Fluid resuscitation (k = 24).
The size of the boxes is inversely proportional to the size of the result study variance, so that more precise studies have larger boxes. The ES is expressed as odds ratio (OR) and the correspondent 95% confidence interval (CI). An OR above 1.00 (right side of the plot) indicates an association between the intervention and increased compliance. ES = effect size; CI = confidence interval; Sig. = p value.
Fig 4. Forest plots showing individual and…
Fig 4. Forest plots showing individual and overall ES of studies that evaluated changes in compliance with individual 6-hour bundle targets following the implementation of the performance improvement program. (A) Measure central venous pressure (k = 8); (B) Central venous pressure above 8 mmHg (k = 16); (C) Measure SvO2 (k = 8); (D) SvO2 above 70% (k = 15); (E) Mean arterial pressure above 65 mmHg (k = 9); (F) Use of vasopressors (k = 9).
The size of the boxes is inversely proportional to the size of the result study variance, so that more precise studies have larger boxes. The ES is expressed as odds ratio (OR) and the correspondent 95% confidence interval (CI). An OR above 1.00 (right side of the plot) indicates an association between the intervention and increased compliance. ES = effect size; CI = confidence interval; Sig. = p value.
Fig 5. Forest plot showing individual and…
Fig 5. Forest plot showing individual and overall ES of studies that evaluated changes in compliance with the complete 24-hour bundle following the implementation of the performance improvement program (k = 11).
The size of the boxes is inversely proportional to the size of the result study variance, so that more precise studies have larger boxes. The ES is expressed as odds ratio (OR) and the correspondent 95% confidence interval (CI). An OR above 1.00 (right side of the plot) indicates an association between the intervention and increased compliance. ES = effect size; CI = confidence interval; Sig. = p value.
Fig 6. Forest plots showing individual and…
Fig 6. Forest plots showing individual and overall ES of studies that evaluated changes in compliance with individual 24-hour bundle targets following the implementation of the performance improvement program. (A) Lung protective ventilation (k = 9); (B) Steroids (k = 20); (C) Drotrecogin alfa (activated) (k = 16); (D) Glucose control (k = 13).
The size of the boxes is inversely proportional to the size of the result study variance, so that more precise studies have larger boxes. The ES is expressed as odds ratio (OR) and the correspondent 95% confidence interval (CI). An OR above 1.00 (right side of the plot) indicates an association between the intervention and increased compliance. ES = effect size; CI = confidence interval; Sig. = p value.
Fig 7. Forest plot showing individual and…
Fig 7. Forest plot showing individual and overall ES of studies that evaluated changes in mortality following the implementation of the performance improvement program (k = 48).
The size of the boxes is inversely proportional to the size of the result study variance, so that more precise studies have larger boxes. The ES is expressed as odds ratio (OR) and the correspondent 95% confidence interval (CI). An OR below 1.00 (left side of the plot) indicates an association between the intervention and decreased mortality. ES = effect size; CI = confidence interval; Sig. = p value.

References

    1. Mayr FB, Yende S, Angus DC. Epidemiology of severe sepsis. Virulence. 2014; 5: 4–11. 10.4161/viru.27372
    1. Townsend SR, Schorr C, Levy MM, Dellinger RP.Reducing mortality in severe sepsis: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign. Clin Chest Med. 2008; 29: 721–733. 10.1016/j.ccm.2008.06.011
    1. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, Annane D, Gerlach H, Opal SM, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for the Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012. Crit Care Med. 2013; 41: 580–637. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31827e83af
    1. Levy MM, Pronovost PJ, Dellinger RP, Townsend S, Resar RK, Clemmer TP, et al. Sepsis change bundles: Converting guidelines into meaningful change in behavior and clinical outcome. Crit Care Med. 2004; 32: S595–S597.
    1. Gao F, Melody T, Daniels DF, Giles S, Fox S. The impact of compliance with 6-hour and 24-hour sepsis bundles on hospital-mortality in patients with severe sepsis: a prospective observational study. Crit Care. 2005; 9: R764–R770.
