International Clinical Practice Guidelines

  • Radu Postelnicu
  • Andrew Rhodes
  • Laura Evans


  • Clinical practice guidelines are propositions developed methodologically to help physicians in their decisions concerning the appropriateness of care in a given clinical setting.

  • They lead to improvement in health outcomes by advancing the quality of clinical decisions, as they empower physicians to choose treatments of proven benefit and to abandon those that may cause no benefit or harm.

  • The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines were developed to provide guidance for clinicians caring for adult patients with sepsis or septic shock.

  • The most recent SCC guidelines recommend the implementation of bundles in improving the quality of care of patients.


Sepsis Guidelines Bundles Quality improvement 


  1. 1.
    Fervers B, Carretier J, Bataillard A. Clinical practice guidelines. J Visc Surg. 2010;147(6):e341–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, Keesey J, Hicks J, DeCristofaro A, et al. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(26):2635–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grol R. Successes and failures in the implementation of evidence-based guidelines for clinical practice. Med Care. 2001;39(8 Suppl 2):II46–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Backer D, Dorman T. Surviving sepsis guidelines: a continuous move toward better care of patients with sepsis. JAMA. 2017;317(8):807–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour C, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Slade E, Tamber PS, Vincent JL. The surviving sepsis campaign: raising awareness to reduce mortality. Crit Care. 2003;7(1):1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dellinger RP, Carlet JM, Masur H, Gerlach H, Calandra T, Cohen J, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2004;32(3):858–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, Annane D, Gerlach H, Opal SM, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(2):165–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, Annane D, Gerlach H, Opal SM, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(2):580–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Carlet JM, Bion J, Parker MM, Jaeschke R, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008. Crit Care Med. 2008;36(1):296–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Carlet JM, Bion J, Parker MM, Jaeschke R, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008. Intensive Care Med. 2008;34(1):17–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, Levy MM, Antonelli M, Ferrer R, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(3):304–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, Levy MM, Antonelli M, Ferrer R, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(3):486–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaukonen KM, Bailey M, Suzuki S, Pilcher D, Bellomo R. Mortality related to severe sepsis and septic shock among critically ill patients in Australia and New Zealand, 2000–2012. JAMA. 2014;311(13):1308–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Levy MM, Rhodes A, Phillips GS, Townsend SR, Schorr CA, Beale R, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: association between performance metrics and outcomes in a 7.5-year study. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(1):3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Institute of Medicine (US) Committee to Advise the Public Health Service on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Introduction and Background. In: Field MJ, Lohr KN, editors. Clinical Practice Guidelines: Directions for a New Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 1990. p. 19–32.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    AGREE Collaboration. Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12(1):18–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Owens DK. Spine update. Patient preferences and the development of practice guidelines. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998;23(9):1073–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grimshaw J, Russell I. Achieving health gain through clinical guidelines. I: developing scientifically valid guidelines. Qual Health Care. 1993;2(4):243–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Clinical guidelines: potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ. 1999;318(7182):527–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Isaac CA, Franceschi A. EBM: evidence to practice and practice to evidence. J Eval Clin Pract. 2008;14(5):656–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nease RF Jr, Owens DK. A method for estimating the cost-effectiveness of incorporating patient preferences into practice guidelines. Med Decis Mak. 1994;14(4):382–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fretheim A, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 3. Group composition and consultation process. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006;4:15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hutchings A, Raine R. A systematic review of factors affecting the judgments produced by formal consensus development methods in health care. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2006;11(3):172–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kahan JP, Park RE, Leape LL, Bernstein SJ, Hilborne LH, Parker L, et al. Variations by specialty in physician ratings of the appropriateness and necessity of indications for procedures. Med Care. 1996;34(6):512–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Murphy E, Dingwall R, Greatbatch D, Parker S, Watson P. Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2(16):iii–x. 1–274.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shekelle PG, Woolf SH, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Clinical guidelines: developing guidelines. BMJ. 1999;318(7183):593–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pagliari C, Grimshaw J, Eccles M. The potential influence of small group processes on guideline development. J Eval Clin Pract. 2001;7(2):165–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. Conflicts of Interest and Development of Clinical Practice Guidelines. In Lo B, Field MJ, editors. Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2009. p. 189–215.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jorgensen AW, Hilden J, Gotzsche PC. Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ. 2006;333(7572):782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Choudhry NK, Stelfox HT, Detsky AS. Relationships between authors of clinical practice guidelines and the pharmaceutical industry. JAMA. 2002;287(5):612–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shekelle PG, Schriger DL. Evaluating the use of the appropriateness method in the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research Clinical Practice Guideline Development process. Health Serv Res. 1996;31(4):453–68.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fink A, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, Brook RH. Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. Am J Public Health. 1984;74(9):979–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fretheim A, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 5. Group processes. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006;4:17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Woolf SH. Practice guidelines, a new reality in medicine. II. Methods of developing guidelines. Arch Intern Med. 1992;152(5):946–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines. Current Best Practices and Standards for Development of Trustworthy CPGs: Part II, Traversing the Process. In Graham R, Mancher M, Miller Wolman D, et al., editors. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011. p. 109–44.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Freeman AC, Sweeney K. Why general practitioners do not implement evidence: qualitative study. BMJ. 2001;323(7321):1100–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Shiffman RN, Dixon J, Brandt C, Essaihi A, Hsiao A, Michel G, et al. The GuideLine Implementability appraisal (GLIA): development of an instrument to identify obstacles to guideline implementation. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2005;5:23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Grol R, Grimshaw J. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care. Lancet. 2003;362(9391):1225–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328(7454):1490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Schunemann HJ, Jaeschke R, Cook DJ, Bria WF, El-Solh AA, Ernst A, et al. An official ATS statement: grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in ATS guidelines and recommendations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006;174(5):605–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Schunemann HJ, et al. What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ. 2008;336(7651):995–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Vist GE, Liberati A, et al. Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7652):1049–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J, Glasziou P, Jaeschke R, Vist GE, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ. 2008;336(7653):1106–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Jaeschke R, Helfand M, Liberati A, et al. Incorporating considerations of resources use into grading recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7654):1170–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Dellinger P, Schunemann H, Levy MM, Kunz R, et al. Use of GRADE grid to reach decisions on clinical practice guidelines when consensus is elusive. BMJ. 2008;337:a744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ansari MT, Tsertsvadze A, Moher D. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations: a perspective. PLoS Med. 2009;6(9):e1000151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, Lohr KN, Mulrow CD, Teutsch SM, et al. Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20(3 Suppl):21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kavanagh BP. The GRADE system for rating clinical guidelines. PLoS Med. 2009;6(9):e1000094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    van der Weijden T, Boivin A, Burgers J, Schunemann HJ, Elwyn G. Clinical practice guidelines and patient decision aids. An inevitable relationship. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(6):584–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Guyatt GH, Schunemann HJ, Djulbegovic B, Akl EA. Guideline panels should not GRADE good practice statements. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(5):597–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Thomas KW. Adoption of sepsis bundles in the emergency room and intensive care unit: a model for quality improvement. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(4):1210–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Levy MM, Pronovost PJ, Dellinger RP, Townsend S, Resar RK, Clemmer TP, et al. Sepsis change bundles: converting guidelines into meaningful change in behavior and clinical outcome. Crit Care Med. 2004;32(11 Suppl):S595–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Miller RR 3rd, Dong L, Nelson NC, Brown SM, Kuttler KG, Probst DR, et al. Multicenter implementation of a severe sepsis and septic shock treatment bundle. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;188(1):77–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Gao F, Melody T, Daniels DF, Giles S, Fox S. The impact of compliance with 6-hour and 24-hour sepsis bundles on hospital mortality in patients with severe sepsis: a prospective observational study. Crit Care. 2005;9(6):R764–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ferrer R, Artigas A, Levy MM, Blanco J, Gonzalez-Diaz G, Garnacho-Montero J, et al. Improvement in process of care and outcome after a multicenter severe sepsis educational program in Spain. JAMA. 2008;299(19):2294–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Levy MM, Rhodes A, Phillips GS, Townsend SR, Schorr CA, Beale R, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: association between performance metrics and outcomes in a 7.5-year study. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40(11):1623–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Khan P, Divatia JV. Severe sepsis bundles. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2010;14(1):8–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Shiramizo SC, Marra AR, Durao MS, Paes AT, Edmond MB, Pavao dos Santos OF. Decreasing mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock patients by implementing a sepsis bundle in a hospital setting. PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e26790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Li ZQ, Xi XM, Luo X, Li J, Jiang L. Implementing Surviving Sepsis Campaign bundles in China: a prospective cohort study. Chin Med J. 2013;126(10):1819–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Shorr AF, Micek ST, Jackson WL Jr, Kollef MH. Economic implications of an evidence-based sepsis protocol: can we improve outcomes and lower costs? Crit Care Med. 2007;35(5):1257–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Djurkovic S, Baracaldo JC, Guerra JA, Sartorius J, Haupt MT. A survey of clinicians addressing the approach to the management of severe sepsis and septic shock in the United States. J Crit Care. 2010;25(4):658.e1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, et al. Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA. 1999;282(15):1458–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Damiani E, Donati A, Serafini G, Rinaldi L, Adrario E, Pelaia P, et al. Effect of performance improvement programs on compliance with sepsis bundles and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0125827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Noritomi DT, Ranzani OT, Monteiro MB, Ferreira EM, Santos SR, Leibel F, et al. Implementation of a multifaceted sepsis education program in an emerging country setting: clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness in a long-term follow-up study. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40(2):182–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Schorr C, Odden A, Evans L, Escobar GJ, Gandhi S, Townsend S, et al. Implementation of a multicenter performance improvement program for early detection and treatment of severe sepsis in general medical-surgical wards. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(Suppl 1):S32–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Davis A, Henderson J, Langmack G. Development of an e-learning package for sepsis care. Br J Nurs. 2016;25(6):292–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Nguyen HB, Daniel-Underwood L, Van Ginkel C, Wong M, Lee D, Lucas AS, et al. An educational course including medical simulation for early goal-directed therapy and the severe sepsis resuscitation bundle: an evaluation for medical student training. Resuscitation. 2009;80(6):674–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Owen JA, Brashers VL, Littlewood KE, Wright E, Childress RM, Thomas S. Designing and evaluating an effective theory-based continuing interprofessional education program to improve sepsis care by enhancing healthcare team collaboration. J Interprof Care. 2014;28(3):212–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Sinuff T, Cook D, Giacomini M, Heyland D, Dodek P. Facilitating clinician adherence to guidelines in the intensive care unit: a multicenter, qualitative study. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(9):2083–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Corfield AR, Lees F, Zealley I, Houston G, Dickie S, Ward K, et al. Utility of a single early warning score in patients with sepsis in the emergency department. Emerg Med J. 2014;31(6):482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Umscheid CA, Betesh J, VanZandbergen C, Hanish A, Tait G, Mikkelsen ME, et al. Development, implementation, and impact of an automated early warning and response system for sepsis. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(1):26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Bayer O, Schwarzkopf D, Stumme C, Stacke A, Hartog CS, Hohenstein C, et al. An early warning scoring system to identify septic patients in the prehospital setting: the PRESEP score. Acad Emerg Med Off J Soc Acad Emerg Med. 2015;22(7):868–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Churpek MM, Snyder A, Han X, Sokol S, Pettit N, Howell MD, et al. Quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, and early warning scores for detecting clinical deterioration in infected patients outside the intensive care unit. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195(7):906–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Funk D, Sebat F, Kumar A. A systems approach to the early recognition and rapid administration of best practice therapy in sepsis and septic shock. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2009;15(4):301–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Liu VX, Morehouse JW, Marelich GP, Soule J, Russell T, Skeath M, et al. Multicenter implementation of a treatment bundle for patients with sepsis and intermediate lactate values. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;193(11):1264–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Nguyen HB, Corbett SW, Steele R, Banta J, Clark RT, Hayes SR, et al. Implementation of a bundle of quality indicators for the early management of severe sepsis and septic shock is associated with decreased mortality. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(4):1105–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Judd WR, Stephens DM, Kennedy CA. Clinical and economic impact of a quality improvement initiative to enhance early recognition and treatment of sepsis. Ann Pharmacother. 2014;48(10):1269–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Rivers E, Amponsah D, Coba V. Sepsis response teams. In: De Vita M, Hillman K, Bellomo R, editors. Book: textbook of rapid response systems. 1st ed. New York: Springer; 2011. p. 245–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Flynn JD, McConeghy KW, Flannery AH, Nestor M, Branson P, Hatton KW. Utilization of pharmacist responders as a component of a multidisciplinary sepsis bundle. Ann Pharmacother. 2014;48(9):1145–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep MedicineNew York University School of Medicine, Bellevue HospitalNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Intensive Care MedicineSt. George’s University HospitalLondonUK

Personalised recommendations