Methods: We evaluated patients in annual intervals before and after bundle implementation in March 2013. We evaluated bundle compliance and compared outcome measures across groups with multivariable logistic regression. Because of their perceived risk for iatrogenic fluid overload, we also evaluated patients with a history of heart failure and/or chronic kidney disease.Measurements and Main Results: We identified 18,122 patients with sepsis and intermediate lactate values, including 36.1% treated after implementation. Full bundle compliance increased from 32.2% in 2011 to 44.9% after bundle implementation (P , 0.01). Hospital mortality was 8.8% in 2011, 9.3% in 2012, and 7.9% in 2013 (P = 0.02). Treatment after bundle implementation was associated with an adjusted hospital mortality odds ratio of 0.81 (95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.99; P = 0.04). Decreased hospital mortality was observed primarily in patients with a heart failure and/or kidney disease history (P , 0.01) compared with patients without this history (P . 0.40). This corresponded to notable changes in the volume of fluid resuscitation in patients with heart failure and/or kidney disease after implementation.Conclusions: Multicenter implementation of a treatment bundle for patients with sepsis and intermediate lactate values improved bundle compliance and was associated with decreased hospital mortality. These decreases were mediated by improved mortality and increased fluid administration among patients with a history of heart failure and/or chronic kidney disease.

No abstract

Efforts to improve outcomes of patients who deteriorate outside the intensive care unit have included the use of rapid response teams (RRTs) as well as manual and automated prognostic scores. Although automated early warning systems (EWSs) are starting to enter clinical practice, there are few reports describing implementation and the processes required to integrate early warning approaches into hospitalists’ workflows. We describe the implementation process at 2 community hospitals that deployed an EWS. We employed the Institute for Healthcare Improvement’s iterative Plan-Do-Study-Act approach. Our basic workflow, which relies on having an RRT nurse and the EWS’s 12-hour outcome time frame, has been accepted by clinicians and has not been associated with patient complaints. Whereas our main objective was to develop a set of workflows for integrating the electronic medical record EWS into clinical practice, we also uncovered issues that must be addressed prior to disseminating this intervention to other hospitals. One problematic area is that of documentation following an alert. Other areas that must be addressed prior to disseminating the intervention include the need for educating clinicians on the rationale for deploying the EWS, careful consideration of interdepartment service agreements, clear definition of clinician responsibilities, pragmatic documentation standards, and how to communicate with patients. In addition to the deployment of the EWS to other hospitals, a future direction for our teams will be to characterize process-outcomes relationships in the clinical response itself.

Performance improvement involving 21 medical centers is a large-scale undertaking by an organization. It requires a systematic approach with key stakeholders and advanced practice nurses as subject matter experts involved throughout all phases of the implementation. Bedside clinicians assessing the patient must feel supported and valued members of the process. Challenges of all care providers need to be acknowledged and addressed.