Improving thiamine prescribing in alcohol use disorder using electronic decision support in a large urban academic medical center: A pre-post intervention study.

INTRODUCTION: Thiamine is the only therapy for prevention and treatment of Wernicke Encephalopathy among patients with Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD). Despite this fact, up to 75 % of inpatients with AUD are not prescribed thiamine during hospitalization. Even fewer patients are prescribed high-dose thiamine which many experts recommend should be standard of care. Previous attempts to improve thiamine prescribing for inpatients have had limited success. METHODS: We conducted an evaluation of thiamine prescribing in the year before and year after an intervention to increase high-dose thiamine prescribing. Pre-post study analysis occurred on two distinct study cohorts: those with alcohol-related diagnoses and those with elevated alcohol levels. The intervention was new electronic health record-based decision support which encouraged high-dose thiamine when any thiamine order was sought. No educational support was provided. The primary outcome was prescription of high-dose thiamine before versus after intervention. Of those with alcohol-related diagnoses, the monthly percentage of thiamine treatment courses including high-dose thiamine were graphed on a control chart. RESULTS: We examined 5307 admissions with alcohol-related diagnoses (2285 pre- and 3022 post-intervention) and 698 admissions with elevated alcohol levels (319 pre- and 379 post-intervention). Among admissions with alcohol-related diagnoses, the intervention was associated with a higher proportion of admissions receiving high-dose thiamine prescriptions in the first 24 h (4.7 % vs. 1.1 %, adjusted odds ratio 4.50, CI 2.93 to 6.89, p < 0.001). A similar difference in high-dose thiamine was seen post-intervention among admissions with elevated alcohol levels (14.3 % vs. 2.5 %, adjusted odds ratio 6.43, CI 3.05 to 13.53, p < 0.001). The control chart among those with an alcohol-related diagnosis demonstrated special cause variation: the median percentage of thiamine treatment courses including high-dose thiamine improved from 8.2 % to 13.0 %. CONCLUSIONS: Electronic decision support without educational interventions increased the use of high-dose thiamine among patients with alcohol-related diagnoses and with elevated alcohol levels during hospitalization. This increase occurred immediately in the month after the intervention and was sustained in the year-long study period after.

National Survey of Patient Safety Experiences in Hospital Medicine During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals were caring for increasing numbers of patients with a novel and highly contagious respiratory illness, forcing adaptations in care delivery. The objective of this study was to understand the impact of these adaptations on patient safety in hospital medicine. METHODS: The authors conducted a nationwide survey to understand patient safety challenges experienced by hospital medicine clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey was distributed to members of the Society of Hospital Medicine via an e-mail listserv. It consisted of closed- and open-ended questions to elicit respondents' experience in five domains: error reporting and communication, staffing, equipment, personal protective equipment (PPE) and isolation practices, and infrastructure. Quantitative questions were reported as counts and percentages; qualitative responses were coded and analyzed for relevant themes. RESULTS: Of 196 total responses, 167 respondents (85.2%) were attending physicians and 85 (43.8%) practiced at teaching hospitals. Safety concerns commonly identified included nursing shortages (71.0%), limiting patient interactions to conserve PPE (61.9%), and feeling that one was practicing in a more hazardous environment (61.4%). In free-text responses, clinicians described poor outcomes and patient decompensation due to provider and equipment shortages, as well as communication lapses and diagnostic errors resulting from decreased patient contact and the need to follow isolation protocols. CONCLUSION: Efforts made to accommodate shortages in staff and equipment, adapt to limited PPE, and enforce isolation policies had unintended consequences that affected patient safety and created a more hazardous environment characterized by less efficient care, respiratory decompensations, diagnostic errors, and poor communication with patients.

Effect of restricting electronic health records on clinician efficiency: substudy of a randomized clinical trial.

A prior randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed no significant difference in wrong-patient errors between clinicians assigned to a restricted electronic health record (EHR) configuration (limiting to 1 record open at a time) versus an unrestricted EHR configuration (allowing up to 4 records open concurrently). However, it is unknown whether an unrestricted EHR configuration is more efficient. This substudy of the RCT compared clinician efficiency between EHR configurations using objective measures. All clinicians who logged onto the EHR during the substudy period were included. The primary outcome measure of efficiency was total active minutes per day. Counts were extracted from audit log data, and mixed-effects negative binomial regression was performed to determine differences between randomized groups. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Among a total of 2556 clinicians, there was no significant difference between unrestricted and restricted groups in total active minutes per day (115.1 vs 113.3 min, respectively; IRR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.93-1.06), overall or by clinician type and practice area.

Reducing Opioid Analgesic Prescribing in Dentistry Through Prescribing Defaults: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of a uniform, reduced, default dispense quantity for new opioid analgesic prescriptions on the quantity of opioids prescribed in dentistry practices. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial within a health system in the Bronx, NY, USA. We randomly assigned three dentistry sites to a 10-tablet default, a 5-tablet default, or no change (control). The primary outcome was the quantity of opioid analgesics prescribed in the new prescription. Secondary outcomes were opioid analgesic reorders and health service utilization within 30 days after the new prescription. We analyzed outcomes from 6 months before implementation through 18 months after implementation. RESULTS: Overall, 6,309 patients received a new prescription. Compared with the control site, patients at the 10-tablet-default site had a significantly larger change in prescriptions for 10 tablets or fewer (38.7 percentage points; confidence interval [CI]: 11.5 to 66.0), lower number of tablets prescribed (-3.3 tablets; CI: -5.9 to -0.7), and lower morphine milligram equivalents (MME) prescribed (-14.1 MME; CI: -27.8 to -0.4), which persisted in the 30 days after the new prescription despite a higher percentage of reorders (3.3 percentage points; CI: 0.2 to 6.4). Compared with the control site, patients at the 5-tablet-default site did not have a significant difference in any outcomes except for a significantly higher percentage of reorders (2.6 percentage points; CI: 0.2 to 4.9). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings further support the efficacy of strategies that lower default dispense quantities, although they indicate that caution is warranted in the selection of the default. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.org ID: NCT03030469.

Critical Care Clinicians' Experiences of Patient Safety During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: It is unknown how hospital- and systems-level factors have impacted patient safety in the intensive care unit (ICU) during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to understand how the pandemic has exacerbated preexisting patient safety issues and created novel patient safety challenges in ICUs in the United States. METHODS: We performed a national, multi-institutional, mixed-methods survey of critical care clinicians to elicit experiences related to patient safety during the pandemic. The survey was disseminated via email through the Society of Critical Care Medicine listserv. Data were reported as valid percentages, compared by COVID caseload and peak of the pandemic; free-text responses were analyzed and coded for themes. RESULTS: We received 335 survey responses. On general patient safety, 61% felt that conditions were more hazardous when compared with the prepandemic period. Those who took care of mostly COVID-19 patients were more likely to perceive that care was more hazardous (odds ratio, 4.89; 95% CI, 2.49-9.59) compared with those who took care of mostly non-COVID-19 or no COVID-19 patients. In free-text responses, providers identified patient safety risks related to pandemic adaptations, such as ventilator-related lung injury, medication and diagnostic errors, oversedation, oxygen device removal, and falls. CONCLUSIONS: Increased COVID-19 case burden was significantly associated with perceptions of a less safe patient care environment by frontline ICU clinicians. Results of the qualitative analysis identified specific patient safety hazards in ICUs across the United States as downstream consequences of hospital and provider strain during periods of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Early treatment with thiamine and mortality among patients with alcohol use disorder who are hospitalized for pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: The paucity of research linking thiamine treatment with improved outcomes may be driving its underutilization among patients at risk for Wernicke encephalopathy. OBJECTIVE: To assess relationships of thiamine usage to outcomes of patients hospitalized with alcohol use disorder and pneumonia. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This is a retrospective cohort study of adult patients hospitalized with pneumonia who also have alcohol use disorder and were treated with benzodiazepines during the initial two hospital days, between 2010 and 2015 at hospitals participating in the Premier Healthcare Database. EXPOSURE: Any thiamine treatment, and, among those treated, high-dose thiamine treatment, during the initial two hospital days. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Death on days 3-14 of hospitalization (primary); discharge home; transfer to intensive care unit; length of stay (LOS). We used propensity-weighted models to estimate treatment effects. RESULTS: Among 36,732 patients from 625 hospitals, 26,520 (72.2%) patients received thiamine, with mortality of 6.5% and 8.1% among recipients and nonrecipients, respectively. With propensity score adjustment, thiamine was associated with reduced mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75-0.85) and more frequent discharges to home (OR: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.06-1.14). Other outcomes were similar. Relative to low-dose thiamine, high-dose thiamine was not associated with mortality (adjusted OR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.89-1.10), but LOS was longer (ratio of means: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.04-1.08), and discharges to home were less frequent (OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.87-0.97). CONCLUSION: Thiamine is not reliably given to patients with pneumonia and alcohol use disorder receiving benzodiazepines. Improving thiamine administration may represent an opportunity to save lives in this high-risk group of inpatients.

