Among the CICM examiners' most favourite punching bags, none are most prominently featured in the exam than the Surviving Sepsis guidelines. Trainees are usually invited to "critically evaluate" the guidelines - which means, describe their rationale, explain the pros and cons and give evidence to support their "own practice" statement. Because this has long been as staple of the Fellowship Exam, to score less than 7/10 is inexcusable for anybody who's done any amount of preparation for this test, and all future versions of these questions should be viewed as easy marks by the savvy candidates.
If one were too junior to generate their own opinion of the 2012 guidelines, where would one turn? Literature comes to the rescue with prefabricated opinions from experts.
More recent entries, relevant to the new 2018 SSG:
One could do worse than regurgitating these expert opinions in the exam. For one, some of the quoted experts might be the actual CICM examiners. To render easier the process of retention and disgorgement, these opinions are distilled in the discussion below.
In brief summary:
Advantages of SSG:
Disadvantages of SSG:
Evidence in support of SSG:
Evidence against SSG:
Now, in some detail:
High quality of the presented package
Evidence in defence of the guidelines
Arguments against bundled care in general:
Objections on the basis of methodology:
Objections to the guidelines themselves:
Objections to the evidence offered in support of widespread implementation:
Empirical evidence against the use of the guidelines: