Sepsis Quality Measurement and the Fraying of the Safety Net

Jeremy M. Kahn
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.12781
2024-06-01
JAMA Network Open
Abstract:Hospitals in the US are increasingly subject to government regulations intended to improve the quality of care for patients with sepsis. Examples include the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services sepsis management bundle program (SEP-1) 1 as well as state-level mandates such as those in New York. 2 These programs exist for good reason. Sepsis is among the most costly and deadly conditions for hospitalized patients, and only a minority of patients with sepsis receive guideline-adherent care. In theory, government regulations like these would incentivize hospital-level quality improvement efforts leading to improved performance and increased survival for patients with sepsis. Unfortunately, these programs don't always work as intended. For instance, the first iteration of SEP-1 did not lead to improved outcomes for sepsis patients. 1 There are likely a few reasons for this failure. At the time, SEP-1 was limited to public reporting of quality data, which is known to be a relatively weak policy option. SEP-1 also focused only on process-based quality measures, which are not tightly linked to mortality in most patients. 3 In contrast to SEP-1, the New York State program was much more intensive. It included a broader range of performance measures—both process and outcome—and it went beyond public reporting to mandate use of hospital-wide sepsis education and protocolized resuscitation. 4 Perhaps for this reason, the New York state sepsis program was more successful than SEP-1, with evidence suggesting that it led to lower mortality in New York hospitals. 2 Although intensive programs like New York State's appear to succeed, they come with a substantial downside—they are extremely costly to implement. To effect change, hospitals must employ a wide array of resource-intensive tools, including staff education, electronic health record alerts, clinical decision support, and internal audit and feedback. 5 These investments are outside the reach of many hospitals, particularly safety-net hospitals, which provide care for traditionally underserved and minoritized patients. Safety-net hospitals play a critical role in the US health care system by serving patents that would otherwise lack access to high-quality acute care. Yet safety-net hospitals are under intense financial pressures, reducing their ability to invest in mandated quality improvement activities like those related to sepsis. 6 These pressures are leading to widening health disparities. In New York State, for example, more performance gains under the sepsis regulations were seen by White patients than Black patients. 7 Sepsis quality measurement, as well-intended as it may be, is fraying the safety net. The subtle ways in which existing sepsis quality measurement disadvantage safety-net hospitals are further highlighted in a recent study by Law et al 8 in JAMA Network Open . Law and colleagues focused on 1 sepsis quality measure in particular: risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality. In-hospital mortality is a convenient quality measure because it's easy to assess. Unlike time-anchored measures like 30-day mortality, it does not require following the patient beyond their hospitalization or linking hospital data to other data sources like the Social Security death index. Using a Medicare dataset that contains both in-hospital mortality and 30-day mortality, the authors were able to compare these 2 measures in both safety-net and non–safety-net hospitals. As expected, 30-day mortality was substantially higher than in-hospital mortality in the Law et al study. 8 In sepsis, like in other clinical domains, hospitals can shift the mortality-burden by discharging patients sicker and quicker to postacute facilities. Yet the differences between in-hospital mortality and 30-day mortality were much greater in safety-net hospitals compared with non–safety-net hospitals. That is, safety-net hospitals were adept at shifting the mortality burden to other sites, relative to other hospitals. These differences were not just due to payer mix, since all patients in this study had the same insurer (fee-for-service Medicare). Instead, as elegantly shown by the study authors, these differences were due to differential access to end-of-life services, such as palliative care consultation and hospice. Discharge to hospice was significantly lower in safety-net hospitals compared with other hospitals, meaning that although patients in safety-net hospitals were dying at the same rates as patients in other hospitals, they were more likely to die in the hospital, without access to specialized palliative care. These findings are not altogether surprising. As Law et al 8 note in their discussion, many past studies demonstrate that in-hospital mortality is a biased quality measure. Past studies also document disparit -Abstract Truncated-
medicine, general & internal
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problems that this paper attempts to explore and solve are: **The impact of the sepsis quality measurement standards implemented by the government on safety - net hospitals and its potential unfairness**. Specifically, the paper points out: 1. **Background and Motivation**: - Sepsis is one of the most expensive and deadly diseases among hospitalized patients, but only a few patients can receive the treatment recommended by the guidelines. - The government uses various regulations (such as the Sepsis Management Bundle Program SEP - 1 for Medicare and Medicaid services and the mandatory measures in New York State) to improve the quality of care for sepsis patients. - The original intention of these regulations is to encourage hospitals to improve quality, thereby increasing the survival rate of patients. 2. **Existing Problems**: - Although the original intentions of these regulations are good, the actual effects are not satisfactory. For example, the first version of SEP - 1 did not significantly improve the prognosis of sepsis patients. - Although the project in New York State is more successful, its implementation cost is very high, and many under - resourced hospitals can hardly afford it. - Safety - net hospitals (mainly serving low - income and minority patients) are under great financial pressure and it is difficult for them to invest in these quality improvement activities. - This pressure has led to the intensification of health inequality. In particular, in New York State, white patients perform better than black patients under the sepsis regulations. 3. **Research Findings**: - A study conducted by Law et al. found that the difference between in - hospital mortality and 30 - day mortality in safety - net hospitals is greater than that in non - safety - net hospitals. - This difference is mainly due to the lack of high - quality end - of - life care services (such as palliative care and hospice care) in safety - net hospitals, resulting in patients being more likely to die in the hospital. 4. **Recommendations**: - Sepsis quality measurement should be based on time - limited mortality (such as 30 - day mortality) rather than in - hospital mortality. - The government should provide policy support to expand the accessibility of high - quality end - of - life care services. - The government should provide toolkits and support to promote cooperation among under - resourced hospitals to improve the ability of quality improvement. In summary, this paper aims to reveal the adverse effects of the current sepsis quality measurement standards on safety - net hospitals and put forward improvement suggestions to ensure that these policies will not exacerbate health inequality.