Sepsis quality in safety-net hospitals: An analysis of Medicare's SEP-1 performance measure

Racial and Ethnic Patient Care Disparities in Anesthesiology: History, Current State, and a Way Forward

Disparities in patient care and outcomes are well-documented in medicine but have received comparatively less attention in anesthesiology. Those disparities linked to racial and ethnic identity are pervasive, with compelling evidence in operative anesthesiology, obstetric anesthesiology, pain medicine, and critical care. This narrative review presents an overview of disparities in perioperative patient care that is grounded in historical context followed by potential solutions for mitigating disparities and inequities.

Hospital-Onset Sepsis Warrants Expanded Investigation and Consideration as a Unique Clinical Entity

Sepsis causes more than a quarter million deaths among hospitalized adults in the United States each year. Although most cases of sepsis are present on admission, up to one-quarter of patients with sepsis develop this highly morbid and mortal condition while hospitalized. Compared with patients with community-onset sepsis (COS), patients with hospital-onset sepsis (HOS) are twice as likely to require mechanical ventilation and ICU admission, have more than two times longer ICU and hospital length of stay, accrue five times higher hospital costs, and are twice as likely to die. Patients with HOS differ from those with COS with respect to underlying comorbidities, admitting diagnosis, clinical manifestations of infection, and severity of illness. Despite the differences between these patient populations, patients with HOS sepsis are understudied and warrant expanded investigation. Here, we outline important knowledge gaps in the recognition and management of HOS in adults and propose associated research priorities for investigators. Of particular importance are questions regarding standardization of research and clinical case identification, understanding of clinical heterogeneity among patients with HOS, development of tailored management recommendations, identification of impactful prevention strategies, optimization of care delivery and quality metrics, identification and correction of disparities in care and outcomes, and how to ensure goal-concordant care for patients with HOS.

In-Hospital vs 30-Day Sepsis Mortality at US Safety-Net and Non-Safety-Net Hospitals

Importance

In-hospital mortality of patients with sepsis is frequently measured for benchmarking, both by researchers and policymakers. Prior studies have reported higher in-hospital mortality among patients with sepsis at safety-net hospitals compared with non-safety-net hospitals; however, in critically ill patients, in-hospital mortality rates are known to be associated with hospital discharge practices, which may differ between safety-net hospitals and non-safety-net hospitals.

Objective

To assess how admission to safety-net hospitals is associated with 2 metrics of short-term mortality (in-hospital mortality and 30-day mortality) and discharge practices among patients with sepsis.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Retrospective, national cohort study of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 66 years and older, admitted with sepsis to an intensive care unit from January 2011 to December 2019 based on information from the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review File. Data were analyzed from October 2022 to September 2023.

Exposure

Admission to a safety-net hospital (hospitals with a Medicare disproportionate share index in the top quartile per US region).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Coprimary outcomes: in-hospital mortality and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes: (1) in-hospital do-not-resuscitate orders, (2) in-hospital palliative care delivery, (3) discharge to a postacute facility (skilled nursing facility, inpatient rehabilitation facility, or long-term acute care hospital), and (4) discharge to hospice.

Results

Between 2011 and 2019, 2 551 743 patients with sepsis (mean [SD] age, 78.8 [8.2] years; 1 324 109 [51.9%] female; 262 496 [10.3%] Black, 2 137 493 [83.8%] White, and 151 754 [5.9%] other) were admitted to 666 safety-net hospitals and 1924 non-safety-net hospitals. Admission to safety-net hospitals was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.09; 95% CI, 1.06-1.13) but not 30-day mortality (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99-1.04). Admission to safety-net hospitals was associated with lower do-not-resuscitate rates (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81-0.91), palliative care delivery rates (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.60-0.73), and hospice discharge (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.78-0.87) but not with discharge to postacute facilities (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.95-1.01).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, among patients with sepsis, admission to safety-net hospitals was associated with higher in-hospital mortality but not with 30-day mortality. Differences in in-hospital mortality may partially be explained by greater use of hospice at non-safety-net hospitals, which shifts attribution of death from the index hospitalization to hospice. Future investigations and publicly reported quality measures should consider time-delimited rather than hospital-delimited measures of short-term mortality to avoid undue penalty to safety-net hospitals with similar short-term mortality.

