Hey folks, this Scott Weingart, and this is the MCRIT podcast. Today on the podcast, the surviving

sepsis campaign 2026 guidelines. The good, the bad, and the ugly. So we're going to talk about

a lot of stuff with our guest today, Haley Prescott, who is the co-chair of the committee and the

lead author of the guidelines. So some of the

things we're going to go into in this episode, and I really enjoyed this episode, so I think

you're going to love it as well, is the idea of our guideline writers, especially surviving

sepsis campaign guideline writers writers, just writing guidelines?

Or are they somewhat responsible for the pipeline, from guideline to quality measure,

to performance metric, to pay for performance metrics?

And you might say, oh, they're just writing the guidelines.

It's not their fault or problem.

But prior chairs, not Haley, but prior chairs of the surviving stepses campaign have also then gone on to directly write the quality measures and advise

on the performance metrics. So there definitely was a clearly established pipeline. And that being said,

if there were none of these metrics in my country, the United

States, I'd have a lot less of a problem with some of the pieces of these surviving

substance campaign guidelines. But I am in the United States, and therefore I have to look

through that lens. So you'll hear a bunch about that. You'll hear about the difference between strength of recommendations and quality of evidence.

This is a big one for these guidelines in particular, but all of the surviving sepsis campaign

guidelines.

Now, normally I agree with clinicians getting together, as long as you have a broad-based consortium of clinicians,

and making recommendations where evidence does not yet exist.

I think that's fine.

...