Association Between English Proficiency and Timing of Analgesia Administration After Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric patients from families with limited English proficiency (LEP) are at risk for health care disparities. We examined timeliness of analgesic administration in pediatric postoperative patients with a limb fracture from LEP versus non-LEP families. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of children aged 1 year to <18 years of age, hospitalized to the general inpatient floor after surgical correction of single limb fractures between July 2016 and July 2019 were eligible. Patients whose consent was in a non-English language or for whom an interpreter was used were classified as from LEP families. The primary outcome was time to first analgesia. Secondary outcomes included time to first opioid, proportion with any analgesia and opioid analgesia, and number of pain assessments. Associations between LEP and outcomes were tested by using χ2 tests, Kaplan-Meier plots, and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: We examined 306 patients, of whom 59 (19%) were from LEP families. Children in LEP families were significantly less likely to receive any analgesia (86.4% vs 96.8%, P ≤ .01) and experienced longer time to first analgesia in unadjusted (hazard ratio = 0.68, 95% confidence interval: 0.50-0.92) and adjusted analyses (hazard ratio = 0.68, 95% confidence interval: 0.50-0.94). There was no significant association between LEP and time to first opioid, proportion given opioid analgesia, or number of pain assessments. CONCLUSION: Hospitalized children from LEP families experience a longer time to analgesia administration after surgery. The mechanisms that lead to these differences in care must be identified so that interventions can be designed to address them.

SARS-CoV-2 coinfection with additional respiratory virus does not predict severe disease: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) claimed over 4 million lives by July 2021 and continues to pose a serious public health threat. OBJECTIVES: Our retrospective study utilized respiratory pathogen panel (RPP) results in patients with SARS-CoV-2 to determine if coinfection (i.e. SARS-CoV-2 positivity with an additional respiratory virus) was associated with more severe presentation and outcomes. METHODS: All patients with negative influenza/respiratory syncytial virus testing who underwent RPP testing within 7 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test at a large, academic medical centre in New York were examined. Patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 with a negative RPP were compared with patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 and positive for a virus by RPP in terms of biomarkers, oxygen requirements and severe COVID-19 outcome, as defined by mechanical ventilation or death within 30 days. RESULTS: Of the 306 SARS-CoV-2-positive patients with RPP testing, 14 (4.6%) were positive for a non-influenza virus (coinfected). Compared with the coinfected group, patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 with a negative RPP had higher inflammatory markers and were significantly more likely to be admitted (P = 0.01). Severe COVID-19 outcome occurred in 111 (36.3%) patients in the SARS-CoV-2-only group and 3 (21.4%) patients in the coinfected group (P = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: Patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 along with a non-influenza respiratory virus had less severe disease on presentation and were more likely to be admitted-but did not have more severe outcomes-than those infected with SARS-CoV-2 alone.

Effect of Changing Electronic Health Record Opioid Analgesic Dispense Quantity Defaults on the Quantity Prescribed: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Interventions to improve judicious prescribing of opioid analgesics for acute pain are needed owing to the risks of diversion, misuse, and overdose. Objective: To assess the effect of modifying opioid analgesic prescribing defaults in the electronic health record (EHR) on prescribing and health service use. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cluster randomized clinical trial with 2 parallel arms was conducted between June 13, 2016, and June 13, 2018, in a large urban health care system comprising 32 primary care and 4 emergency department (ED) sites in the Bronx, New York. Data were analyzed using a difference-in-differences method from 6 months before implementation through 18 months after implementation. Data were analyzed from January 2019 to February 2020. Interventions: A default dispense quantity for new opioid analgesic prescriptions of 10 tablets (intervention) vs no change (control) in the EHR. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the quantity of opioid analgesics prescribed with the new default prescription. Secondary outcomes were opioid analgesic reorders and health service use within 30 days after the new prescription. Intention-to-treat analysis was conducted. Results: Overall, 21 331 patients received a new opioid analgesic prescription from 490 prescribers. Comparing the intervention and control arms, site, prescriber, and patient characteristics were similar. For the new prescription, compared with the control arm, patients in the intervention arm had significantly more prescriptions for 10 tablets or fewer (7.6 percentage points; 95% CI, 6.1-9.2 percentage points), a lower number of tablets prescribed (-2.1 tablets; 95% CI, -3.3 to -0.9 tablets), and lower morphine milligram equivalents (MME) prescribed (-14.6 MME; 95% CI, -22.6 to -6.6 MME). Within 30 days after the new prescription, significant differences remained in the number of tablets prescribed (-2.7 tablets; 95% CI, -4.8 to -0.6 tablets), but not MME (-15.8 MME; 95% CI, -33.8 to 2.2 MME). Within this 30-day period, there were no significant differences between the arms in health service use. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, implementation of a uniform reduced default dispense quantity of 10 tablets for opioid analgesic prescriptions led to a modest reduction in the quantity prescribed initially, without significantly increasing health service use. However, during 30 days after implementation, the influence on prescribing was mixed. Reducing EHR default dispense quantities for opioid analgesics is a feasible strategy that can be widely disseminated and may modestly reduce prescribing. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03003832.

Severe obesity, increasing age and male sex are independently associated with worse in-hospital outcomes, and higher in-hospital mortality, in a cohort of patients with COVID-19 in the Bronx, New York.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: New York is the current epicenter of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The underrepresented minorities, where the prevalence of obesity is higher, appear to be affected disproportionately. Our objectives were to assess the characteristics and early outcomes of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the Bronx and investigate whether obesity is associated with worse outcomes independently from age, gender and other comorbidities. METHODS: This retrospective study included the first 200 patients admitted to a tertiary medical center with COVID-19. The electronic medical records were reviewed at least three weeks after admission. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: 200 patients were included (female sex: 102, African American: 102). The median BMI was 30 kg/m2. The median age was 64 years. Hypertension (76%), hyperlipidemia (46.2%), and diabetes (39.5%) were the three most common comorbidities. Fever (86%), cough (76.5%), and dyspnea (68%) were the three most common symptoms. 24% died during hospitalization (BMI < 25 kg/m2: 31.6%, BMI 25-34 kg/m2: 17.2%, BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2: 34.8%, p = 0.03). Increasing age (analyzed in quartiles), male sex, BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 (reference: BMI 25-34 kg/m2), heart failure, CAD, and CKD or ESRD were found to have a significant univariate association with mortality. The multivariate analysis demonstrated that BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 (reference: BMI 25-34 kg/m2, OR: 3.78; 95% CI: 1.45-9.83; p = 0.006), male sex (OR: 2.74; 95% CI: 1.25-5.98; p = 0.011) and increasing age (analyzed in quartiles, OR: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.13-2.63; p = 0.011) were independently associated with higher in-hospital mortality. Similarly, age, male sex, BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 and current or prior smoking were significant predictors for increasing oxygenation requirements in the multivariate analysis, while male sex, age and BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 were significant predictors in the multivariate analysis for the outcome of intubation. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in a minority-predominant population, severe obesity, increasing age, and male sex were independently associated with higher in-hospital mortality and in general worse in-hospital outcomes.

Screening of Clostridioides difficile carriers in an urban academic medical center: Understanding implications of disease.

OBJECTIVE: Efforts to reduce Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) have targeted transmission from patients with symptomatic C. difficile. However, many patients with the C. difficile organism are carriers without symptoms who may serve as reservoirs for spread of infection and may be at risk for progression to symptomatic C. difficile. To estimate the prevalence of C. difficile carriage and determine the risk and speed of progression to symptomatic C. difficile among carriers, we established a pilot screening program in a large urban hospital. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: An 800-bed, tertiary-care, academic medical center in the Bronx, New York. PARTICIPANTS: A sample of admitted adults without diarrhea, with oversampling of nursing facility patients. METHODS: Perirectal swabs were tested by polymerase chain reaction for C. difficile within 24 hours of admission, and patients were followed for progression to symptomatic C. difficile. Development of symptomatic C. difficile was compared among C. difficile carriers and noncarriers using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Of the 220 subjects, 21 (9.6%) were C. difficile carriers, including 10.2% of the nursing facility residents and 7.7% of the community residents (P = .60). Among the 21 C. difficile carriers, 8 (38.1%) progressed to symptomatic C. difficile, but only 4 (2.0%) of the 199 noncarriers progressed to symptomatic C. difficile (hazard ratio, 23.9; 95% CI, 7.2-79.6; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Asymptomatic carriage of C. difficile is prevalent among admitted patients and confers a significant risk of progression to symptomatic CDI. Screening for asymptomatic carriers may represent an opportunity to reduce CDI.

BNP-Response to Acute Heart Failure Treatment Identifies High-Risk Population.

BACKGROUND: Using serial measurements of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) has been proposed as a method to guide therapy for patients treated for acute decompensated heart failure. However, 20-47% of patients do not achieve the target BNP thresholds despite treatment. We hypothesised that "BNP unresponsive" patients represent a distinct group at high risk for poor outcomes and sought to examine the characteristics and outcomes of this group. METHODS: In a retrospective study using electronic health record (EHR) data, we examined the outcomes of patients admitted with acute decompensated heart failure. Patients were divided into two groups based on their pro-BNP response to treatment: (1) pro-BNP responsive to treatment (decrease by at least 30%) and (2) pro-BNP unresponsive to treatment (decrease by less than 30%). The primary outcomes of interest were 180-day mortality and 180-day readmission. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the independent association between pro-BNP response to treatment and 180-day mortality and readmission. Adjustment variables included age, gender, Charlson co-morbidity score, admission creatinine, admission haematocrit, ejection fraction, preserved ejection fraction, and LV end-diastolic dimension. RESULTS: The total study population included 819 patients with 455 (55.6%) in the pro-BNP responsive group and 364 (44.4%) in the pro-BNP unresponsive group. Admissions whose BNP was unresponsive to treatment had significantly increased risk for 180-day mortality, compared with BNP-responsive admissions (26.4% vs. 13.2%, p < 0.001). Brain natriuretic peptide unresponsiveness remained significantly associated with increased 180-day mortality after adjustment for demographic and clinical characteristics (HRadj = 2.19, 95% CI: 1.52-3.14). BNP-unresponsiveness was not associated with significantly increased 180-day readmission rates (HRadj = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.92-1.25). CONCLUSIONS: Patients whose pro-BNP did not improve by >30% were at increased risk for 180-day mortality, but not 180-day readmission. Thus, BNP-unresponsiveness provides meaningful prognostic information, and it may define a patient population that would benefit from specific therapies to reduce the risk.

Risk of Wrong-Patient Orders Among Multiple vs Singleton Births in the Neonatal Intensive Care Units of 2 Integrated Health Care Systems.

IMPORTANCE: Multiple-birth infants in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) have nearly identical patient identifiers and may be at greater risk of wrong-patient order errors compared with singleton-birth infants. OBJECTIVES: To assess the risk of wrong-patient orders among multiple-birth infants and singletons receiving care in the NICU and to examine the proportion of wrong-patient orders between multiple-birth infants and siblings (intrafamilial errors) and between multiple-birth infants and nonsiblings (extrafamilial errors). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in 6 NICUs of 2 large, integrated health care systems in New York City that used distinct temporary names for newborns per the requirements of The Joint Commission. Data were collected from 4 NICUs at New York-Presbyterian Hospital from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2015, and 2 NICUs at Montefiore Health System from July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2015. Data were analyzed from May 1, 2017, to December 31, 2017. All infants in the 6 NICUs for whom electronic orders were placed during the study periods were included. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Wrong-patient electronic orders were identified using the Wrong-Patient Retract-and-Reorder (RAR) Measure. This measure was used to detect RAR events, which are defined as 1 or more orders placed for a patient that are retracted (ie, canceled) by the same clinician within 10 minutes, then reordered by the same clinician for a different patient within the next 10 minutes. RESULTS: A total of 10 819 infants were included: 85.5% were singleton-birth infants and 14.5% were multiple-birth infants (male, 55.8%; female, 44.2%). The overall wrong-patient order rate was significantly higher among multiple-birth infants than among singleton-birth infants (66.0 vs 41.7 RAR events per 100 000 orders, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.39-2.20; P < .001). The rate of extrafamilial RAR events among multiple-birth infants (36.1 per 100 000 orders) was similar to that of singleton-birth infants (41.7 per 100 000 orders). The excess risk among multiple-birth infants (29.9 per 100 000 orders) appears to be owing to intrafamilial RAR events. The risk increased as the number of siblings receiving care in the NICU increased; a wrong-patient order error occurred in 1 in 7 sets of twin births and in 1 in 3 sets of higher-order multiple births. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study suggests that multiple-birth status in the NICU is associated with significantly increased risk of wrong-patient orders compared with singleton-birth status. This excess risk appears to be owing to misidentification between siblings. These results suggest that a distinct naming convention as required by The Joint Commission may provide insufficient protection against identification errors among multiple-birth infants. Strategies to reduce this risk include using given names at birth, changing from temporary to given names when available, and encouraging parents to select names for multiple births before they are born when acceptable to families.

Patient-controlled Analgesia For Vaso-Occlusive Crisis: A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Sickle cell disease (SCD) accounts for over 68,000 hospital admissions each year in the United States, with long inpatient length of stays (LOS) and frequent readmission common. Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) has been used to treat patients admitted with vaso-occlusive crisis (VOC), but it is unknown if PCA is associated with shorter LOS and reduced risk of readmission. METHODS: We examined all admissions for acute VOC treated with parenteral opioids to an urban, academic health system over 3 years. We compared LOS, 30-day readmission, and discharges against medical advice between admissions treated with PCA versus standard therapy in unadjusted and adjusted analyses using generalized estimating equations to adjust for demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Of 823 admissions included, 536 (65.1%) were treated with PCA and 287 (34.9%) were treated with standard nurse-administered opioid therapy. Treatment with PCA was associated with significantly shorter LOS in the unadjusted analyses (7.46 vs. 9.42 d, P=0.001), but the difference was not significant after adjustment (adjusted difference: 1.47 d, P=0.06). Treatment with PCA was also associated with significantly decreased risk of 30-day readmission in unadjusted analysis (odds ratio [OR]unadj: 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54-0.89, P=0.004), but after adjustment the association was no longer significant (ORadj: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.54-1.06, P=0.11). Finally, treatment with PCA was not associated with increased risk of discharge against medical advice in Generalized Estimating Equation modeled unadjusted (ORunadj: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.69-1.76, P=0.68), or adjusted analysis (ORadj: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.73-1.94, P=0.49). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with PCA may be associated with shorter LOS and may be considered as the primary modality for opioid-based pain control for patients with SCD who are admitted with painful VOC.

Effect of Restriction of the Number of Concurrently Open Records in an Electronic Health Record on Wrong-Patient Order Errors: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Recommendations in the United States suggest limiting the number of patient records displayed in an electronic health record (EHR) to 1 at a time, although little evidence supports this recommendation. Objective: To assess the risk of wrong-patient orders in an EHR configuration limiting clinicians to 1 record vs allowing up to 4 records opened concurrently. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial included 3356 clinicians at a large health system in New York and was conducted from October 2015 to April 2017 in emergency department, inpatient, and outpatient settings. Interventions: Clinicians were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to an EHR configuration limiting to 1 patient record open at a time (restricted; n = 1669) or allowing up to 4 records open concurrently (unrestricted; n = 1687). Main Outcomes and Measures: The unit of analysis was the order session, a series of orders placed by a clinician for a single patient. The primary outcome was order sessions that included 1 or more wrong-patient orders identified by the Wrong-Patient Retract-and-Reorder measure (an electronic query that identifies orders placed for a patient, retracted, and then reordered shortly thereafter by the same clinician for a different patient). Results: Among the 3356 clinicians who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 43.1 [12.5] years; mean [SD] experience at study site, 6.5 [6.0] years; 1894 females [56.4%]), all provided order data and were included in the analysis. The study included 12 140 298 orders, in 4 486 631 order sessions, placed for 543 490 patients. There was no significant difference in wrong-patient order sessions per 100 000 in the restricted vs unrestricted group, respectively, overall (90.7 vs 88.0; odds ratio [OR], 1.03 [95% CI, 0.90-1.20]; P = .60) or in any setting (ED: 157.8 vs 161.3, OR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.83-1.20], P = .96; inpatient: 185.6 vs 185.1, OR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.89-1.11]; P = .86; or outpatient: 7.9 vs 8.2, OR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.70-1.28], P = .71). The effect did not differ among settings (P for interaction = .99). In the unrestricted group overall, 66.2% of the order sessions were completed with 1 record open, including 34.5% of ED, 53.7% of inpatient, and 83.4% of outpatient order sessions. Conclusions and Relevance: A strategy that limited clinicians to 1 EHR patient record open compared with a strategy that allowed up to 4 records open concurrently did not reduce the proportion of wrong-patient order errors. However, clinicians in the unrestricted group placed most orders with a single record open, limiting the power of the study to determine whether reducing the number of records open when placing orders reduces the risk of wrong-patient order errors. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02876588.

