Utilizing vancomycin as secondary prophylaxis for the prevention of recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection

Background: Recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and healthcare-related costs. Although data are minimal, agents including oral vancomycin have been used as secondary prophylaxis to prevent recurrent CDI. Methods: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of vancomycin at preventing CDI from October 2019 to September 2022. Eligible patients had a history of at least 1 episode of CDI and were receiving systemic antibiotics for another condition. Participants were randomized 1:1 to oral vancomycin 125 mg by mouth twice daily and were interviewed at 1, 2, and 3 months thereafter to assess recurrence. We enrolled 26 patients: 15 completed the 1-month interview, 12 completed the 2-month interview, and 11 completed the full study. Those 15 participants who did not complete the 3-month interview were considered dropouts. The final sample for this study included those 11 participants who completed all interviews. Demographics and outcomes are shown in Table 1. Results: One case of recurrent CDI was reported at the 1-month interview and a second was reported at 3 months; both cases had received the placebo. The study was terminated early due to low enrollment. Conclusions: Although our results did not reach statistical significance and this study was limited in small sample size, our findings suggest that secondary prophylaxis with oral vancomycin may be beneficial in patients who are actively receiving antibiotics, which is consistent with prior retrospective studies. Future studies with larger sample sizes are still needed to examine this important question of whether secondary prophylaxis is useful for preventing recurrent CDI

Collective consciousness and its pathologies: Understanding the failure of AIDS control and treatment in the United States

We address themes of distributed cognition by extending recent formal developments in the theory of individual consciousness. While single minds appear biologically limited to one dynamic structure of linked cognitive submodules instantiating consciousness, organizations, by contrast, can support several, sometimes many, such constructs simultaneously, although these usually operate relatively slowly. System behavior remains, however, constrained not only by culture, but by a developmental path dependence generated by organizational history, in the context of market selection pressures. Such highly parallel multitasking – essentially an institutional collective consciousness – while capable of reducing inattentional blindness and the consequences of failures within individual workspaces, does not eliminate them, and introduces new characteristic malfunctions involving the distortion of information sent between workspaces and the possibility of pathological resilience – dysfunctional institutional lock-in. Consequently, organizations remain subject to canonical and idiosyncratic failures analogous to, but more complicated than, those afflicting individuals. Remediation is made difficult by the manner in which pathological externalities can write images of themselves onto both institutional function and corrective intervention. The perspective is applied to the failure of AIDS control and treatment in the United States

Secondary Prophylaxis for \u3cem\u3eClostridium difficile\u3c/em\u3e Infection: A Physician Practice Assessment

Background: Recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is associated with significant morbidity, mortality and healthcare related costs. Up to 30% of CDI cases recur, resulting in 83,000 cases of recurrent CDI per year. Although agents for primary and secondary prophylaxis for CDI including the use of probiotics, antibiotics, fecal microbiota transplantations, and newer therapies such as bezlotoxumab have been reported, there is no consensus guidelines regarding their use. The purpose of this study was to assess physician practices regarding secondary prophylaxis for CDI. Methods: This cross-sectional study using Qualtrics electronic survey (24 questions) assessed physician practice preferences. The survey was distributed through institutional emails and through the Infectious Disease Society of America “IDea Exchange” forum. Responses were collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 246 surveys were completed. Physicians were surveyed from greater than 100 locations (see Figure 1). Most (229, 93%) of the physicians practiced in an inpatient setting. Respondent specialties were primarily infectious diseases (138, 56%) followed by internal medicine (72, 29%). Most physicians (173, 71%) use secondary prophylaxis for CDI prevention (see Figure 2). Vancomycin (121, 70%) and probiotics (114, 66%) were most commonly used for CDI secondary prophylaxis, (see Figure 3). Of 164 physicians who used secondary prophylaxis half of them (89, 54.2%), used prophylaxis only for patients with a history of recurrent CDI receiving antibiotics and about a third, (49, 29.9%) utilized it for patients with a history of CDI who were receiving antibiotics. ID physicians were more likely to prescribe secondary prophylaxis as compared with non-ID physicians (85% of 127 respondents vs. 75% of 85 respondents, P = 0.052). The use of secondary prophylaxis was similar among private practice and academic physicians (84% of 39 vs. 80% of 157 respondents, P = 0.591). Conclusion: The majority of the physicians who responded to this survey use secondary prophylaxis to prevent recurrent CDI, hence future CDI guidelines need to address the role of secondary prophylaxis in clinical practice

Secondary Prophylaxis for \u3cem\u3eClostridium difficile\u3c/em\u3e Infection: A Physician Practice Assessment