    1. Van Zanten ARH, Brinkman S, Arbous MS, Abu-Hanna A, Levy MM, de Keizer NF; Netherlands Patient Safety Agency Sepsis Expert Group. Guideline bundles adherence and mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2014; 42: 1890–1898. 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000297
    1. Djurkovic S, Baracaldo JC, Guerra JA, Sartorius J, Haupt MT. A survey of clinicians addressing the approach to the management of severe sepsis and septic shock in the United States. J Crit Care. 2010; 25: 658.e1–658.e6.
    1. Levy MM, Dellinger RP, Townsend SR, Linde-Zwirble WT, Marshall JC, Bion J, et al. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: results of an international guideline-based performance improvement program targeting severe sepsis. Intensive Care Med. 2010; 36: 222–231. 10.1007/s00134-009-1738-3
    1. Giuliano KK, Lecardo M, Staul LA. Impact of Protocol Watch on compliance with the Surviving Sepsis Campaign. Am J Crit Care. 2011; 20: 330–331.
    1. Berg GM, Vasquez DG, Hale LDS, Nyberg SM, Moran DA. Evaluation of process variations in noncompliance in implementation of evidence-based sepsis care. J Healthc Qual. 2013; 35: 60–69. 10.1111/j.1945-1474.2011.00168.x
    1. Levy MM, Fink MP, Marshall JC, Abraham E, Angus D, Cook D, et al. 2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS sepsis definitions conference. Crit Care Med. 2003; 31: 1250–1256.
    1. Dellinger RP, Carlet JM, Masur H, Gerlach H, Calandra T, Cohen J, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock. Intensive Care Med. 2004; 30: 536–555.
    1. Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998; 52:377–84.
    1. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd; 2009.
    1. Lipsey MW, Wilson DB, eds. Practical Meta-Analysis. Vol 49 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2001.
    1. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysis. BMJ. 2003; 327: 557–560.
    1. Sterne JAC, Egger M. Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001; 54: 1046–1055.
    1. Bond CM, Djogovic D, Villa-Roel C, Bullard MJ, Meurer DP, Rowe BH. Pilot study comparing sepsis management with and without electronic clinical practice guidelines in an academic emergency department. J Emerg Med. 2013; 44: 698–708. 10.1016/j.jemermed.2012.08.025
    1. Cannon CM, Holthaus CV, Zubrow MT, Posa P, Gunaga S, Kella V, et al. The GENESIS Project (GENeralized Early Sepsis Intervention Strategies): a multicenter quality improvement collaborative. J Intensive Care Med. 2012; 10.1177/0885066612453025
    1. Capuzzo M, Rambaldi M, Pinelli G, Campesato M, Pigna A, Zanello M, et al. Hospital staff education on severe sepsis/septic shock and hospital mortality: an original hypothesis. BMC Anesthesiology. 2012; 12: 28 10.1186/1471-2253-12-28
    1. Castellanos-Ortega A, Suberviola B, Garcia-Astudillo LA, Holanda MS, Ortiz F, Llorca J, et al. Impact of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign protocols on hospital length of stay and mortality in septic shock patients: Results of a three-year follow-up quasi-experimental study. Crit Care Med. 2010; 38: 1036–1043. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181d455b6
    1. Chen YC, Chang SC, Pu C, Tang GJ. The impact of nationwide education program on clinical practice in sepsis care and mortality of severe sepsis: a population-based study in Taiwan. PLoS ONE. 2013; 8: e77414 10.1371/journal.pone.0077414
    1. De Miguel-Yanes JM, Munoz-Gonzalez J, Andueza-Lillo JA, Moyano-Villaseca B, Gonzalez-Ramallo VJ, Bustamante-Fermosel A. Implementation of a bundle of actions to improve adherence to the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines at the ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2009; 27: 668–674. 10.1016/j.ajem.2008.05.010
    1. El Solh AA, Akinnusi ME, Alsawalha LN, Pineda LA. Outcome in septic shock in older adults after implementation of the sepsis “bundle”. JAGS. 2008; 56: 272–278.
