Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Apr 6:20:89.
doi: 10.1186/s13054-016-1266-9.

Diagnosing sepsis is subjective and highly variable: a survey of intensivists using case vignettes

Chanu Rhee  1   2 , Sameer S Kadri  3 , Robert L Danner  3 , Anthony F Suffredini  3 , Anthony F Massaro  4 , Barrett T Kitch  5 , Grace Lee  6 , Michael Klompas  6   4
Affiliations

Diagnosing sepsis is subjective and highly variable: a survey of intensivists using case vignettes

Chanu Rhee et al. Crit Care. .

Abstract

Background: Sepsis is the focus of national quality improvement programs and a recent public reporting measure from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. However, diagnosing sepsis requires interpreting nonspecific signs and can therefore be subjective. We sought to quantify interobserver variability in diagnosing sepsis.

Methods: We distributed five case vignettes of patients with suspected or confirmed infection and organ dysfunction to a sample of practicing intensivists. Respondents classified cases as systemic inflammatory response syndrome, sepsis, severe sepsis, septic shock, or none of the above. Interobserver variability was calculated using Fleiss' κ for the five-level classification, and for answers dichotomized as severe sepsis/septic shock versus not-severe sepsis/septic shock and any sepsis category (sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock) versus not-sepsis.

Results: Ninety-four physicians completed the survey. Most respondents (88%) identified as critical care specialists; other specialties included pulmonology (39%), anesthesia (19%), surgery (9%), and emergency medicine (9%). Respondents had been in practice for a median of 8 years, and 90% practiced at academic hospitals. Almost all respondents (83%) felt strongly or somewhat confident in their ability to apply the traditional consensus sepsis definitions. However, overall interrater agreement in sepsis diagnoses was poor (Fleiss' κ 0.29). When responses were dichotomized into severe sepsis/septic shock versus not-severe sepsis/septic shock or any sepsis category versus not-sepsis, agreement was still poor (Fleiss' κ 0.23 and 0.18, respectively). Seventeen percent of respondents classified one of the five cases as severe sepsis/septic shock, 27.7% rated two cases, 33.0% respondents rated three cases, 19.2% rated four cases, and 3.2% rated all five cases as severe sepsis/septic shock. Among respondents who felt strongly confident in their ability to use sepsis definitions (n = 45), agreement was no better (Fleiss' κ 0.28 for the five-category classification, and Fleiss' κ 0.21 for the dichotomized severe sepsis/septic shock classification). Cases were felt to be extremely or very realistic in 74% of responses; only 3% were deemed unrealistic.

Conclusions: Diagnosing sepsis is extremely subjective and variable. Objective criteria and standardized methodology are needed to enhance consistency and comparability in sepsis research, surveillance, benchmarking, and reporting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Distribution of responses for each case for (a) five-level classifications (systemic inflammatory response syndrome, sepsis, severe sepsis, septic shock, or none) and (b) dichotomized classification (severe sepsis/septic shock or not). SIRS systemic inflammatory response syndrome
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Level of confidence in sepsis diagnoses for each case
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Qualitative assessment of case vignettes’ realism and representativeness of actual patients
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Minino AM, Murphy SL. Death in the United States, 2010. NCHS Data Brief. 2012;(99). - PubMed
    1. Torio CM, Andrews RM. National inpatient hospital costs: the most expensive conditions by payer, 2011. HCUP Statistical Brief #160. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; August 2013. http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb160.pdf. Accessed 23 March 2016.
    1. Rhee C, Gohil S, Klompas M. Regulatory mandates for sepsis care—reasons for caution. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(18):1673–6. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1400276. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services. Medicare program; hospital inpatient prospective payment systems for acute care hospitals and the long-term care hospital prospective payment system and fiscal year 2015 rates; quality reporting requirements for specific providers; reasonable compensation equivalents for physician services in excluded hospitals and certain teaching hospitals; provider administrative appeals and judicial review; enforcement provisions for organ transplant centers; and electronic health record (EHR) incentive program. Final rule. Fed Regist. 2014;79(163):49853–50536. - PubMed
    1. National Quality Forum. Severe sepsis and septic shock: management bundle (composite measure). http://www.qualityforum.org/Qps/QpsTool.aspx. Accessed 23 March 2016.

Publication types