Background: Severe sepsis is a common and costly problem. Although consistently defined clinically by consensus conference since 1991, there have been several different implementations of the severe sepsis definition using ICD-9-CM codes for research. We conducted a single center, patient-level validation of 1 common implementation of the severe sepsis definition, the so-called “Angus” implementation.
Methods: Administrative claims for all hospitalizations for patients initially admitted to general medical services from an academic medical center in 2009–2010 were reviewed. On the basis of ICD-9-CM codes, hospitalizations were sampled for review by 3 internal medicine-trained hospitalists. Chart reviews were conducted with a structured instrument, and the gold standard was the hospitalists’ summary clinical judgment on whether the patient had severe sepsis.
Results: Three thousand one hundred forty-six (13.5%) hospitalizations met ICD-9-CM criteria for severe sepsis by the Angus implementation (Angus-positive) and 20,142 (86.5%) were Angus-negative. Chart reviews were performed for 92 randomly selected Angus-positive and 19 randomly-selected Angus-negative hospitalizations. Reviewers had a κ of 0.70. The Angus implementation’s positive predictive value was 70.7% [95% confidence interval (CI): 51.2%, 90.5%]. The negative predictive value was 91.5% (95% CI: 79.0%, 100%). The sensitivity was 50.4% (95% CI: 14.8%, 85.7%). Specificity was 96.3% (95% CI: 92.4%, 100%). Two alternative ICD-9-CM implementations had high positive predictive values but sensitivities of <20%.
Conclusions: The Angus implementation of the international consensus conference definition of severe sepsis offers a reasonable but imperfect approach to identifying patients with severe sepsis when compared with a gold standard of structured review of the medical chart by trained hospitalists.
*Department of Medicine, University of Michigan
†VA Center for Clinical Management Research
‡VA Geriatrics Research, Education and Clinical Center, Ann Arbor, MI
Supplemental Digital Content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal's Website, www.lww-medicalcare.com.
Supported by US National Institutes of Health-K08, HL091249 (T.J.I).
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Reprints: Theodore J. Iwashyna, MD, PhD, Department of Medicine, University of Michigan, 3a23 300 NB, SPC 5419 300 North Ingalls, Ann Arbor, MI 48109. E-mail: email@example.com.