    1. Ferrer R, Artigas A, Levy MM, Blanco J, Gonzalez-Dias G, Garnacho-Montero J, et al. Improvement in process of care and outcome after a multicenter severe sepsis educational program in Spain. JAMA. 2008; 299: 2294–2303. 10.1001/jama.299.19.2294
    1. Francis M, Rich T, Williamson T, Peterson D. Effect of an emergency department sepsis protocol on time to antibiotics in severe sepsis. CJEM. 2010; 12: 303–310.
    1. Girardis M, Rinaldi L, Donno L, Marietta M, Codeluppi M, Marchegiano P, et al. Effects on management and outcome of severe sepsis and septic shock patients admitted to the intensive care unit after implementation of a sepsis program: a pilot study. Crit Care. 2009; 13: R143 10.1186/cc8029
    1. Gurnani PK, Patel GP, Crank CW, Vais D, Lateef O, Akimov S, et al. Impact of the implementation of a sepsis protocol for the management of fluid-refractory septic shock: a single-center, before-and-after study. Clinical Therapeutics. 2010; 32: 1285–1293. 10.1016/j.clinthera.2010.07.003
    1. Heppner HJ, Singler K, Kwetkat A, Popp S, Esslinger AS, Bahrmann P, et al. Do clinical guidelines improve management of sepsis in critically ill elderly patients? A before-and-after study of the implementation of a sepsis protocol. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2012; 124: 692–698. 10.1007/s00508-012-0229-7
    1. Hoo WES, Muehlberg K, Ferraro RG, Jumaoas MC. Successes and lessons learned implementing the sepsis bundle. J Healthc Qual. 2009; 31: 9–15.
    1. Jacob ST, Banura P, Baeten JM, Moore CC, Meya D, Nakiyingi L, et al. The impact of early monitored management on survival in hospitalized adult Ugandan patients with severe sepsis: a prospective intervention study. Crit Care Med. 2012; 40: 2050–2058. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31824e65d7
    1. Jeon K, Shin TG, Sim MS, Suh GY, Lim SY, Song HG, et al. Improvements in compliance with resuscitation bundles and achievement of end points after an educational program on the management of severe sepsis and septic shock. SHOCK. 2012; 37: 463–467. 10.1097/SHK.0b013e31824c31d1
    1. Jones AE, Troyer JL, Kline JA. Cost-effectiveness of an emergency department based early sepsis resuscitation protocol. Crit Care Med. 2011; 39: 1306–1312. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31821201be
    1. Kuan WS, Mahadevan M, Tan JH, Guo J, Ibrahim I. Feasibility of introduction and implementation of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign bundle in a Singapore Emergency Department. Eur J Emerg Med. 2013; 20: 344–349. 10.1097/MEJ.0b013e32835c2ba3
    1. Laguna-Pérez A, Chilet-Rosell E, Delgado Lacosta M, Alvarez-Dardet C, Uris Selles J, Munoz-Mendoza CL. Clinical pathway intervention compliance and effectiveness when used in the treatment of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock at an Intensive Care Unit in Spain. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2012; 20: 635–643.
    1. LaRosa JA, Ahmad N, Feinberg M, Shah M, DiBrienza R, Studer S. The use of an early alert system to improve compliance with sepsis bundles and to assess impact on mortality. Crit Care Res Pract. 2012; 2012: 980369 10.1155/2012/980369
    1. Lefrant JY, Muller L, Raillard A, Jung B, Beaudroit L, Favier L, et al. Reduction of the severe sepsis or septic shock associated mortality by reinforcement of the recommendations bundle: a multicenter study. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 2010; 29: 621–628. 10.1016/j.annfar.2010.04.007
    1. Levy MM, Rhodes A, Phillips GS, Townsend SR, Schorr CA, Beale R, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Association between performance metrics and outcomes in a 7.5-year study. Crit Care Med. 2014; 43: 3–12.
