Asymptomatic bacteriuria, antibiotic use, and suspected urinary tract infections in four nursing homes

BACKGROUND: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are the most commonly treated infection among nursing home residents. Even in the absence of specific (e.g., dysuria) or non-specific (e.g., fever) signs or symptoms, residents frequently receive an antibiotic for a suspected infection. This research investigates factors associated with the use of antibiotics to treat asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) among nursing home residents. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study involving multi-level multivariate analyses of antibiotic prescription data for residents in four nursing homes in central Texas. Participants included all nursing home residents in these homes who, over a six-month period, received an antibiotic for a suspected UTI. We investigated what factors affected the likelihood that a resident receiving an antibiotic for a suspected UTI was asymptomatic. RESULTS: The most powerful predictor of antibiotic treatment for ASB was the presence of an indwelling urinary catheter. Over 80 percent of antibiotic prescriptions written for catheterized individuals were written for individuals with ASB. For those without a catheter, record reviews identified 204 antibiotic prescriptions among 151 residents treated for a suspected UTI. Almost 50% of these prescriptions were for residents with no documented UTI symptoms. Almost three-quarters of these antibiotics were ordered after laboratory results were available to clinicians. Multivariate analyses indicated that resident characteristics did not affect the likelihood that an antibiotic was prescribed for ASB. The only statistically significant factor was the identity of the nursing home in which a resident resided. CONCLUSIONS: We confirm the findings of earlier research indicating frequent use of antibiotics for ASB in nursing homes, especially for residents with urinary catheters. In this sample of nursing home residents, half of the antibiotic prescriptions for a suspected UTI in residents without catheters occurred with no documented signs or symptoms of a UTI. Urine studies were performed in almost all suspected UTI cases in which an antibiotic was prescribed. Efforts to improve antibiotic stewardship in nursing homes must address clinical decision-making solely on the basis of diagnostic testing in the absence of signs or symptoms of a UTI

Pneumococcal Vaccination Guidance for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Settings: Recommendations From AMDA's Infection Advisory Committee

Efforts at preventing pneumococcal disease are a national health priority, particularly in older adults and especially in post-acute and long-term care settings (PA/LTC). The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends that all adults ≥ 65, as well as adults aged 18–64 with specific risk factors, receive both the recently introduced polysaccharide-protein conjugate vaccine against 13 pneumococcal serotypes (PCV13) as well as the polysaccharide vaccine against 23 pneumococcal serotypes (PPSV23). Nursing facility licensure regulations require facilities to assess the pneumococcal vaccination status of each resident, provide education regarding pneumococcal vaccination, and administer the appropriate pneumococcal vaccine when indicated. Sorting out the indications and timing for PCV13 and PPSV23 administration is complex, and presents a significant challenge to healthcare providers. Here, we discuss the importance of pneumococcal vaccination for older adults, detail AMDA – The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine (The Society)’s recommendations for pneumococcal vaccination practice and procedures, and offer guidance to PA/LTC providers supporting the development and effective implementation of pneumococcal vaccine policies

IARC Monographs: 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans

Background: Recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also for the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that failures of IARC Working Groups to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans. Objectives: The authors of this Commentary are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We examined criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. Here, we present the results of that examination, review the history of IARC evaluations, and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed. Discussion: We concluded that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various disciplines and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed. Conclusions: The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public’s health

IARC Monographs: 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans

Background: Recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also for the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that failures of IARC Working Groups to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans

Additional file 1: of Impact of a decision-making aid for suspected urinary tract infections on antibiotic overuse in nursing homes

(DOCX 33 kb

Pneumococcal Vaccination Guidance for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Settings: Recommendations From AMDA's Infection Advisory Committee

Efforts at preventing pneumococcal disease are a national health priority, particularly in older adults and especially in post-acute and long-term care settings (PA/LTC). The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends that all adults ≥ 65, as well as adults aged 18–64 with specific risk factors, receive both the recently introduced polysaccharide-protein conjugate vaccine against 13 pneumococcal serotypes (PCV13) as well as the polysaccharide vaccine against 23 pneumococcal serotypes (PPSV23). Nursing facility licensure regulations require facilities to assess the pneumococcal vaccination status of each resident, provide education regarding pneumococcal vaccination, and administer the appropriate pneumococcal vaccine when indicated. Sorting out the indications and timing for PCV13 and PPSV23 administration is complex, and presents a significant challenge to healthcare providers. Here, we discuss the importance of pneumococcal vaccination for older adults, detail AMDA – The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine (The Society)’s recommendations for pneumococcal vaccination practice and procedures, and offer guidance to PA/LTC providers supporting the development and effective implementation of pneumococcal vaccine policies