A comparison of clinical outcomes associated with dosing metronidazole every 8 hours versus every 12 hours: a systematic review and metaanalysis.

Background: Metronidazole treats obligate anaerobic bacterial and protozoal infections, with an elimination half-life of around 8 hours. The long elimination half-life, the favorable ratio of steady-state serum levels to minimum inhibitory concentration, and the presence of active metabolites have led to the consideration of metronidazole use at 12-hour dosage intervals. This systematic review aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of twice-daily and thrice-daily metronidazole dosing. Methods: Using the PRISMA checklist, we searched five databases to systematically identify all relevant studies published up to June 16, 2023. Results: The final analysis included two published retrospective cohort studies of hospitalized adult patients: a single site study (n = 200) and a multisite study (n = 85) of "good" quality, as measured by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The reported baseline characteristics of the 8-hour and 12-hour dosing groups were comparable, and neither study identified significant differences in primary and secondary clinical outcomes. Metaanalysis of the need to escalate antibiotic therapy also showed no statistically significant differences using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method (95% confidence interval: 47.6% lower to 6.4 times higher risk, P = 0.34) and inverse-variance method (risk ratio: 1.87; 95% confidence interval: 0.52-6.65, P = 0.34). Conclusions: This review suggests that dosing metronidazole every 12 hours is as effective as every-8-hour dosing for hospitalized patients with anaerobic infections. These encouraging findings would benefit from validation by a multicenter randomized controlled trial since there would be many benefits to a 12-hour dosing interval while achieving similar clinical outcomes with traditional dosing. The studies in this systematic review excluded patients with Clostridioides difficile and central nervous system and amebiasis infections, so the findings do not apply to these infection types.

Interprofessional primary palliative care: Do the AACN Essentials prepare nurses for collaborative practice?

BACKGROUND: Palliative care specialists alone cannot meet the rising needs for palliative care. Primary palliative care, delivered interprofessionally by generalist health professionals, is essential to ensure equitable access. Educational competencies and clinical practice guidelines prepare these clinicians to integrate palliative care principles into practice. PURPOSE: The purpose of this project was to evaluate how the AACN Essentials prepares entry-level professional nursing students to function as members of the interdisciplinary primary palliative care team, as described in the National Consensus Project (NCP) for Quality Palliative Care Clinical Practice Guidelines. METHOD: A team of nurse educators utilized a crosswalk mapping process with the Essentials domains, the Competencies and Recommendations for Educating Undergraduate Nursing Students (CARES) statements, and the NCP Guidelines. RESULTS: All eight of the NCP domains align with the Essentials. There were clear areas of overlap between the documents and unique areas of emphasis. CONCLUSION: This project identifies how educational competencies and clinical guidelines can guide competent palliative care practice. It also describes how nurses are prepared to collaborate in the delivery of palliative care.

Implanted Port Access in the Emergency Department: A Unit-Level Feasibility Study of a Nurse-Led Port Access Algorithm.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to determine the impact of an emergency nurse-led implanted port access algorithm for ED patients with implanted ports admitted to the hospital. METHODS: A feasibility study evaluated the implementation of a central line-associated bloodstream infection algorithm in the emergency department over a 1-month study period. Emergency nurses received central line-associated bloodstream infection education and training for port access algorithm implementation. Pre- and postimplementation surveys measured the nurses' knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding central line-associated bloodstream infections. The nurses' perceptions of the algorithm were assessed pre- and postimplementation. ED patient port access and central line-associated bloodstream infection rates were compared with preimplementation rates. RESULTS: Emergency nurses (N = 32) received central line-associated bloodstream infection education and algorithm training. Pre- and postimplementation as well as knowledge, attitude, and behavior surveys were completed by 59% (n = 19) of the nursing staff. Knowledge regarding central line-associated bloodstream infections significantly improved, t(19) = -4.8, P < .001. The nurses' pre- and postimplementation attitude and behavior scores did not differ significantly. They expressed no concerns regarding implementation of the algorithm; 89% (n = 17) reported that the algorithm "fit well" with the ED workflow, and 21% (n = 4) integrated the patient's decision regarding venous access into their shift report. The ED port access incidence during the study period was 17.6% (n = 3), compared with 83.3% (n = 15) in the month before the study. DISCUSSION: The emergency nurse-led port access algorithm decreased ED port access rates. The nurses' pre- and postimplementation knowledge of central line-associated bloodstream infections increased. The emergency nurse-led port access algorithm empowered emergency nurses to educate their patients on implanted port access and decreased central line use.

Outcomes of patients with loco-regionally recurrent or new primary squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck treated with curative intent reirradiation at Mayo Clinic.

BACKGROUND: We reviewed outcomes of patients with loco-regionally recurrent (LRR) or new primary (NP) squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) treated at our institution with reirradiation (RRT). METHODS: Patients received definitive RRT (DRRT) or post-operative RRT following salvage surgery (PRRT) from 2003 to 2011. Measured survival outcomes included loco-regional relapse free survival (LRFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Among 81 patients (PRRT, 42; DRRT, 39), median PRRT and DRRT doses were 60 Gy (12-70 Gy) and 69.6 Gy (48-76.8 Gy). The majority of patients received IMRT-based RRT (n = 77, 95 %). With median follow-up of 78.1 months (95 % CI, 56-96.8 months), 2-year OS was 53 % with PRRT and 48 % with DRRT (p = 0.12); 23 % of patients were alive at last follow-up. LRFS at 2 years was 60 %, and did not differ significantly between PRRT and DRRT groups. A trend toward inferior LRFS was noted among patients receiving chemotherapy with RRT versus RRT alone (p = 0.06). Late serious toxicities were uncommon, including osteoradionecrosis (2 patients) and carotid artery bleeding (1 patient, non-fatal). CONCLUSIONS: OS of PRRT- and DRRT-treated patients in this series appears superior to the published literature. We used IMRT for the majority of patients, in contrast to several series and trials previously reported, which may account in part for this difference. Future studies should seek to improve outcomes among patients with LRR/NP SCCHN via alternative therapeutic modalities such as proton radiotherapy and by incorporating novel systemic agents.