    1. MacRedmond R, Hollohan K, Stenstrom R, Nebre R, Jaswal D, Dodek P. Introduction of a comprehensive management protocol for severe sepsis is associated with sustained improvements in timeliness of care and survival. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010; 19: e46 10.1136/qshc.2009.033407
    1. McKinley BA, Moore LJ, Sucher JF, Todd SR, Turner KL, Valdivia A, et al. Computer protocol facilitates evidence-based Care of sepsis in the surgical intensive care unit. J Trauma. 2011; 70: 1153–1167. 10.1097/TA.0b013e31821598e9
    1. Memon JI, Rehmani RS, Alaithan AM, El Gammal A, Lone TM, Ghorab K, et al. Impact of 6-hour sepsis resuscitation bundle compliance on hospital mortality in a Saudi hospital. Crit Care Res Pract. 2012; 2012: 273268 10.1155/2012/273268
    1. Micek ST, Roubinian N, Heuring T, Bode M, Williams J, Harrison C, et al. Before—after study of a standardized hospital order set for the management of septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2006; 34: 2707–2713.
    1. Miller RR 3rd, Dong L, Nelson NC, Brown SM, Kuttler KG, Probst DR, et al. Multicenter implementation of a severe sepsis and septic shock treatment bundle. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013; 188: 77–82. 10.1164/rccm.201212-2199OC
    1. Moore LJ, Jones SL, Kreiner LA, McKinley B, Sucher JF, Todd SR, et al. Validation of a screening tool for the early identification of sepsis. J Trauma. 2009; 66: 1539–1547. 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181a3ac4b
    1. Na S, Kuan WS, Mahadevan M, Li CH, Shrikhande P, Ray S, et al. Implementation of early goal-directed therapy and the surviving sepsis campaign resuscitation bundle in Asia. Int J Qual Health Care. 2012; 24: 452–462. 10.1093/intqhc/mzs045
    1. Nguyen HB, Corbett SW, Steele R, Banta J, Clark RT, Hayes SR, et al. Implementation of a bundle of quality indicators for the early management of severe sepsis and septic shock is associated with decreased mortality. Crit Care Med. 2007; 35: 1105–1112.
    1. Nguyen HM, Schiavoni A, Scott KD, Tanios MA. Implementation of sepsis management guideline in a community-based teaching hospital—can education be potentially beneficial for septic patients? Int J Clin Pract. 2012; 66: 705–710. 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2012.02939.x
    1. Noritomi DT, Ranzani OT, Monteiro MB, Ferreira EM, Santos SR, Leibel F, et al. Implementation of a multifaceted sepsis education program in an emerging country setting: clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness in a long-term follow-up study. Intensive Care Med. 2014; 40: 182–191. 10.1007/s00134-013-3131-5
    1. Palleschi MT, Sirianni S, O’Connor N, Dunn D, Hasenau SM. An interprofessional process to improve early identification and treatment for sepsis. J Healthc Qualt. 2014; 36: 23–31. 10.1111/jhq.12006
    1. Patocka C, Turner J, Xue X, Segal E. Evaluation of an emergency department triage screening tool for suspected severe sepsis and septic shock. J Healthc Qual. 2014; 36: 52–61. 10.1111/jhq.12055
    1. Plambech MZ, Lurie AI, Ipsen HL. Initial, successful implementation of sepsis guidelines in an emergency department. Dan Med J. 2012; 59: A4545
    1. Sawyer AM, Deal EN, Labelle AJ, Witt C, Thiel SW, Heard K, et al. Implementation of a real-time computerized sepsis alert in nonintensive care unit patients. Crit Care Med. 2011; 39: 469–473. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318205df85
    1. Schramm GE, Kashyap R, Mullon JJ, Gajic O, Afessa B. Septic shock: a multidisciplinary response team and weekly feedback to clinicians improve the process of care and mortality. Crit Care Med. 2011; 39: 252–258. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181ffde08
    1. Seoane L, Winterbottom F, Nash T, Behrhorst J, Chacko E, Shum L, et al. Using quality improvement principles to improve the care of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Ochsner J. 2013; 13: 359–366.
    1. Shapiro NI, Howell MD, Talmor D, Lahey D, Ngo L, Buras J, et al. Implementation and outcomes of the Multiple Urgent Sepsis Therapy (MUST) protocol. Crit Care Med. 2006; 34: 1025–1032.
    1. Shiramizo SC, Marra AR, Durao MS, Paes AT, Edmond MB, Pavao dos Santos OF. Decreasing mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock patients by implementing a sepsis bundle in a hospital setting. PLoS ONE. 2011; 6: e26790 10.1371/journal.pone.0026790
    1. Silverman LZ, Hoesel M, Desai A, Posa P, Purtill MA, Brandt MM. It takes an intensivist. Am J Surg. 2011; 201: 320–323. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2010.09.013
    1. Sweet DD, Jaswal D, Fu W, Bouchard M, Sivapalan P, Rachel J, et al. Effect of an emergency department sepsis protocol on the care of septic patients admitted to the intensive care unit. CJEM. 2010; 12: 414–20.
    1. Thiel SW, Asghar MF, Micek ST, Reichlay RM, Doherty JA, Kollef MH. Hospital-wide impact of a standardized order set for the management of bacteremic severe sepsis. Crit Care Med. 2009; 37: 819–824. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318196206b
    1. Tromp M, Hulscher M, Bleeker-Rovers CP, Peters L, van den Berg DTNA, Borm GF, et al. The role of nurses in the recognition and treatment of patients with sepsis in the emergency department: a prospective before-and-after intervention study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2010; 47: 1464–1473. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.04.007
    1. Vallée F, Fourcade O, Marty P, Sanchez P, Samii K, Genestal M. The hemodynamic “target”: a visual tool of goal-directed therapy for septic patients. Clinics. 2007; 62: 447–54.
    1. Wang Z, Xiong Y, Schorr C, Dellinger RP. Impact of sepsis bundle strategy on outcomes of patients suffering from severe sepsis and septic shock in China. J Emerg Med. 2013; 44: 735–741. 10.1016/j.jemermed.2012.07.084
    1. Westphal GA, Koening A, Caldeira Filho M, Feijò J, de Oliveira LT, Nunes F, et al. Reduced mortality after the implementation of a protocol for the early detection of severe sepsis. J Crit Care. 2011; 26: 76–81. 10.1016/j.jcrc.2010.08.001
    1. Levy MM, Artigas A, Phillips GS, Rhodes A, Beale R, Osborn T, et al. Outcomes of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign in intensive care units in the USA and Europe: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012; 12: 919–924. 10.1016/S1473-3099(12)70239-6
    1. Kang MJ, Shin TG, Jo IJ, Jeon K, Suh GY, Sim MS, et al. Factors influencing compliance with early resuscitation bundle in the management of severe sepsis and septic shock. Shock. 2012; 38: 474–9. 10.1097/SHK.0b013e31826eea2b
    1. Ranieri VM, Thompson BT, Barie PS, Dhainaut JF, Douglas IS, Finfer S, et al. Drotrecogin alfa (activated) in adults with septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366: 2055–2064. 10.1056/NEJMoa1202290
    1. ProCESS Investigators, Yealy DM, Kellum JA, Huang DT, Barnato AE, Weissfeld LA, et al. A randomized trial of protocol-based care for early septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014; 370: 1683–1693. 10.1056/NEJMoa1401602
    1. The ARISE Investigators and the ANZICS Clinical Trials Group. Goal-directed resuscitation for patients with early septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014; 371: 1496–506. 10.1056/NEJMoa1404380
    1. Stevenson EK, Rubenstein AR, Radin GT, Wiener RS, Walkey AJ. Two decades of mortality trends among patients with severe sepsis: a comparative meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2014; 42: 2–7.
    1. Kaukonen KM, Bailey M, Suzuki S, Pilcher D, Bellomo R. Mortality related to severe sepsis and septic shock among critically ill patients in Australia and New Zealand, 2000–2012. JAMA. 2014; 311: 1308–1316. 10.1001/jama.2014.2637

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner