Hospital Perceptions of Medicare’s Sepsis Quality Reporting Initiative
BACKGROUND: In October 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented the Sepsis CMS Core Measure (SEP-1) program, requiring hospitals to report data on the quality of care for their patients with sepsis.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand hospital perceptions of and responses to the SEP-1 program.
DESIGN: A thematic content analysis of semistructured interviews with hospital quality officials.
SETTING: A stratified random sample of short-stay, nonfederal, general acute care hospitals in the United States.
SUBJECTS: Hospital quality officers, including nurses and physicians.
INTERVENTION: None.
MEASUREMENTS: We completed 29 interviews before reaching content saturation.
RESULTS: Hospitals reported a variety of actions in response to SEP-1, including new efforts to collect data, improve sepsis diagnosis and treatment, and manage clinicians’ attitudes toward SEP-1. These efforts frequently required dedicated resources to meet the program’s requirements for treatment and documentation, which were thought to be complex and not consistently linked to patient-centered outcomes. Most respondents felt that SEP-1 was likely to improve sepsis outcomes. At the same time, they described specific changes that could improve its effectiveness, including allowing hospitals to focus on the treatment processes most directly associated with improved patient outcomes and better aligning the measure’s sepsis definitions with current clinical definitions.
CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals are responding to the SEP-1 program across a number of domains and in ways that consistently require dedicated resources. Hospitals are interested in further revisions to the program to alleviate the burden of the reporting requirements and help them optimize the effectiveness of their investments in quality-improvement efforts.
© 2017 Society of Hospital Medicine
First, we demonstrate that SEP-1 consistently requires a substantial investment of resources from hospitals already struggling under the weight of numerous local, state, and national quality-reporting and improvement programs.14,20,21 In aggregate, these programs can stretch hospitals’ resources to their limit. Respondents universally reported that the SEP-1 program is requiring dedicated staff to meet the data abstraction and reporting requirements as well as multicomponent quality-improvement initiatives. In the absence of well-established roadmaps for improving sepsis care, these sepsis quality-improvement efforts require experimentation and iterative revision, which can contribute to fatigue and frustration among quality officers and clinical staff. This process of innovation inherently involves successes, failures, and the risk of harm and opportunity costs that strain hospital resources.
Second, our study indicates how SEP-1 could exacerbate existing inequalities in our health system. Sepsis incidence and mortality are already higher in medically underserved regions.22 Given the resources required to respond to the SEP-1 program, optimal performance may be beyond the reach of smaller hospitals, or even larger hospitals, whose resources are already stretched to their limits. Public reporting and pay-for-performance can be adisadvantage to hospitals caring for underserved populations.23,24 To the extent that responding to sepsis-oriented public policy requires resources that certain hospitals cannot access, these policies could exacerbate existing health disparities.
Third, our findings highlight some specific ways that CMS could revise the SEP-1 program to better meet the needs of hospitals and improve outcomes for patients with sepsis. Primarily, although the program’s current specifications take an “all-or-none” approach to treatment success, a more flexible approach, such as a weighted score or composite measure that combines processes and outcomes,25,26 could allow hospitals to focus their efforts on those components of the bundle with the strongest evidence for improved patient outcomes.27 Second, policy makers need to reconcile the 2 existing clinical definitions for sepsis.1,28 CMS has already stated its plans to retain the preexisting sepsis definition,29 but this does not change the reality that frontline providers and quality officials face different, and at times conflicting, clinical definitions while caring for patients. Finally, current implementation challenges may support a delay in moving the measure toward public reporting and pay-for-performance. Hospitals are already responding to the measure in a substantial way, providing an opportunity for early quantitative evaluations of the program’s impact that could inform evidence-based revisions to the measure.
Our study has several limitations. First, by interviewing only individual quality officers within each hospital, it is possible that our findings were not representative of the perspectives of other individuals within their hospitals or the hospital as a whole; indeed, to the extent that quality officers “buy in” to quality measurement and reporting, their perspectives on SEP-1 may skew more positive than other hospital staff. Our respondents represented individuals from a range of positions within the quality infrastructure, whereas “hospital quality leaders” are often chief executive officers, chief medical officers, or vice presidents for quality.30 However, by virtue of our purposive sampling approach, we included respondents from a broad range of hospitals and found similar themes across these respondents, supporting the internal validity of our findings. Second, as is inherent in interview-based research, we cannot verify that respondents’ reports of hospital responses to SEP-1 match the actual changes implemented “on the ground.” We are reassured, however, by the fact that many of the perspectives and quality-improvement changes that respondents described align with the opinions and suggestions of academic quality experts, which are informed by clinical experience.6-8 Third, while respondents believe that hospital responses to SEP-1 are contributing to improvements in treatment and outcomes, we do not yet have robust objective data to support this opinion or to evaluate the association between quality officers’ perspectives and hospital performance. A quantitative evaluation of the clinical impact of SEP-1, as well as the relationship between hospital performance and quality officers’ perspectives on the measure, are important areas for future research.
CONCLUSIONS
In a qualitative study of hospital responses to Medicare’s SEP-1 program, we found that hospitals are implementing changes across a variety of domains and in ways that consistently require dedicated resources. Giving hospitals the flexibility to focus on treatment processes with the most direct impact on patient-centered outcomes might enhance the program’s effectiveness. Future work should quantify the program’s impact and develop novel approaches to data abstraction and quality improvement.
Disclosure
Aside from federal funding, the authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. The authors received funding from the National Institutes of Health (IJB, F32HL132461) (JMK, K24HL133444). This work was submitted as an abstract to the 2017 American Thoracic Society International Conference, May 2017.
