Exploring the Extent and Depth of Clinical Education on Sepsis SEP-1 Core Measure and the Reported Impact on Outcomes and Compliance rate: A Scoping Review.

Q4 Medicine Critical care explorations Pub Date : 2025-02-28 eCollection Date: 2025-03-01 DOI:10.1097/CCE.0000000000001215
Alexis J Wells, Alysha Sapp, Danielle K Walker, Kathy A Baker
{"title":"Exploring the Extent and Depth of Clinical Education on Sepsis SEP-1 Core Measure and the Reported Impact on Outcomes and Compliance rate: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Alexis J Wells, Alysha Sapp, Danielle K Walker, Kathy A Baker","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000001215","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This scoping review aimed to understand the extent and depth of education provided on the severe sepsis and septic shock management bundle quality measure (SEP-1) to frontline clinicians to elicit insight regarding the impact on patient outcomes, the compliance rate, and any efforts to alleviate concerns about clinical judgment challenges with SEP-1.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Seven databases were used: ProQuest, EBSCO Host, Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, MEDLINE, and CINAHL for studies published in 2015 and later using key terms related to sepsis and SEP-1 quality measure.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Two independent reviewers selected studies that mentioned the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services SEP-1 and included education to frontline clinicians on the quality measure as one of the interventions.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Data extraction included study design, publication type, what was educated to frontline clinicians, Bennet and Bennet's \"depth of knowledge\" through education provided, and any mention of patient outcomes and change in SEP-1 compliance rate from the study.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>The initial search yielded 493 articles. After screening for eligibility criteria, 20 studies were ultimately included. When evaluating what details of SEP-1 are being educated, 95% (19/20) of the studies focused on how to identify sepsis as well as the bundle elements required to pass the measure (19/20); however, the deeper details of the measure that allow clinical judgment and still pass the measure are severely lacking.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Multiple education opportunities not currently addressed in the literature may lead to improvement of the national SEP-1 compliance rate and alleviate clinician concern that the quality measure does not allow for clinical judgment. Without deeper education, this knowledge gap could be a key factor in why the quality measure national compliance rate has halted, raising calls to retire the measure prematurely.</p>","PeriodicalId":93957,"journal":{"name":"Critical care explorations","volume":"7 3","pages":"e1215"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical care explorations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000001215","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This scoping review aimed to understand the extent and depth of education provided on the severe sepsis and septic shock management bundle quality measure (SEP-1) to frontline clinicians to elicit insight regarding the impact on patient outcomes, the compliance rate, and any efforts to alleviate concerns about clinical judgment challenges with SEP-1.

Data sources: Seven databases were used: ProQuest, EBSCO Host, Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, MEDLINE, and CINAHL for studies published in 2015 and later using key terms related to sepsis and SEP-1 quality measure.

Study selection: Two independent reviewers selected studies that mentioned the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services SEP-1 and included education to frontline clinicians on the quality measure as one of the interventions.

Data extraction: Data extraction included study design, publication type, what was educated to frontline clinicians, Bennet and Bennet's "depth of knowledge" through education provided, and any mention of patient outcomes and change in SEP-1 compliance rate from the study.

Data synthesis: The initial search yielded 493 articles. After screening for eligibility criteria, 20 studies were ultimately included. When evaluating what details of SEP-1 are being educated, 95% (19/20) of the studies focused on how to identify sepsis as well as the bundle elements required to pass the measure (19/20); however, the deeper details of the measure that allow clinical judgment and still pass the measure are severely lacking.

Conclusions: Multiple education opportunities not currently addressed in the literature may lead to improvement of the national SEP-1 compliance rate and alleviate clinician concern that the quality measure does not allow for clinical judgment. Without deeper education, this knowledge gap could be a key factor in why the quality measure national compliance rate has halted, raising calls to retire the measure prematurely.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Exploring the Extent and Depth of Clinical Education on Sepsis SEP-1 Core Measure and the Reported Impact on Outcomes and Compliance rate: A Scoping Review. Blood Transfusion Practices in Intensive Care: A Prospective Observational Binational Study. Variation in Corticosteroid Prescribing Practices for Patients With Septic Shock. The Association Between Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and the Incidence of Delirium in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review. Association of Causative Pathogens With Acute Kidney Injury in Adult Patients With Community-Onset Sepsis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1