16 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Stewardship Prompts to Improve Antibiotic Selection for Pneumonia
ImportancePneumonia is the most common infection requiring hospitalization and is a major reason for overuse of extended-spectrum antibiotics. Despite low risk of multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) infection, clinical uncertainty often drives initial antibiotic selection. Strategies to limit empiric antibiotic overuse for patients with pneumonia are needed.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether computerized provider order entry (CPOE) prompts providing patient- and pathogen-specific MDRO infection risk estimates could reduce empiric extended-spectrum antibiotics for non-critically ill patients admitted with pneumonia.Design, setting, and participantsCluster-randomized trial in 59 US community hospitals comparing the effect of a CPOE stewardship bundle (education, feedback, and real-time MDRO risk-based CPOE prompts; n = 29 hospitals) vs routine stewardship (n = 30 hospitals) on antibiotic selection during the first 3 hospital days (empiric period) in non-critically ill adults (≥18 years) hospitalized with pneumonia. There was an 18-month baseline period from April 1, 2017, to September 30, 2018, and a 15-month intervention period from April 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020.InterventionCPOE prompts recommending standard-spectrum antibiotics in patients ordered to receive extended-spectrum antibiotics during the empiric period who have low estimated absolute risk (<10%) of MDRO pneumonia, coupled with feedback and education.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was empiric (first 3 days of hospitalization) extended-spectrum antibiotic days of therapy. Secondary outcomes included empiric vancomycin and antipseudomonal days of therapy and safety outcomes included days to intensive care unit (ICU) transfer and hospital length of stay. Outcomes compared differences between baseline and intervention periods across strategies.ResultsAmong 59 hospitals with 96 451 (51 671 in the baseline period and 44 780 in the intervention period) adult patients admitted with pneumonia, the mean (SD) age of patients was 68.1 (17.0) years, 48.1% were men, and the median (IQR) Elixhauser comorbidity count was 4 (2-6). Compared with routine stewardship, the group using CPOE prompts had a 28.4% reduction in empiric extended-spectrum days of therapy (rate ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.66-0.78]; P < .001). Safety outcomes of mean days to ICU transfer (6.5 vs 7.1 days) and hospital length of stay (6.8 vs 7.1 days) did not differ significantly between the routine and CPOE intervention groups.Conclusions and relevanceEmpiric extended-spectrum antibiotic use was significantly lower among adults admitted with pneumonia to non-ICU settings in hospitals using education, feedback, and CPOE prompts recommending standard-spectrum antibiotics for patients at low risk of MDRO infection, compared with routine stewardship practices. Hospital length of stay and days to ICU transfer were unchanged.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03697070
Recommended from our members
Errors in antibiotic transitions between hospital and nursing home: How often do they occur?
We performed systematic review on 40 paired hospital and nursing home charts from a clinical trial to evaluate the fidelity of transitions of care among those discharged on antibiotics. We found that 30% of transitions included an inappropriate change to the patient's antibiotic plan of care
Recommended from our members
Errors in antibiotic transitions between hospital and nursing home: How often do they occur?
We performed systematic review on 40 paired hospital and nursing home charts from a clinical trial to evaluate the fidelity of transitions of care among those discharged on antibiotics. We found that 30% of transitions included an inappropriate change to the patient's antibiotic plan of care
Prolonged and Inappropriate Central Line Utilization in Nursing Homes (NH) Related to Broad Spectrum Antibiotics
Recommended from our members
Cost Savings Associated With Decolonization of Postdischarge MRSA Carriers: Results From the CLEAR Randomized Trial
Background: Greater than 10% of hospitalized MRSA carriers experience serious MRSA infection in the year following discharge. Prevention opportunities have primarily focused on hospital stays; however postdischarge interventions have the potential to reduce morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. The CLEAR trial found a 30% hazard reduction in postdischarge MRSA infections among patients who had inpatient MRSA cultures and were given postdischarge decolonization (5 days twice-a-month for 6 months) relative to hygiene education alone. We conducted a cost analysis of the CLEAR intervention to quantify the economic implications and understand the value of adopting this MRSA decolonization strategy. Methods: We constructed a decision model to estimate the one-year healthcare utilization and costs associated with postdischarge decolonization relative to hygiene education. Trial results for MRSA infection risk and downstream outcomes (including outpatient and emergency room visits, hospitalizations, related nursing home stays, and postdischarge antibiotics) were used to parameterize the model. Other medical care and prescription drug costs were based on Medicare Fee Schedules, Red Book and the literature. Patient out-of-pocket costs and time costs associated with subsequent infections were from a survey of trial participants experiencing infection (n=405). All costs were reported in 2019 US dollars. The analysis was conducted using healthcare system and societal perspectives. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on key parameters. Results: Among a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 hospitalized MRSA carriers, we estimated that a postdischarge decolonization intervention versus hygiene education would result in at least 36 fewer subsequent MRSA infections (130 vs 93 of 1,000, respectively) and >40 fewer MRSA-attributable healthcare events including 32 hospitalizations and 6 postdischarge nursing home visits over the course of a year. Assuming an intervention cost of 469,000 per 1,000 MRSA carriers undergoing decolonization. This translates to an overall savings of 9,000 per infection averted from the healthcare system perspective. Even assuming a lower infection rate or a less effective intervention (15% reduction in infections vs 30% in the CLEAR trial), or a more expensive (up to $653 per patient) intervention, a decolonization program would still result in cost-savings for society, the healthcare system and patients. Conclusions: In addition to health benefits of preventing infections, postdischarge decolonization of MRSA carriers yields substantial savings to society and the healthcare system. Future recommendations for reducing postdischarge MRSA-related disease among MRSA carriers should consider routine decolonization at hospital discharge.
Funding: This study was supported by a grant from the AHRQ Healthcare-Associated Infections Program (R01HS019388) and by the University of California Irvine Institute for Clinical and Translational Science, which was funded by a grant from the NIH Clinical and Translational Sciences Award program (UL1 TR000153).
Disclosures: Dr. Huang reports conducting clinical studies in which participating nursing homes and hospitals received donated products from Stryker (Sage Products), Mölnlycke, 3M, Clorox, Xttrium Laboratories, and Medline. Ms. Singh reports conducting clinical studies in which participating nursing homes and hospitals received donated products from Stryker (Sage Products), 3M, Clorox, Xttrium Laboratories, and Medline. Dr. Rashid, conducting clinical studies in which participating nursing homes and hospitals received donated products from Stryker(Sage Products), Clorox, and Medline. Dr. McKinnell reports receiving grant support to his institution from Melinta Therapeutics, and fees for serving as a research investigator from Lightship, conducting clinical studies in which participating nursing homes and hospitals received donated products from Stryker (Sage Products), 3M, Clorox, Xttrium Laboratories and Medline, and serving as cofounder of Expert Stewardship. Dr. Miller reports receiving grant support from Gilead Sciences, Merck, Abbott, Cepheid, Genentech, Atox Bio, and Paratek Pharmaceuticals, grant support and fees for serving on an advisory board from Achaogen and grant support, consulting fees, and fees for serving on an advisory board from Tetraphase and conducting clinical studies in which participating nursing homes and hospitals received donated products from Stryker (Sage Products), 3M, Clorox, Xttrium Laboratories, and Medline
Recommended from our members
Impact of a Standardized Central Line Insertion Site Assessment Score on Localized Inflammation and Infection
Impact of a Standardized Central Line Insertion Site Assessment Score on Localized Inflammation and Infection
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