12 research outputs found
Impact of a Standardized Central Line Insertion Site Assessment Score on Localized Inflammation and Infection
Recommended from our members
Reductions in Clostridium difficile Infection (CDI) Rates Using Real-Time Automated Clinical Criteria Verification to Enforce Appropriate Testing.
C. difficile PCR testing identifies both colonized and infected patients, making it critical to only test patients that meet clinical criteria for C. difficile infection (CDI). We implemented an automated order-entry protocol that reduced inappropriate testing by 64% and hospital-onset (HO) CDI Standardized Infection Ratio (SIR) from 1.62 to 0.82
Recommended from our members
Impact of a Standardized Central Line Insertion Site Assessment Score on Localized Inflammation and Infection
Recommended from our members
Reductions in Clostridium difficile Infection (CDI) Rates Using Real-Time Automated Clinical Criteria Verification to Enforce Appropriate Testing.
C. difficile PCR testing identifies both colonized and infected patients, making it critical to only test patients that meet clinical criteria for C. difficile infection (CDI). We implemented an automated order-entry protocol that reduced inappropriate testing by 64% and hospital-onset (HO) CDI Standardized Infection Ratio (SIR) from 1.62 to 0.82
Recommended from our members
Impact of a Central-Line Insertion Site Assessment (CLISA) score on localized insertion site infection to prevent central-line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI).
ObjectiveTo assess the impact of a newly developed Central-Line Insertion Site Assessment (CLISA) score on the incidence of local inflammation or infection for CLABSI prevention.DesignA pre- and postintervention, quasi-experimental quality improvement study.Setting and participantsAdult inpatients with central venous catheters (CVCs) hospitalized in an intensive care unit or oncology ward at a large academic medical center.MethodsWe evaluated CLISA score impact on insertion site inflammation and infection (CLISA score of 2 or 3) incidence in the baseline period (June 2014-January 2015) and the intervention period (April 2015-October 2017) using interrupted times series and generalized linear mixed-effects multivariable analyses. These were run separately for days-to-line removal from identification of a CLISA score of 2 or 3. CLISA score interrater reliability and photo quiz results were evaluated.ResultsAmong 6,957 CVCs assessed 40,846 times, percentage of lines with CLISA score of 2 or 3 in the baseline and intervention periods decreased by 78.2% (from 22.0% to 4.7%), with a significant immediate decrease in the time-series analysis (P < .001). According to the multivariable regression, the intervention was associated with lower percentage of lines with a CLISA score of 2 or 3, after adjusting for age, gender, CVC body location, and hospital unit (odds ratio, 0.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.34; P < .001). According to the multivariate regression, days to removal of lines with CLISA score of 2 or 3 was 3.19 days faster after the intervention (P < .001). Also, line dwell time decreased 37.1% from a mean of 14 days (standard deviation [SD], 10.6) to 8.8 days (SD, 9.0) (P < .001). Device utilization ratios decreased 9% from 0.64 (SD, 0.08) to 0.58 (SD, 0.06) (P = .039).ConclusionsThe CLISA score creates a common language for assessing line infection risk and successfully promotes high compliance with best practices in timely line removal
Recommended from our members
Impact of a Central-Line Insertion Site Assessment (CLISA) score on localized insertion site infection to prevent central-line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI).
ObjectiveTo assess the impact of a newly developed Central-Line Insertion Site Assessment (CLISA) score on the incidence of local inflammation or infection for CLABSI prevention.DesignA pre- and postintervention, quasi-experimental quality improvement study.Setting and participantsAdult inpatients with central venous catheters (CVCs) hospitalized in an intensive care unit or oncology ward at a large academic medical center.MethodsWe evaluated CLISA score impact on insertion site inflammation and infection (CLISA score of 2 or 3) incidence in the baseline period (June 2014-January 2015) and the intervention period (April 2015-October 2017) using interrupted times series and generalized linear mixed-effects multivariable analyses. These were run separately for days-to-line removal from identification of a CLISA score of 2 or 3. CLISA score interrater reliability and photo quiz results were evaluated.ResultsAmong 6,957 CVCs assessed 40,846 times, percentage of lines with CLISA score of 2 or 3 in the baseline and intervention periods decreased by 78.2% (from 22.0% to 4.7%), with a significant immediate decrease in the time-series analysis (P < .001). According to the multivariable regression, the intervention was associated with lower percentage of lines with a CLISA score of 2 or 3, after adjusting for age, gender, CVC body location, and hospital unit (odds ratio, 0.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.34; P < .001). According to the multivariate regression, days to removal of lines with CLISA score of 2 or 3 was 3.19 days faster after the intervention (P < .001). Also, line dwell time decreased 37.1% from a mean of 14 days (standard deviation [SD], 10.6) to 8.8 days (SD, 9.0) (P < .001). Device utilization ratios decreased 9% from 0.64 (SD, 0.08) to 0.58 (SD, 0.06) (P = .039).ConclusionsThe CLISA score creates a common language for assessing line infection risk and successfully promotes high compliance with best practices in timely line removal
