A Multi-Hospital Survey of Current Practices for Supporting Recovery From Sepsis.

Hechtman RK, Cano J, Whittington T, Hogan CK, Seelye SM, Sussman JB, Prescott HC. A Multi-Hospital Survey of Current Practices for Supporting Recovery From Sepsis. Critical care explorations. 2023 Jun 1; 5(6):e0926.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• IIR 20-313 – Optimizing Veteran Recovery from Sepsis (OVeR-Sepsis)

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

Sepsis survivors are at increased risk for morbidity and functional impairment. There are recommended practices to support recovery after sepsis, but it is unclear how often they are implemented. We sought to assess the current use of recovery-based practices across hospitals. DESIGN: Electronic survey assessing the use of best practices for recovery from COVID-related and non-COVID-related sepsis. Questions included four-point Likert responses of "never" to "always/nearly always." SETTING: Twenty-six veterans affairs hospitals with the highest ( = 13) and lowest ( = 13) risk-adjusted 90-day sepsis survival. SUBJECTS: Inpatient and outpatient clinician leaders. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For each domain, we calculated the proportion of "always/nearly always" responses and mean Likert scores. We assessed for differences by hospital survival, COVID versus non-COVID sepsis, and sepsis case volume. Across eight domains of care, the proportion "always/nearly always" responses ranged from: 80.7% (social support) and 69.8% (medication management) to 22.5% (physical recovery and adaptation) and 0.0% (emotional support). Higher-survival hospitals more often performed screening for new symptoms/limitations (49.2% vs 35.1% "always/nearly always," = 0.02) compared with lower-survival hospitals. There was no difference in "always/nearly always" responses for COVID-related versus non-COVID-related sepsis, but small differences in mean Likert score in four domains: care coordination (3.34 vs 3.48, = 0.01), medication management (3.59 vs 3.65, = 0.04), screening for new symptoms/limitations (3.13 vs 3.20, = 0.02), and anticipatory guidance and education (2.97 vs 2.84, < 0.001). Lower case volume hospitals more often performed care coordination (72.7% vs 43.8% "always/nearly always," = 0.02), screening for new symptoms/limitations (60.6% vs 35.8%, < 0.001), and social support (100% vs 74.2%, = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show variable adoption of practices for sepsis recovery. Future work is needed to understand why some practice domains are employed more frequently than others, and how to facilitate practice implementation, particularly within rarely adopted domains such as emotional support.