Background: Recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is associated with significant morbidity, mortality and healthcare related costs. Up to 30% of CDI cases recur, resulting in 83,000 cases of recurrent CDI per year. Although agents for primary and secondary prophylaxis for CDI including the use of probiotics, antibiotics, fecal microbiota transplantations, and newer therapies such as bezlotoxumab have been reported, there is no consensus guidelines regarding their use. The purpose of this study was to assess physician practices regarding secondary prophylaxis for CDI. Methods: This cross-sectional study using Qualtrics electronic survey (24 questions) assessed physician practice preferences. The survey was distributed through institutional emails and through the Infectious Disease Society of America “IDea Exchange” forum. Responses were collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 246 surveys were completed. Physicians were surveyed from greater than 100 locations (see Figure 1). Most (229, 93%) of the physicians practiced in an inpatient setting. Respondent specialties were primarily infectious diseases (138, 56%) followed by internal medicine (72, 29%). Most physicians (173, 71%) use secondary prophylaxis for CDI prevention (see Figure 2). Vancomycin (121, 70%) and probiotics (114, 66%) were most commonly used for CDI secondary prophylaxis, (see Figure 3). Of 164 physicians who used secondary prophylaxis half of them (89, 54.2%), used prophylaxis only for patients with a history of recurrent CDI receiving antibiotics and about a third, (49, 29.9%) utilized it for patients with a history of CDI who were receiving antibiotics. ID physicians were more likely to prescribe secondary prophylaxis as compared with non-ID physicians (85% of 127 respondents vs. 75% of 85 respondents, P = 0.052). The use of secondary prophylaxis was similar among private practice and academic physicians (84% of 39 vs. 80% of 157 respondents, P = 0.591). Conclusion: The majority of the physicians who responded to this survey use secondary prophylaxis to prevent recurrent CDI, hence future CDI guidelines need to address the role of secondary prophylaxis in clinical practice

Improving Infectious Disease Electronic Medical Records Documentation: A Quality Improvement Study in an Academic Teaching Hospital

Background: Improving efficiency of documentation and sign outs during transitions of care were identified as areas of interest by the University of South Florida Infectious Disease (ID) Division. Our aim is by May 2018, we will achieve \u3e50% improvement in our ID EMR note efficiency score for any adult patient at Tampa General Hospital. Note efficiency score involves listing all of the following key elements with 1 point awarded for each: active problem in the subjective section, updated hospital course under assessment, active problem prioritized first under assessment and non-relevant problems removed from assessment. Methods: Institute of Healthcare Improvement’s model with Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles was used for project implementation from March 2018 to May 2018 (Figure 1). Cycle 1: Conducting a needs assessment survey and education. Cycle 2: Changing the existing template and implementing a new standardized template that includes the key elements, along with removal of auto populated non relevant information. Audits of notes with a 4-point system scoring was done. A pre and post implementation physician survey was conducted. Results: ID fellow and faculty completed the baseline survey (N = 25). Less than half (46%) felt that they could interpret patient assessments with ease and even fewer respondents (36%) felt there was adequate weekend sign out. More than one-third (36%) reported writing majority of notes after 5 pm (Figure 1). Pilot project involved nine ID faculty and fellows. We had 95% compliance with use of the standardized EMR template. Notes were evaluated at baseline (n = 190), cycle 1 (n = 85), and cycle 2 (n = 56). An increase in average note efficiency score from baseline, cycle 1 and cycle 2 occurred as follows (Mean ± SD): 2.0 ± 0.84 vs. 2.8 ± 0.95 vs. 3.6 ± 0.5 (Figure 2). Compared with baseline, cycle 2 achieved 42% improvement in the ease of interpretation of patient assessments and 41% improvement in adequate sign out. No increase in note writing after 5pm (36% vs. 30% baseline and cycle 2, respectively) reported. Conclusion: Targeted education and changing the EMR note template can achieve improved efficiency of ID note. These efforts to improve documentation enhance physician’s ease of interpretation of patient assessments and sign out during transition of care

Improving Infectious Disease Electronic Medical Records Documentation: A Quality Improvement Study in an Academic Teaching Hospital

Background: Improving efficiency of documentation and sign outs during transitions of care were identified as areas of interest by the University of South Florida Infectious Disease (ID) Division. Our aim is by May 2018, we will achieve \u3e50% improvement in our ID EMR note efficiency score for any adult patient at Tampa General Hospital. Note efficiency score involves listing all of the following key elements with 1 point awarded for each: active problem in the subjective section, updated hospital course under assessment, active problem prioritized first under assessment and non-relevant problems removed from assessment. Methods: Institute of Healthcare Improvement’s model with Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles was used for project implementation from March 2018 to May 2018 (Figure 1). Cycle 1: Conducting a needs assessment survey and education. Cycle 2: Changing the existing template and implementing a new standardized template that includes the key elements, along with removal of auto populated non relevant information. Audits of notes with a 4-point system scoring was done. A pre and post implementation physician survey was conducted. Results: ID fellow and faculty completed the baseline survey (N = 25). Less than half (46%) felt that they could interpret patient assessments with ease and even fewer respondents (36%) felt there was adequate weekend sign out. More than one-third (36%) reported writing majority of notes after 5 pm (Figure 1). Pilot project involved nine ID faculty and fellows. We had 95% compliance with use of the standardized EMR template. Notes were evaluated at baseline (n = 190), cycle 1 (n = 85), and cycle 2 (n = 56). An increase in average note efficiency score from baseline, cycle 1 and cycle 2 occurred as follows (Mean ± SD): 2.0 ± 0.84 vs. 2.8 ± 0.95 vs. 3.6 ± 0.5 (Figure 2). Compared with baseline, cycle 2 achieved 42% improvement in the ease of interpretation of patient assessments and 41% improvement in adequate sign out. No increase in note writing after 5pm (36% vs. 30% baseline and cycle 2, respectively) reported. Conclusion: Targeted education and changing the EMR note template can achieve improved efficiency of ID note. These efforts to improve documentation enhance physician’s ease of interpretation of patient assessments and sign out during transition of care

Beyond the surface: a color-inclusive guide to central line site assessment

Significant gaps exist in representation of diverse populations in central-line assessment education and tools. We review some of these gaps and provide some real-world guidance on how to assess central line sites in patients of all skin tones