<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><submitter>Rhee C</submitter><funding>AHRQ HHS</funding><funding>NIGMS NIH HHS</funding><funding>NCEZID CDC HHS</funding><pagination>493-500</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC7970408</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>47(4)</volume><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Objectives&lt;/h4>Administrative claims data are commonly used for sepsis surveillance, research, and quality improvement. However, variations in diagnosis, documentation, and coding practices for sepsis and organ dysfunction may confound efforts to estimate sepsis rates, compare outcomes, and perform risk adjustment. We evaluated hospital variation in the sensitivity of claims data relative to clinical data from electronic health records and its impact on outcome comparisons.&lt;h4>Design, setting, and patients&lt;/h4>Retrospective cohort study of 4.3 million adult encounters at 193 U.S. hospitals in 2013-2014.&lt;h4>Interventions&lt;/h4>None.&lt;h4>Measurements and main results&lt;/h4>Sepsis was defined using electronic health record-derived clinical indicators of presumed infection (blood culture draws </pubmed_abstract><journal>Critical care medicine</journal><pubmed_title>Variation in Identifying Sepsis and Organ Dysfunction Using Administrative Versus Electronic Clinical Data and Impact on Hospital Outcome Comparisons.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC7970408</pmcid><funding_grant_id>R35 GM119519</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>U54 CK000172</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>K08 HS025008</funding_grant_id><pubmed_authors>Septimus EJ</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Poland RE</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Prevention Epicenters Program</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Angus DC</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Hickok J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Jin R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Schaaf R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Klompas M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Martin GS</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Rhee C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Warren DK</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Kadri SS</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Danner RL</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Wang R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Jentzsch MS</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Murphy DJ</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Fiore AE</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Fram D</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Dantes RB</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Seymour CW</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Epstein L</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Jernigan JA</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Variation in Identifying Sepsis and Organ Dysfunction Using Administrative Versus Electronic Clinical Data and Impact on Hospital Outcome Comparisons.</name><description>&lt;h4>Objectives&lt;/h4>Administrative claims data are commonly used for sepsis surveillance, research, and quality improvement. However, variations in diagnosis, documentation, and coding practices for sepsis and organ dysfunction may confound efforts to estimate sepsis rates, compare outcomes, and perform risk adjustment. We evaluated hospital variation in the sensitivity of claims data relative to clinical data from electronic health records and its impact on outcome comparisons.&lt;h4>Design, setting, and patients&lt;/h4>Retrospective cohort study of 4.3 million adult encounters at 193 U.S. hospitals in 2013-2014.&lt;h4>Interventions&lt;/h4>None.&lt;h4>Measurements and main results&lt;/h4>Sepsis was defined using electronic health record-derived clinical indicators of presumed infection (blood culture draws </description><dates><release>2019-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2019 Apr</publication><modification>2025-04-04T22:01:18.159Z</modification><creation>2025-04-04T22:01:18.159Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC7970408</accession><cross_references><pubmed>30431493</pubmed><doi>10.1097/CCM.0000000000003554</doi><doi>10.1097/ccm.0000000000003554</doi></cross_references></HashMap>