Thomas Ruhnke, Josephine Storch, Antje Freytag, Norman Rose, Aurelia Kimmig, Patrik Dröge, Lisa Wedekind, Christian Günster, Ludwig Goldhahn, Enno Swart, Mathias W Pletz, Konrad Reinhart, Peter Schlattmann, Carolin Fleischmann-Struzek
{"title":"Transitional care after hospitalization for sepsis in Germany- results from the population-based AVENIR cohort study.","authors":"Thomas Ruhnke, Josephine Storch, Antje Freytag, Norman Rose, Aurelia Kimmig, Patrik Dröge, Lisa Wedekind, Christian Günster, Ludwig Goldhahn, Enno Swart, Mathias W Pletz, Konrad Reinhart, Peter Schlattmann, Carolin Fleischmann-Struzek","doi":"10.1007/s15010-025-02589-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Sepsis survivorship is associated with significant long-term morbidity, mortality and health care utilization. Transitional care between inpatient and follow-up care is crucial, but insufficiently understood. We investigated health care utilization in sepsis survivors 90 days post-discharge, comparing translational care during 2016-2019 vs. 2020 in the first year of the pandemic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study used nationwide health claims data of the \"AOK- die Gesundheitskasse\". Sepsis patients with inpatient treatment in 2016-2019 were identified using explicit ICD-10 codes for sepsis and codes for organ dysfunction. A second sepsis patient cohort was identified in 2020, which included also explicitly defined sepsis patients as well as patients with COVID-19 and Influenza with evidence of organ dysfunction. Among survivors, health care utilization in the 90 days post-discharge was assessed and first health service provider contacts were visualized using Sankey diagrams.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 234,874 sepsis survivors in 2016-2019, 94.4% were treated by a general practitioner, 47.7% had ≥ 1 hospital readmission and 42.8% of patients had ≥ 1 emergency treatment 90 days post-sepsis. Nearly all patients had prompt health service provider contacts in that time frame, with physicians in the outpatient sector being the most common first and second health service provider contacts. In the 2020 cohort (n = 69,432 survivors), more patients died without follow-up contact. Additionally, the latency to the first and second health service provider contacts were elevated compared to 2016-2019.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Sepsis survivors receive early, high-frequency follow-up care in the inpatient and outpatient sector. This may be an opportunity to implement early screening for sequelae and targeted therapies.</p>","PeriodicalId":13600,"journal":{"name":"Infection","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infection","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-025-02589-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Sepsis survivorship is associated with significant long-term morbidity, mortality and health care utilization. Transitional care between inpatient and follow-up care is crucial, but insufficiently understood. We investigated health care utilization in sepsis survivors 90 days post-discharge, comparing translational care during 2016-2019 vs. 2020 in the first year of the pandemic.
Methods: This retrospective cohort study used nationwide health claims data of the "AOK- die Gesundheitskasse". Sepsis patients with inpatient treatment in 2016-2019 were identified using explicit ICD-10 codes for sepsis and codes for organ dysfunction. A second sepsis patient cohort was identified in 2020, which included also explicitly defined sepsis patients as well as patients with COVID-19 and Influenza with evidence of organ dysfunction. Among survivors, health care utilization in the 90 days post-discharge was assessed and first health service provider contacts were visualized using Sankey diagrams.
Results: Among 234,874 sepsis survivors in 2016-2019, 94.4% were treated by a general practitioner, 47.7% had ≥ 1 hospital readmission and 42.8% of patients had ≥ 1 emergency treatment 90 days post-sepsis. Nearly all patients had prompt health service provider contacts in that time frame, with physicians in the outpatient sector being the most common first and second health service provider contacts. In the 2020 cohort (n = 69,432 survivors), more patients died without follow-up contact. Additionally, the latency to the first and second health service provider contacts were elevated compared to 2016-2019.
Discussion: Sepsis survivors receive early, high-frequency follow-up care in the inpatient and outpatient sector. This may be an opportunity to implement early screening for sequelae and targeted therapies.
目的:脓毒症存活与显著的长期发病率、死亡率和医疗保健利用相关。住院和随访之间的过渡护理是至关重要的,但人们对这一点了解不够。我们调查了脓毒症幸存者出院后90天的医疗保健利用情况,比较了2016-2019年与大流行第一年2020年的转化护理。方法:本回顾性队列研究采用全国健康声明数据“AOK- die Gesundheitskasse”。使用明确的ICD-10败血症代码和器官功能障碍代码对2016-2019年住院治疗的败血症患者进行识别。2020年确定了第二个败血症患者队列,其中也包括明确定义的败血症患者以及有器官功能障碍证据的COVID-19和流感患者。在幸存者中,评估出院后90天内的卫生保健利用情况,并使用Sankey图可视化首次卫生服务提供者联系。结果:在2016-2019年的234,874名脓毒症幸存者中,94.4%的患者接受了全科医生的治疗,47.7%的患者再次住院≥1次,42.8%的患者在脓毒症后90天接受了≥1次急诊治疗。在这段时间内,几乎所有患者都及时联系了卫生服务提供者,门诊部门的医生是最常见的第一和第二卫生服务提供者。在2020年的队列中(n = 69,432名幸存者),更多的患者在没有随访的情况下死亡。此外,与2016-2019年相比,第一次和第二次医疗服务提供者联系的延迟时间有所增加。讨论:脓毒症幸存者在住院和门诊部门接受早期,高频随访护理。这可能是一个实施早期筛查后遗症和靶向治疗的机会。
期刊介绍:
Infection is a journal dedicated to serving as a global forum for the presentation and discussion of clinically relevant information on infectious diseases. Its primary goal is to engage readers and contributors from various regions around the world in the exchange of knowledge about the etiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of infectious diseases, both in outpatient and inpatient settings.
The journal covers a wide range of topics, including:
Etiology: The study of the causes of infectious diseases.
Pathogenesis: The process by which an infectious agent causes disease.
Diagnosis: The methods and techniques used to identify infectious diseases.
Treatment: The medical interventions and strategies employed to treat infectious diseases.
Public Health: Issues of local, regional, or international significance related to infectious diseases, including prevention, control, and management strategies.
Hospital Epidemiology: The study of the spread of infectious diseases within healthcare settings and the measures to prevent nosocomial infections.
In addition to these, Infection also includes a specialized "Images" section, which focuses on high-quality visual content, such as images, photographs, and microscopic slides, accompanied by brief abstracts. This section is designed to highlight the clinical and diagnostic value of visual aids in the field of infectious diseases, as many conditions present with characteristic clinical signs that can be diagnosed through inspection, and imaging and microscopy are crucial for accurate diagnosis. The journal's comprehensive approach ensures that it remains a valuable resource for healthcare professionals and researchers in the field of infectious diseases.