Is patients' rurality associated with in-hospital sepsis death in US hospitals?

Background

The focus of this study was to explore the association of patients' rurality and other patient and hospital-related factors with in-hospital sepsis mortality to identify possible health disparities across United States hospitals.

Methods

The National Inpatient Sample was used to identify nationwide sepsis patients (n = 1,977,537, weighted n = 9,887,682) from 2016 to 2019. We used multivariate survey logistic regression models to identify predictors for how patients' rurality is associated with in-hospital death.

Findings

During the study periods, in-hospital death rates among sepsis inpatients continuously decreased (11.3% in 2016 to 9.9% in 2019) for all rurality levels. Rao-Schott Chi-Square tests demonstrated that certain patient and hospital factors had varied in-hospital death rates. Multivariate survey logistic regressions suggested that rural areas, minorities, females, older adults, low-income, and uninsured patients have higher odds of in-hospital mortality. Further, specific census divisions like New England, Middle Atlantic, and East North Central had greater in-hospital sepsis death odds.

Conclusion

Rurality was associated with increased in-hospital sepsis death across multiple patient populations and locations. Further, rurality in New England, Middle Atlantic, and East North Central locations is exceptionally high odds. In addition, minority races in rural areas also have an increased odds of in-hospital death. Therefore, rural healthcare requires a more significant influx of resources and should also include assessing patient-related factors.

Compliance with SEP-1 guidelines is associated with improved outcomes for septic shock but not for severe sepsis

BACKGROUND

In 2018, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) issued a protocol for the treatment of sepsis. This bundle protocol, titled SEP-1 is a multicomponent 3 h and 6 h resuscitation treatment for patients with the diagnosis of either severe sepsis or septic shock. The SEP-1 bundle includes antibiotic administration, fluid bolus, blood cultures, lactate measurement, vasopressors for fluid-refractory hypotension, and a reevaluation of volume status. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with either severe sepsis or septic shock comparing mortality outcomes based on compliance with the updated SEP-1 bundle at a rural community hospital.

METHODS

Mortality outcome and readmission data were extracted from an electronic medical records database from January 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020. International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes were used to identify patients with either severe sepsis or septic shock. Once identified, patients were separated into four populations: patients with severe sepsis who met SEP-1, patients with severe sepsis who failed SEP-1, patients with septic shock who met SEP-1, and patients with septic shock who failed SEP-1. A patient who met bundle criteria (SEP-1 criteria) received each component of the bundle in the time allotted. Using chi-squared test of homogeneity, mortality outcomes for population proportions were investigated. Two sample proportion summary hypothesis test and 95% confidence intervals (CI) determined significance in mortality outcomes.

RESULTS

Out of our 1122 patient population, 437 patients qualified to be measured by CMS criteria. Of the 437 patients, 195 met the treatment bundle and 242 failed the treatment bundle. Upon comparing the two groups, we found the probable difference in mortality rate between the met(14.87%) and failed bundle(27.69%) groups to be significant(95% CI: 5.28-20.34, P=0.0013). However, the driving force of this result lies in the subgroup of patients with severe sepsis with septic shock, which show a higher mortality rate compared to the subgroup with just severe sepsis. The difference was within the range of 3.31% to 29.71%.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that with septic shock obtained a benefit, decreased mortality, when the SEP-1 bundle was met. However, meeting the SEP-1 bundle had no benefit for patients who had the diagnosis of severe sepsis alone. The significant difference in mortality, found between the met and failed bundle groups, is primarily due to the number of patients with septic shock, and whether or not those patients with septic shock met or failed the bundle.