Safety of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Outside the ICU for Previously Healthy Children With Bronchiolitis.

BACKGROUND: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), a form of noninvasive respiratory support, is effective for the treatment of respiratory distress in ICUs. Although HFNC has been used outside of the ICU, there is little research that examines its safety in this less-monitored setting. METHODS: Children ≤ 24 months old admitted with bronchiolitis to a pediatric floor at a tertiary care center from April 1 2013, to March 31 2015, were identified by using standard diagnostic codes. Exclusion criteria were concomitant pneumonia or complex comorbidities. Demographic and clinical characteristics were abstracted. Outcomes included transfer to the ICU, higher levels of respiratory support, intubation, pneumothorax, or aspiration events. RESULTS: Eighty children admitted with bronchiolitis who were treated with HFNC while on the pediatric floor were examined. The median age was 4.6 months, 45% were girls, and the majority were either Hispanic (41%) or black (36%). Flow ranged from 3 to 10 L/min. Thirty-three subjects (41% of the sample) required subsequent transfer to the ICU. No children were intubated or developed a pneumothorax. Eighty-three percent were fed while on HFNC. No children had an aspiration event. CONCLUSIONS: HFNC may be a safe modality of respiratory support outside of the ICU for children ages ≤ 24 months with bronchiolitis and without comorbidities up to a maximum flow of 10 L/min. There were no adverse events among the subjects who were fed while on HFNC.

Reducing the default dispense quantity for new opioid analgesic prescriptions: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: As opioid analgesic consumption has grown, so have opioid use disorder and opioid-related overdoses. Reducing the quantity of opioid analgesics prescribed for acute non-cancer pain can potentially reduce risks to the individual receiving the prescription and to others who might unintentionally or intentionally consume any leftover tablets. Reducing the default dispense quantity for new opioid analgesic prescriptions in the electronic health record (EHR) is a promising intervention to reduce prescribing. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a prospective cluster randomised controlled trial with two parallel arms. Primary care sites (n=32) and emergency departments (n=4) will be randomised in matched pairs to either a modification of the EHR so that new opioid analgesic prescriptions default to a dispense quantity of 10 tablets (intervention) or to no EHR change (control). The dispense quantity will remain fully modifiable by providers in both arms. From 6 months preintervention to 18 months postintervention, patient-level data will be analysed (ie, the patient is the unit of inference). Patient eligibility criteria are: (A) received a new opioid analgesic prescription, defined as no other opioid analgesic prescription in the prior 6 months; (B) age ≥18 years; and (C) no cancer diagnosis within 1 year prior to the new opioid analgesic prescription. The primary outcome will be the quantity of opioid analgesics prescribed in the initial prescription. Secondary outcomes will include opioid analgesic reorders and health service utilisation within 30 days after the initial prescription. Outcomes will be compared between study arms using a difference-in-differences analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine Institutional Review Board with a waiver of informed consent (2016-6036) and is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03003832, 6 December 2016). Findings will be disseminated through publication, conferences and meetings with health system leaders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03003832; Pre-results.