Advancing Diagnostic Stewardship for Healthcare-Associated Infections, Antibiotic Resistance, and Sepsis

Abstract Diagnostic stewardship means ordering the right tests for the right patient at the right time to inform optimal clinical care. Diagnostic stewardship is an integral part of antibiotic stewardship efforts to optimize antibiotic use and improve patient outcomes, including reductions in antibiotic resistance and treatment of sepsis. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion hosted a meeting on improving patient safety through diagnostic stewardship with a focus on use of the laboratory. At the meeting, emerging issues in the field of diagnostic stewardship were identified, awareness of these issues among stakeholders was raised, and strategies and interventions to address the issues were discussed—all with an emphasis on improved outcomes and patient safety. Here, we summarize the key takeaways of the meeting including needs for diagnostic stewardship implementation, promising future avenues for diagnostic stewardship implementation, and areas of needed research.</jats:p

Activities of Vancomycin, Ceftaroline, and Mupirocin against Staphylococcus aureus Isolates Collected in a 2011 National Surveillance Study in the United States

ABSTRACT Forty-two medical centers from throughout the United States participating in a longitudinal surveillance program were asked to submit 100 consecutive Staphylococcus aureus isolates during July to December 2011. Susceptibility testing using CLSI broth microdilution and mecA detection by PCR analysis was performed on the 4,131 isolates collected. Methods employing Etest glycopeptide resistance detection (GRD; bioMérieux) and brain heart infusion agar containing 4 μg/ml vancomycin (BHIV) were used to screen methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) isolates for heterogeneous intermediate-level resistance to vancomycin (hVISA). Isolates with positive hVISA screen results were confirmed by population analysis profiling-area under the curve (PAP-AUC) determinations. The genetic relatedness of hVISA, ceftaroline-nonsusceptible, or high-level (HL) mupirocin resistance MRSA isolates was assessed by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). Among 2,093 MRSA isolates, the hVISA screen results were positive with 47 isolates by Etest GRD and 30 isolates by BHIV agar screen. Twenty-five of the GRD- or BHIV screen-positive isolates were confirmed as hVISA by PAP-AUC testing. Results of the current study were compared to results obtained from prior surveillance performed in 2009. The prevalence of hVISA among MRSA isolates was higher in 2011 than in 2009 (1.2% versus 0.4%, P = 0.003), especially for isolates with a vancomycin MIC of 2 (45.4% versus 14.3%, P = 0.01). The overall rate of ceftaroline susceptibility in the current study was 99.4% (one hVISA isolate had an intermediate ceftaroline MIC). HL mupirocin resistance increased from 2.2% in 2009 to 3.2% in 2011 ( P = 0.006). Although overall rates of hVISA and HL mupirocin resistance are low, they have increased since 2009. </jats:p

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) admission screening and assessment of infectiousness at an academic medical center in Iowa, 2020

AbstractObjective:Patients admitted to the hospital may unknowingly carry severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and hospitals have implemented SARS-CoV-2 admission screening. However, because SARS-CoV-2 reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays may remain positive for months after infection, positive results may represent active or past infection. We determined the prevalence and infectiousness of patients who were admitted for reasons unrelated to COVID-19 but tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on admission screening.Methods:We conducted an observational study at the University of Iowa Hospitals &amp; Clinics from July 7 to October 25, 2020. All patients admitted without suspicion of COVID-19 were included, and medical records of those with a positive admission screening test were reviewed. Infectiousness was determined using patient history, PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value, and serology.Results:In total, 5,913 patients were screened and admitted for reasons unrelated to COVID-19. Of these, 101 had positive admission RT-PCR results; 36 of these patients were excluded because they had respiratory signs/symptoms on admission on chart review. Also, 65 patients (1.1%) did not have respiratory symptoms. Finally, 55 patients had Ct values available and were included in this analysis. The median age of the final cohort was 56 years and 51% were male. Our assessment revealed that 23 patients (42%) were likely infectious. The median duration of in-hospital isolation was 5 days for those likely infectious and 2 days for those deemed noninfectious.Conclusions:SARS-CoV-2 was infrequent among patients admitted for reasons unrelated to COVID-19. An assessment of the likelihood of infectiousness using clinical history, RT-PCR Ct values, and serology may help in making the determination to discontinue isolation and conserve resources.</jats:sec

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Serial Testing Among Hospitalized Patients in a Midwest Tertiary Medical Center, July–September 2020

Abstract We implemented serial coronavirus disease 2019 testing for inpatients with a negative test on admission. The conversion rate (negative to positive) on repeat testing was 1%. We identified patients during their incubation period and hospital-onset cases, rapidly isolated them, and potentially reduced exposures. Serial testing and infectiousness determination were resource intensive.</jats:p

Optimal Urine Culture Diagnostic Stewardship Practice-Results from an Expert Modified-Delphi Procedure.

