The effect of adding comorbidities to current centers for disease control and prevention central-line–associated bloodstream infection risk-adjustment methodology

BACKGROUNDRisk adjustment is needed to fairly compare central-line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates between hospitals. Until 2017, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) methodology adjusted CLABSI rates only by type of intensive care unit (ICU). The 2017 CDC models also adjust for hospital size and medical school affiliation. We hypothesized that risk adjustment would be improved by including patient demographics and comorbidities from electronically available hospital discharge codes.METHODSUsing a cohort design across 22 hospitals, we analyzed data from ICU patients admitted between January 2012 and December 2013. Demographics and International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) discharge codes were obtained for each patient, and CLABSIs were identified by trained infection preventionists. Models adjusting only for ICU type and for ICU type plus patient case mix were built and compared using discrimination and standardized infection ratio (SIR). Hospitals were ranked by SIR for each model to examine and compare the changes in rank.RESULTSOverall, 85,849 ICU patients were analyzed and 162 (0.2%) developed CLABSI. The significant variables added to the ICU model were coagulopathy, paralysis, renal failure, malnutrition, and age. The C statistics were 0.55 (95% CI, 0.51–0.59) for the ICU-type model and 0.64 (95% CI, 0.60–0.69) for the ICU-type plus patient case-mix model. When the hospitals were ranked by adjusted SIRs, 10 hospitals (45%) changed rank when comorbidity was added to the ICU-type model.CONCLUSIONSOur risk-adjustment model for CLABSI using electronically available comorbidities demonstrated better discrimination than did the CDC model. The CDC should strongly consider comorbidity-based risk adjustment to more accurately compare CLABSI rates across hospitals.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:1019–1024</jats:sec

PEARR tool training and implementation: building awareness of violence and human trafficking in a hospital system

IntroductionHealth professionals have an opportunity to assist patients who are experiencing many types of violence, including human trafficking; however, current approaches are often not person-centered. The Provide privacy, Educate, Ask, Respect and Respond (PEARR) Tool, a recognized screening tool in the U.S., is a structured conversation guide for health professionals on how to provide trauma-sensitive assistance to patients who may be experiencing such violence, including human trafficking. This is the first study to evaluate the PEARR Tool and its use in hospital settings.MethodsA U.S.-based health system adopted the PEARR Tool as part of its Abuse, Neglect, and Violence policy and procedure. To support successful adoption, the health system also developed educational modules on human trafficking and trauma-informed approaches to patient care, including a module on the PEARR steps. In October 2020 and June 2021, a voluntary “PEARR Tool Training and Implementation Survey” was distributed to emergency department staff in three hospitals. The survey consisted of 22 questions: eight demographic and occupation related questions; five questions related to the education provided to staff; and, nine questions related to the use of the PEARR Tool in identifying and assisting patients.ResultsThe overall findings demonstrate a general increase in awareness about the prevalence of human trafficking, as well as a significant increase in awareness about the implementation of the PEARR Tool. However, the findings demonstrate that most respondents were not utilizing the PEARR Tool between October 2020 and June 2021. Most reported that the reason for this was because they had not suspected any of their patients to be victims of abuse, neglect, or violence, including human trafficking. Of those that had utilized the PEARR Tool, there was a marked increase in staff that reported its usefulness and ease of access when caring for patients.DiscussionThe COVID-19 pandemic posed many challenges during this study, including delays in staff education, changes in education format and delivery, and strains on staff. Initial data regarding the use of the PEARR Tool is promising; and additional research is recommended

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in four states of Nigeria in October 2020: A population-based household survey

The observed epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 in sub-Saharan Africa has varied greatly from that in Europe and the United States, with much lower reported incidence. Population-based studies are needed to estimate true cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 to inform public health interventions. This study estimated SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in four selected states in Nigeria in October 2020. We implemented a two-stage cluster sample household survey in four Nigerian states (Enugu, Gombe, Lagos, and Nasarawa) to estimate age-stratified prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. All individuals in sampled households were eligible for interview, blood draw, and nasal/oropharyngeal swab collection. We additionally tested participants for current/recent malaria infection. Seroprevalence estimates were calculated accounting for the complex survey design. Across all four states, 10,629 (96·5%) of 11,015 interviewed individuals provided blood samples. The seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was 25·2% (95% CI 21·8–28·6) in Enugu State, 9·3% (95% CI 7·0–11·5) in Gombe State, 23·3% (95% CI 20·5–26·4) in Lagos State, and 18·0% (95% CI 14·4–21·6) in Nasarawa State. Prevalence of current/recent malaria infection ranged from 2·8% in Lagos to 45·8% in Gombe and was not significantly related to SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence. The prevalence of active SARS-CoV-2 infection in the four states during the survey period was 0·2% (95% CI 0·1–0·4). Approximately eight months after the first reported COVID-19 case in Nigeria, seroprevalence indicated infection levels 194 times higher than the 24,198 officially reported COVID-19 cases across the four states; however, most of the population remained susceptible to COVID-19 in October 2020

The ENCODE Imputation Challenge: a critical assessment of methods for cross-cell type imputation of epigenomic profiles

A promising alternative to comprehensively performing genomics experiments is to, instead, perform a subset of experiments and use computational methods to impute the remainder. However, identifying the best imputation methods and what measures meaningfully evaluate performance are open questions. We address these questions by comprehensively analyzing 23 methods from the ENCODE Imputation Challenge. We find that imputation evaluations are challenging and confounded by distributional shifts from differences in data collection and processing over time, the amount of available data, and redundancy among performance measures. Our analyses suggest simple steps for overcoming these issues and promising directions for more robust research

The ENCODE Imputation Challenge: a critical assessment of methods for cross-cell type imputation of epigenomic profiles

A promising alternative to comprehensively performing genomics experiments is to, instead, perform a subset of experiments and use computational methods to impute the remainder. However, identifying the best imputation methods and what measures meaningfully evaluate performance are open questions. We address these questions by comprehensively analyzing 23 methods from the ENCODE Imputation Challenge. We find that imputation evaluations are challenging and confounded by distributional shifts from differences in data collection and processing over time, the amount of available data, and redundancy among performance measures. Our analyses suggest simple steps for overcoming these issues and promising directions for more robust research

SupplmentalFigure1 - Factors Associated with Outcomes of Pre-ART HIV Care

<p>SupplmentalFigure1 for Factors Associated with Outcomes of Pre-ART HIV Care by Kristen A. Stafford, Lucy W. Nganga, Tuhuma Tulli, and Karen G. Fleischman Foreit in Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (JIAPAC)</p