Association of Registered Nurse Staffing With Mortality Risk of Medicare Beneficiaries Hospitalized With Sepsis

Question

Is registered nurse workload associated with mortality among Medicare beneficiaries who are admitted to an acute care hospital with a diagnosis of sepsis?

Findings

In this cross-sectional study of 1958 acute care hospitals and 702 140 Medicare beneficiaries with a diagnosis of sepsis, an increase in registered nurse hours per patient day was associated with a 3% decrease in 60-day mortality in these older adults, a finding that was statistically significant.

Meaning

The study results suggest that the hours of care provided by registered nurses is likely associated with the outcomes of patients with a diagnosis of sepsis.

Importance

Sepsis is a major physiologic response to infection that if not managed properly can lead to multiorgan failure and death. The US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) requires that hospitals collect data on core sepsis measure Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Management Bundle (SEP-1) in an effort to promote the early recognition and treatment of sepsis. Despite implementation of the SEP-1 measure, sepsis-related mortality continues to challenge acute care hospitals nationwide.

Objective

To determine if registered nurse workload was associated with mortality in Medicare beneficiaries admitted to an acute care hospital with sepsis.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used 2018 data from the American Hospital Association Annual Survey, CMS Hospital Compare, and Medicare claims on Medicare beneficiaries age 65 to 99 years with a primary diagnosis of sepsis that was present on admission to 1 of 1958 nonfederal, general acute care hospitals that had data on CMS SEP-1 scores and registered nurse workload (indicated by registered nurse hours per patient day [HPPD]). Patients with sepsis were identified based on 29 International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes. Data were analyzed throughout 2021.

Exposures

SEP-1 score and registered nurse staffing.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The patient outcome of interest was mortality within 60 days of admission. Hospital characteristics included number of beds, ownership, teaching status, technology status, rurality, and region. Patient characteristics included age, sex, transfer status, intensive care unit admission, palliative care, do-not-resuscitate order, and a series of 29 comorbid diseases based on the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index.

Results

In total, 702 140 Medicare beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 78.2 [8.7] years; 360 804 women [51%]) had a diagnosis of sepsis. The mean SEP-1 score was 56.1, and registered nurse HPPD was 6.2. In a multivariable regression model, each additional registered nurse HPPD was associated with a 3% decrease in the odds of 60-day mortality (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% CI 0.96-0.99) controlling for SEP-1 score and hospital and patient characteristics.

Conclusions and Relevance

The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that hospitals that provide more registered nurse hours of care could likely improve SEP-1 bundle compliance and decrease the likelihood of mortality in Medicare beneficiaries with sepsis.

Hospital nurse staffing and sepsis protocol compliance and outcomes among patients with sepsis in the USA: a multistate cross-sectional analysis

OBJECTIVES

Sepsis is a serious inflammatory response to infection with a high death rate. Timely and effective treatment may improve sepsis outcomes resulting in mandatory sepsis care protocol adherence reporting. How the impact of patient-to-nurse staffing compares to sepsis protocol compliance and patient outcomes is not well understood. This study aimed to determine the association between hospital sepsis protocol compliance, patient-to-nurse staffing ratios and patient outcomes.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study examining hospital nurse staffing, sepsis protocol compliance and sepsis patient outcomes, using linked data from nurse (2015-2016, 2020) and hospital (2017) surveys, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital Compare (2017) and corresponding MedPAR patient claims.

SETTING

537 hospitals across six US states (California, Florida, Pennsylvania, New York, Illinois and New Jersey).

PARTICIPANTS

252 699 Medicare inpatients with sepsis present on admission.

MEASURES

The explanatory variables are nurse staffing and SEP-1 compliance. Outcomes are mortality (within 30 and 60 days of index admission), readmissions (within 7, 30, and 60 days of discharge), admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and lengths of stay (LOS).