Recommended from our members
839. Effect of Clostridioides difficile (C. difficile) Toxin Test Reporting on Clinical Treatment and Outcomes of Toxin-Negative PCR-Positive Patients at Five California Hospitals
Abstract Background Guidelines support the use of toxin tests after C. difficile antigen detection or nucleic acid amplification tests (e.g., PCR) to help clinicians distinguish colonization from infection and reduce overdiagnosis but the safety of toxin-based diagnostic approaches remains controversial. Methods Five California hospitals monitored hospitalized adults with C. difficile testing before and after operational changes to reduce test-related overdiagnosis (2016–2018). Four added a toxin test to an existing GDH antigen/PCR-based approach and/or changed reporting to encourage the use of toxin results for clinical decision-making (i.e.,“toxin-dominant reporting”). One used the same test (toxin only) and reporting strategy throughout. All used a standardized tool to document clinical outcomes and treatment four days after testing (i.e., Day 5). Results In total, 1,034 patients had a Day 5 assessment with PCR-dominant reporting (pre-operational changes); 2,511 patients had a Day 5 assessment with toxin-dominant reporting (post-operational changes and single facility with no test change). Fewer Toxin-negative/PCR-positive (Toxin−/PCR+) patients received treatment with toxin-dominant reporting (median change: −52.1% [interquartile range (IQR): −35.1%, −69.1%]; aggregate P < 0.001). Day 5 outcomes were similar or better with toxin-dominant reporting despite less treatment. Patient discharge rates and in hospital diarrheal recovery was greater in the subset of Toxin−/PCR+ patients during the toxin-dominant reporting period: median discharge rate change = 8.8% [IQR: 1.5%, 11.9%] (aggregate P = 0.04); median diarrheal recovery rate change = 11.8% [IQR: 8.8%, 18.2%] (aggregate P = 0.018). Conclusion In a 5-center study, toxin-dominant test result reporting decreased anti-C. difficile treatment and improved discharge rates and diarrheal recovery in Toxin−/PCR+ patients. More work is needed to determine the rate of C. difficile-related adverse events in Toxin−/PCR+ patients. Disclosures All Authors: No reported Disclosures
Impact of a Central-Line Insertion Site Assessment (CLISA) score on localized insertion site infection to prevent central-line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI)
Recommended from our members
839. Effect of Clostridioides difficile (C. difficile) Toxin Test Reporting on Clinical Treatment and Outcomes of Toxin-Negative PCR-Positive Patients at Five California Hospitals
Abstract
Background
Guidelines support the use of toxin tests after C. difficile antigen detection or nucleic acid amplification tests (e.g., PCR) to help clinicians distinguish colonization from infection and reduce overdiagnosis but the safety of toxin-based diagnostic approaches remains controversial.
Methods
Five California hospitals monitored hospitalized adults with C. difficile testing before and after operational changes to reduce test-related overdiagnosis (2016–2018). Four added a toxin test to an existing GDH antigen/PCR-based approach and/or changed reporting to encourage the use of toxin results for clinical decision-making (i.e.,“toxin-dominant reporting”). One used the same test (toxin only) and reporting strategy throughout. All used a standardized tool to document clinical outcomes and treatment four days after testing (i.e., Day 5).
Results
In total, 1,034 patients had a Day 5 assessment with PCR-dominant reporting (pre-operational changes); 2,511 patients had a Day 5 assessment with toxin-dominant reporting (post-operational changes and single facility with no test change). Fewer Toxin-negative/PCR-positive (Toxin−/PCR+) patients received treatment with toxin-dominant reporting (median change: −52.1% [interquartile range (IQR): −35.1%, −69.1%]; aggregate P < 0.001). Day 5 outcomes were similar or better with toxin-dominant reporting despite less treatment. Patient discharge rates and in hospital diarrheal recovery was greater in the subset of Toxin−/PCR+ patients during the toxin-dominant reporting period: median discharge rate change = 8.8% [IQR: 1.5%, 11.9%] (aggregate P = 0.04); median diarrheal recovery rate change = 11.8% [IQR: 8.8%, 18.2%] (aggregate P = 0.018).
Conclusion
In a 5-center study, toxin-dominant test result reporting decreased anti-C. difficile treatment and improved discharge rates and diarrheal recovery in Toxin−/PCR+ patients. More work is needed to determine the rate of C. difficile-related adverse events in Toxin−/PCR+ patients.
Disclosures
All Authors: No reported Disclosures