Download PDFPDF
Association between Child Opportunity Index and paediatric sepsis recognition and treatment in a large quality improvement collaborative: a retrospective cohort study
  1. Lori Rutman1,2,
  2. Troy Richardson3,
  3. Jeffery Auletta4,
  4. Fran Balamuth5,6,
  5. Amber Chambers7,8,
  6. Julie Fitzgerald6,9,
  7. Javier Gelvez10,
  8. Karen A Genzel11,
  9. Amy Grant12,
  10. Vishal Gunnala13,
  11. Hana Hakim14,
  12. Leslie Hueschen15,
  13. Sarah Kandil16,
  14. Gitte Larsen17,
  15. Justin Lockwood18,
  16. Kate Lucey19,
  17. Elizabeth Mack20,
  18. Kate Madden21,
  19. Matthew Niedner22,
  20. Raina Paul23,
  21. Anireddy Reddy9,
  22. Ruth Riggs3,
  23. Johanna Rosen24,25,
  24. Melissa Schafer26,
  25. Halden Scott27,28,
  26. Jennifer Wilkes29,30,
  27. Matthew A Eisenberg31,32
  28. Improving Pediatric Sepsis Outcomes Collaborative Investigators
    1. Correspondence to Dr Lori Rutman; lori.rutman@seattlechildrens.org

    Abstract

    Background The Child Opportunity Index (COI) is a multidimensional measure of US neighbourhood-level conditions needed for healthy development. COI is associated with healthcare delivery and outcomes. Formal quality improvement (QI) may influence the relationship between COI, quality of care and outcomes in children.

    Objective To assess the association between COI and paediatric sepsis care delivery and outcomes and determine if baseline disparities in care change over time among hospitals in the Improving Pediatric Sepsis Outcomes (IPSO) collaborative.

    Methods Retrospective cohort study of IPSO patients probabilistically linked to the Pediatric Health Information System database from 2017 to 2021. Primary exposure was COI. We estimated differences in the proportions of patients in each COI quintile identified via standardised sepsis recognition protocols (screening tool, huddle documentation and/or order set use) and who received a bundle of recommended care (standardised sepsis recognition, plus bolus <1 hour and antibiotic <3 hours). We further assessed the timeliness of each bundle component and mortality. We evaluated changes in standardised sepsis recognition over time using generalised linear models.

    Results 31 260 sepsis cases from 24 hospitals were included. Cross-sectional analysis over the entire study period found patients in the Very High COI quintile were most likely to be identified via standardised recognition protocols and receive IPSO’s recommended care bundle (67.7% and 46%, respectively). Over time, standardised sepsis recognition improved for all; the greatest improvements were among inpatients in the Very Low COI quintile.

    Conclusion Disparities exist in paediatric sepsis care delivery by COI. Over the course of the IPSO collaborative, care improved most for children in the lowest COI quintile. QI collaboratives focused on standardisation and shared learning may reduce disparities.

    • Paediatrics
    • Collaborative, breakthrough groups
    • Healthcare quality improvement
    • Trigger tools

    Data availability statement

    No data are available.

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Footnotes

    • X @JeffAuletta, @okpedscns, @JLockwoodMD, @Jen_WilkesMD

    • Correction notice This article ahs been corrected since it was first published online. The author Sarah Kandil was incorrectly listed as Sarah Kandi.

    • Collaborators IPSO Collaborative Investigators: Ahmed Arshad (ahmed.arshad@ouhealth.com), Kristina Betters (kristina.betters@vumc.org), Katharine Boyle (katie.boyle@vumc.org), Emily Dawson (emily.dawson@aah.org), Kimberly Denicolo (kdenicolo@luriechildrens.org), Jaime Fox (jfox@childrenswi.org), Sherry Johnson (Sherry.Johnson@STJUDE.ORG), Carter Kasetani (Carter.Kasetani@childrenscolorado.org), Grant Keeney (gkeeney@multicare.org), Roni Lane (roni.lane@hsc.utah.edu), Stephanie Lavin (stephanie.lavin@cookchildrens.org), Melissa Magill (MagillM@archildrens.edu), Pamela Nelly (pnelly@akronchildrens.org), Megan O’Connell (moconnell@luriechildrens.org), Jolene Palmer (jmpalmer@cmh.edu), Janette Parks (Janette.parks@seattlechildrens.org), Sanjiv Pasala (SPasala@uams.edu), Kelly Perez (kelly.perez@aah.org), Jay Rillinger (jfrilinger@cmh.edu), Jennifer Rizzi (jennifer.rizzi@memorialhermann.org), Jillian Rojas (jrojas@luriechildrens.org), Ranna Rozenfeld (ranna_rozenfeld@brown.edu), Matthew Sharron (MSharron@childrensnational.org), Jonathan Silverman (jonathan.silverman@vcuhealth.org), Brittany Slagle (BSlagle@uams.edu), Elizabeth (Lisa) Smith (ESmith2@akronchildrens.org), Rebecca Stephen (rstephen@luriechildrens.org), Kathryn Stephens (kathryn.stephens@memorialhermann.org), Hannah Stinson (stinsonh@chop.edu), Viktoriya Stoycheva (vgstoycheva@cmh.edu), Michael Stroud (StroudMichaelH@uams.edu), Corrie Tarbert (ctarbert@umm.edu), Nathan Thompson (nathomps@mcw.edu)

    • Contributors LR, TR, JA, FB, AC, JF, JG, KAG, AG, VG, HH, LH, SK, GL, JL, KL, EM, KM, MN, RP, AR, RR, JR, MS, HS, JW, MAE and CI contributed to the initial concept and study design. TR and RR collected and analysed the data. LR, MAE and TR drafted the initial manuscript. Authors JA, FB, AC, JF, JG, KAG, AG, VG, HH, LH, SK, GL, JL, KL, EM, KM, MN, RP, AR, RR, JR, MS, HS, JW and CI critically reviewed and revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript for submission. LR is responsible for the overall content as guarantor.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.