RESULTS

Sepsis protocol compliance and nurse staffing vary widely across hospitals. Each additional patient per nurse was associated with increased odds of 30-day and 60-day mortality (9% (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.13) and 10% (1.10, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.14)), 7-day, 30-day and 60-day readmission (8% (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.11, p<0.001), 7% (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.10, p<0.001), 7% (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.10, p<0.001)), ICU admission (12% (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.22, p=0.007)) and increased relative risk of longer LOS (10% (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.12, p<0.001)). Each 10% increase in sepsis protocol compliance was associated with shorter LOS (2% ([OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.97 to 0.99, p<0.001)) only.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes are more strongly associated with improved nurse staffing than with increased compliance with sepsis protocols.

Sepsis Among Medicare Beneficiaries: 4. Precoronavirus Disease 2019 Update January 2012-February 2020

OBJECTIVES

To provide updated information on the burdens of sepsis during acute inpatient admissions for Medicare beneficiaries.

DESIGN

Analysis of paid Medicare claims via the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services DataLink Project.

SETTING

All U.S. acute-care hospitals, excluding federally operated hospitals (Veterans Administration and Defense Health Agency).

PATIENTS

All Medicare beneficiaries, January 2012-February 2020, with an explicit sepsis diagnostic code assigned during an inpatient admission.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The count of Medicare Part A/B (fee-for-service) plus Medicare Advantage inpatient sepsis admissions rose from 981,027 (CY2012) to 1,700,433 (CY 2019). The proportion of total admissions with sepsis in the Medicare Advantage population rose from 21.43% to 35.39%, reflecting the increasing beneficiary proportion enrolled in Medicare Advantage. In CY2019, 6-month mortality rates in Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries for sepsis continued to decline, but remained high: 59.9% for septic shock, 35.5% for severe sepsis, 30.8% for sepsis attributed to a specific organism, and 26.5% for unspecified sepsis. Total fee-for-service-only inpatient hospital costs rose from $17.79B (CY2012) to $22.98B (CY2019). We estimated that the aggregate cost of sepsis hospital care for the entire U.S. population was at least $57.47B in 2019. Inclusion of 14 months' (January 2019-February 2020) newer data exposed new trends: the cost per patient, number of admissions, and fraction of patients with sepsis labeled as present on admission inflected around November 2015, coincident with the change to International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition, and introduction of the Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Management Bundle (SEP-1) metric.

CONCLUSIONS

Sepsis among Medicare beneficiaries precoronavirus disease 2019 imposed immense burdens upon patients, their families, and the taxpayers.

Identifying High-Risk Subphenotypes and Associated Harms From Delayed Antibiotic Orders and Delivery

OBJECTIVES

Early antibiotic administration is a central component of sepsis guidelines, and delays may increase mortality. However, prior studies have examined the delay to first antibiotic administration as a single time period even though it contains two distinct processes: antibiotic ordering and antibiotic delivery, which can each be targeted for improvement through different interventions. The objective of this study was to characterize and compare patients who experienced order or delivery delays, investigate the association of each delay type with mortality, and identify novel patient subphenotypes with elevated risk of harm from delays.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of multicenter inpatient data.

SETTING

Two tertiary care medical centers (2008-2018, 2006-2017) and four community-based hospitals (2008-2017).

PATIENTS

All patients admitted through the emergency department who met clinical criteria for infection.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Patient demographics, vitals, laboratory values, medication order and administration times, and in-hospital survival data were obtained from the electronic health record. Order and delivery delays were calculated for each admission. Adjusted logistic regression models were used to examine the relationship between each delay and in-hospital mortality. Causal forests, a machine learning method, was used to identify a high-risk subgroup. A total of 60,817 admissions were included, and delays occurred in 58% of patients. Each additional hour of order delay (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03-1.05) and delivery delay (odds ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08) was associated with increased mortality. A patient subgroup identified by causal forests with higher comorbidity burden, greater organ dysfunction, and abnormal initial lactate measurements had a higher risk of death associated with delays (odds ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.06-1.09 vs odds ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Delays in antibiotic ordering and drug delivery are both associated with a similar increase in mortality. A distinct subgroup of high-risk patients exist who could be targeted for more timely therapy.

A Roadmap for Successful State Sepsis Regulations-Lessons From New York

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

New York state implemented the first state-level sepsis regulations in 2013. These regulations were associated with improved mortality, leading other states to consider similar steps. Our objective was to provide insight into New York state’s sepsis policy making process, creating a roadmap for policymakers in other states considering similar regulations.

Impact of Sepsis Mandates on Sepsis Care: Unintended Consequences

The creation of dedicated sepsis guidelines and their broad dissemination over the past 2 decades have contributed to significant improvements in sepsis care. These successes have spurred the creation of bundled care mandates by major healthcare payers, such as the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. However, despite the likely benefits of guideline-directed sepsis bundles, mandated treatments in sepsis may lead to unintended consequences as the standard of care in sepsis improves. In particular, the heterogeneous spectrum of presentation and disease severity in sepsis, as well as the complexity surrounding the benefits of specific interventions in sepsis, argues for an individualized and titrated approach to interventions: an approach generally not afforded by care mandates. In this review, we review the risks and benefits of mandated care for sepsis, with particular emphasis on the potential adverse consequences of common bundle components such as early empiric antibiotics, weight-based fluid administration, and serum lactate monitoring. Unlike guideline-directed care, mandated care in sepsis precludes providers from tailoring treatments to heterogeneous clinical scenarios and may lead to unintended harms for individual patients.

Racial Disparities in Readmissions Following Initial Hospitalization for Sepsis

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether Black race is associated with a higher rate of all-cause readmission compared with White race following community-onset sepsis.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

One-thousand three-hundred bed urban academic medical centers.

PATIENTS

Three-thousand three-hundred ninety patients hospitalized with community-onset sepsis between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017.

INTERVENTIONS

Community-onset sepsis was defined as patients admitted through the emergency department with an International Classification of Disease, ninth revision, Clinical Modification code for either severe sepsis (995.92) or septic shock (785.52). Beginning in 2015, we used International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification codes R65.20 (severe sepsis) and R65.21 (septic shock). We excluded those individuals hospitalized at another acute care facility that were transferred to our facility. Race was abstracted electronically, and patients who expired or self-identified as a race other than Black or White race were excluded. Patients who experienced a subsequent hospitalization at our facility were considered to be readmitted.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Compared with White race, Black race demonstrated a significantly higher rate of all-cause readmission (60.8% vs 71.1%; p < 0.001), including a higher rate of readmission for sepsis (14.0% vs 19.8%; p < 0.001). Black patients also resided in zip codes with a lower median household income and were more likely to use public insurance compared with White race. Similar rates of comorbid diseases and disease burden were observed between the two groups, but vasopressors were less likely to be administered to Black patients. Multivariable analysis showed that Black race was associated with a 50% increased odds (odds ratio, 1.52, 99% CI, 1.25-1.84) in all-cause readmission risk compared with White race.

CONCLUSIONS

Black race was associated with a higher rate of all-cause and sepsis readmission, possibly as a result of unaddressed health disparities, compared with White race. Programs addressing healthcare disparities should use readmission as another marker of equity.

Urosepsis in Older Adults: Epidemiologic Trends in Florida

The incidence and geographic distribution of urosepsis, a life-threatening condition in older adults, is not well understood. The Florida State Inpatient Databases (2012-2014) showed an increase in the incidence of community-acquired urosepsis (5.37 to 6.16 per 1000), particularly among Hispanic older adults residing in low socioeconomic, urban areas with large numbers of nursing homes. These findings suggest a state policy is needed to address community-based preventative care and education for early detection of urosepsis in low-income urban areas. It is important for local health departments to partner with nursing homes to address disparities in care that disproportionally impact Hispanics.