BackgroundUrine cultures are nonspecific and often lead to misdiagnosis of urinary tract infection and unnecessary antibiotics. Diagnostic stewardship is a set of procedures that modifies test ordering, processing, and reporting in order to optimize diagnosis and downstream treatment. In this study, we aimed to develop expert guidance on best practices for urine culture diagnostic stewardship.MethodsA RAND-modified Delphi approach with a multidisciplinary expert panel was used to ascertain diagnostic stewardship best practices. Clinical questions to guide recommendations were grouped into three thematic areas (ordering, processing, reporting) in practice settings of emergency department, inpatient, ambulatory, and long-term care. Fifteen experts ranked recommendations on a 9-point Likert scale. Recommendations on which the panel did not reach agreement were discussed during a virtual meeting, then a second round of ranking by email was completed. After secondary review of results and panel discussion, a series of guidance statements was developed.ResultsOne hundred and sixty-five questions were reviewed. The panel reaching agreement on 104, leading to 18 overarching guidance statements. The following strategies were recommended to optimize ordering urine cultures: requiring documentation of symptoms, sending alerts to discourage ordering in the absence of symptoms, and cancelling repeat cultures. For urine culture processing, conditional urine cultures and urine white blood cell count as criteria were supported. For urine culture reporting, appropriate practices included nudges to discourage treatment under specific conditions and selective reporting of antibiotics to guide therapy decisions.ConclusionsThese 18 guidance statements can optimize use of urine cultures for better patient outcomes

Optimal Urine Culture Diagnostic Stewardship Practice—Results from an Expert Modified-Delphi Procedure

Abstract Background Urine cultures are nonspecific and often lead to misdiagnosis of urinary tract infection and unnecessary antibiotics. Diagnostic stewardship is a set of procedures that modifies test ordering, processing, and reporting in order to optimize diagnosis and downstream treatment. In this study, we aimed to develop expert guidance on best practices for urine culture diagnostic stewardship. Methods A RAND-modified Delphi approach with a multidisciplinary expert panel was used to ascertain diagnostic stewardship best practices. Clinical questions to guide recommendations were grouped into three thematic areas (ordering, processing, reporting) in practice settings of emergency department, inpatient, ambulatory, and long-term care. Fifteen experts ranked recommendations on a 9-point Likert scale. Recommendations on which the panel did not reach agreement were discussed during a virtual meeting, then a second round of ranking by email was completed. After secondary review of results and panel discussion, a series of guidance statements was developed. Results One hundred and sixty-five questions were reviewed. The panel reaching agreement on 104, leading to 18 overarching guidance statements. The following strategies were recommended to optimize ordering urine cultures: requiring documentation of symptoms, sending alerts to discourage ordering in the absence of symptoms, and cancelling repeat cultures. For urine culture processing, conditional urine cultures and urine white blood cell count as criteria were supported. For urine culture reporting, appropriate practices included nudges to discourage treatment under specific conditions and selective reporting of antibiotics to guide therapy decisions. Conclusions These 18 guidance statements can optimize use of urine cultures for better patient outcomes. </jats:sec

Clinical Decision Support Systems to Reduce Unnecessary <i>Clostridioides difficile</i> Testing Across Multiple Hospitals

Abstract Background Inappropriate Clostridioides difficile testing has adverse consequences for patients, hospitals, and public health. Computerized clinical decision support (CCDS) systems in the electronic health record (EHR) may reduce C. difficile test ordering; however, effectiveness of different approaches, ease of use, and best fit into healthcare providers’ (HCP) workflow are not well understood. Methods Nine academic and 6 community hospitals in the United States participated in this 2-year cohort study. CCDS (hard stop or soft stop) triggered when a duplicate C. difficile test order was attempted or if laxatives were recently received. The primary outcome was the difference in testing rates pre– and post–CCDS interventions, using incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and mixed-effect Poisson regression models. We performed qualitative evaluation (contextual inquiry, interviews, focus groups) based on a human factors model. We identified themes using a codebook with primary nodes and subnodes. Results In 9 hospitals implementing hard-stop CCDS and 4 hospitals implementing soft-stop CCDS, C. difficile testing incidence rate (IR) reduction was 33% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 30%–36%) and 23% (95% CI: 21%–25%), respectively. Two hospitals implemented a non-EHR-based human intervention with IR reduction of 21% (95% CI: 15%–28%). HCPs reported generally favorable experiences and highlighted time efficiencies such as inclusion of the patient’s most recent laxative administration on the CCDS. Organizational factors, including hierarchical cultures and communication between HCPs caring for the same patient, impact CCDS acceptance and integration. Conclusions CCDS systems reduced unnecessary C. difficile testing and were perceived positively by HCPs when integrated into their workflow and when displaying relevant patient-specific information needed for decision making. </jats:sec

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) research agenda for healthcare epidemiology

AbstractThis SHEA white paper identifies knowledge gaps and challenges in healthcare epidemiology research related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with a focus on core principles of healthcare epidemiology. These gaps, revealed during the worst phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, are described in 10 sections: epidemiology, outbreak investigation, surveillance, isolation precaution practices, personal protective equipment (PPE), environmental contamination and disinfection, drug and supply shortages, antimicrobial stewardship, healthcare personnel (HCP) occupational safety, and return to work policies. Each section highlights three critical healthcare epidemiology research questions with detailed description provided in supplementary materials. This research agenda calls for translational studies from laboratory-based basic science research to well-designed, large-scale studies and health outcomes research. Research gaps and challenges related to nursing homes and social disparities are included. Collaborations across various disciplines, expertise and across diverse geographic locations will be critical.</jats:p