Should We Be Watching a Stopwatch or Wanting Better Patient Care? – The Debate over the 1-Hour Sepsis Bundle

Editor’s Note: This editorial from the desk of PPAHS’s Executive Director asks whether the debate over the 1-hour sepsis bundle should focus on improving care and not on making sure certain procedures are done within a 60-minute timeframe.

By Michael Wong, JD (Founder and Executive Director, Physician-Patient Alliance for Health & Safety)

The recent kerfuffle over the 1-Hour Sepsis Bundle has missed the point about the need for better patient care and a much needed effort to save patient lives.

In 2002, the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, the Society of Critical Care Medicine, and the International Sepsis Forum came together and formed the Surviving Sepsis Campaign aiming to reduce sepsis-related mortality by 25% within 5 years. The goals of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign were to improve the management of sepsis through a 7-point agenda including:

  • Building awareness of sepsis
  • Improving diagnosis
  • Increasing the use of appropriate treatment
  • Educating healthcare professionals
  • Improving post-ICU care
  • Developing guidelines of care
  • Implementing a performance improvement program

Without going into the history of the sepsis bundle (my sincere apologies to historians), the Surviving Sepsis Campaign received federal recognition in 2015 when CMS developed the SEP-1 measure.

The proclamation of the SEP-1 measure immediately set off a firestorm of debate, which culminated in a petition to have the Surviving Sepsis guidelines retracted.

In response to all of this debate, SCCM updated its wording about the Sepsis bundle, stating:

To read a complete copy of the article, please click here.

Leave a Comment, if You Care About Patient Safety