Sepsis in the critically ill patient: current and emerging management strategies

Introduction: Sepsis, a dysregulated host response to infection, is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Early identification and evidence-based treatment of sepsis are associated with improved outcomes.Areas covered: This narrative review was undertaken following a PubMed search for English language reports published before July 2020 using the terms 'sepsis,' 'septic shock,' 'fluids,' 'fluid therapy,' 'albumin,' 'corticosteroids,' 'vasopressor.' Emerging management strategies were identified following a search of the ClinicalTrails.gov database using the term 'sepsis.' Additional reports were identified by examining the reference lists of selected articles and based on personnel knowledge of the field of sepsis.Expert opinion: The core treatment of sepsis relies on source control, early antibiotics, and organ support. The main emerging strategies focus on immunomodulation, artificial intelligence, and on multi-omics approaches for a personalized therapy.

Failing the metric but saving lives: The protocolization of sepsis treatment through quality measurement

Quality metrics in the healthcare sector have become a key component of ensuring improved health outcomes and care equity. Alongside the emergence of information technology in healthcare (eg. electronic health records), the primary method utilized to infer "quality" has been the development of measures for healthcare processes and outcomes. Engaging with the specific case of sepsis treatment and sepsis quality metrics, this paper traces how quality is defined, measured, and codified in a 600-bed acute-care hospital in New York City. Sepsis is a severe health condition, primarily managed in the emergency department, that is caused by infection and can result in multi-organ shutdown and mortality. Multiple government agencies have established metrics that regulate New York hospitals based on their compliance with specific sepsis treatment procedures. I draw on data from a 15-month ethnography and in-depth interviews with clinicians and administrators, to show how quality measurement is reshaping the ways healthcare is delivered and organized. I reveal how, at Borough Hospital, efforts to treat sepsis based on quality metrics have constrained clinician expertise, prioritized compliance, and reoriented workflow towards standardized treatment protocols. This reorientation leads to, what I term abstracted surveillance protocols, that increasingly regulate definitions of healthcare quality. I demonstrate that abstracted surveillance protocols enable highly complex clinical processes to be measured based on metric compliance rather than clinical pathways, therefore moving definitions of quality away from the bedside.

Driving blind: instituting SEP-1 without high quality outcomes data

In 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) instituted an all-or-none sepsis performance measure bundle (SEP-1) to promote high-quality, cost-effective care. Systematic reviews demonstrated only low-quality evidence supporting most of SEP-1's interventions. CMS has removed some but not all of these unproven components. The current SEP-1 version requires patients with suspected sepsis have a lactate level, blood cultures, broad-spectrum antibiotics and, if hypotensive, a fixed 30 mL/kg fluid infusion within 3 hours, and a repeat lactate if initially elevated within 6 hours. Experts have continued to raise concerns that SEP-1 remains overly prescriptive, lacks a sound scientific basis and presents risks (overuse of antibiotics and inappropriate fluids not titrated to need). To incentivize compliance with SEP-1, CMS now publicly publishes how often hospitals complete all interventions in individual patients. However, compliance measured across hospitals (5 studies, 48-2,851 hospitals) or patients (three studies, 110-851 patients) has been low (approximately 50%) which is not surprising given SEP-1's lack of scientific basis. The largest observational study (1,738 patients) reporting survival rates employing SEP-1 found they were not significantly improved with the measure (P=0.53) as did the next largest study (851 patients, adjusted survival odds ratio 1.36, 95% CI, 0.85 to 2.18). Two smaller observational studies (158 and 450 patients) reported SEP-1 improved unadjusted survival (P≤0.05) but were confounded either by baseline imbalances or by simultaneous introduction of a code sepsis protocol to improve compliance. Regardless, retrospective studies have well known biases related to non-randomized designs, uncontrolled data collection and failure to adjust for unrecognized influential variables. Such low-quality science should not be the basis for a national mandate compelling care for a rapidly lethal disease with a high mortality rate. Instead, SEP-1 should be based on high quality reproducible evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCT) demonstrating its benefit and thereby safety. Otherwise we risk not only doing harm but standardizing it.