The Survival of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign. [Review]

MedStar author(s):
Citation: Medical Clinics of North America. 106(6):1109-1117, 2022 Nov.PMID: 36280336Institution: MedStar Washington Hospital Center | MedStar Washington Hospital CenterDepartment: Critical Care Medicine Fellowship | Emergency MedicineForm of publication: Journal ArticleMedline article type(s): Journal Article | ReviewSubject headings: *Communicable Diseases | *Sepsis | *Shock, Septic | Humans | Sepsis/dt [Drug Therapy] | Shock, Septic/th [Therapy]Year: 2022Local holdings: Available online from MWHC library: 1996 - present, Available in print through MWHC library: 1999 - 2006ISSN:
  • 0025-7125
Name of journal: The Medical clinics of North AmericaAbstract: Even well-intentioned policies have great potential to cause harm. This statement is vividly illustrated by the influential, yet controversial, Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines and subsequent CMS benchmarks. Despite low-quality evidence, tendentious industry ties, and rebuke from the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA), these benchmarks continue to eschew therapy driven by clinician expertise and individual patient needs in favor of mandating an arbitrary, one-size-fits-all approach that suspends clinical judgment and promotes indiscriminate use of treatments that have the potential to cause great harm. Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.All authors: Goyal M, Hockstein M, Spiegel R, Waters JFiscal year: FY2023Digital Object Identifier: Date added to catalog: 2022-12-13
Holdings
Item type Current library Collection Call number Status Date due Barcode
Journal Article MedStar Authors Catalog Article 36280336 Available 36280336

Available online from MWHC library: 1996 - present, Available in print through MWHC library: 1999 - 2006

Even well-intentioned policies have great potential to cause harm. This statement is vividly illustrated by the influential, yet controversial, Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines and subsequent CMS benchmarks. Despite low-quality evidence, tendentious industry ties, and rebuke from the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA), these benchmarks continue to eschew therapy driven by clinician expertise and individual patient needs in favor of mandating an arbitrary, one-size-fits-all approach that suspends clinical judgment and promotes indiscriminate use of treatments that have the potential to cause great harm. Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

English

Powered by Koha