Impact of Mandatory Infectious Disease Specialist Approval on Hospital-Onset Clostridioides difficile Infection Rates and Testing Appropriateness.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate Clostridioides difficile testing is common in the hospital setting, leading to potential overdiagnosis of infection when single-step nucleic acid amplification testing is used. The potential role of infectious diseases (ID) specialists in enforcing appropriate C. difficile testing is unclear. METHODS: At a single 697-bed academic hospital, we performed a retrospective study from 1 March 2012 to 31 December 2019 comparing hospital-onset C. difficile infection (HO-CDI) rates during 3 consecutive time periods: baseline 1 (37 months, no decision support), baseline 2 (32 months, computer decision support), and intervention period (25 months, mandatory ID specialist approval for all C. difficile testing on hospital day 4 or later). We used a discontinuous growth model to assess the impact of the intervention on HO-CDI rates. RESULTS: During the study period, we evaluated C. difficile infections across 331 180 admission and 1 172 015 patient-days. During the intervention period, a median of 1 HO-CDI test approval request per day (range, 0-6 alerts/day) was observed; adherence by providers with obtaining approval was 85%. The HO-CDI rate was 10.2, 10.4, and 4.3 events per 10 000 patient-days for each consecutive time period, respectively. In adjusted analysis, the HO-CDI rate did not differ significantly between the 2 baseline periods (P = .14) but did differ between the baseline 2 period and intervention period (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: An ID-led C. difficile testing approval process was feasible and was associated with a >50% decrease in HO-CDI rates, due to enforcement of appropriate testing.

Active screening and interfacility communication of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) in a tertiary-care hospital.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals may implement admission screening cultures and may review transfer documentation to identify patients colonized with carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) to implement isolation precautions; however, outcomes and logistical considerations have not been well described. METHODS: At an academic hospital in Chicago, we retrospectively studied the implementation and outcomes of CRE admission screening from 2013 to 2016 during 2 periods. During period 1, we implemented active CRE rectal culture screening for all adults patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) and for those transferred from outside facilities to general wards. During period 2, screening was restricted only to adults transferred from outside facilities. For a subset of transferred patients who were previously reported to the health department as CRE positive, we reviewed transfer paperwork for appropriate documentation of CRE. RESULTS: Overall, 11,757 patients qualified for screening; rectal cultures were performed for 8,569 patients (73%). Rates of CRE screen positivity differed by period, previous facility type (if transferred), and current inpatient location. A higher combined CRE positivity rate was detected in the medical and surgical ICUs among period 2 patients (3.3%) versus all other ward-period comparisons (P<.001). Among 13 transferred patients previously known to be CRE colonized, appropriate CRE transfer documentation was available for only 4 patients (31%). CONCLUSIONS: Active screening for CRE is feasible, and screening patients transferred from outside facilities to the medical or surgical ICU resulted in the highest screen positivity rate. Furthermore, CRE carriage was inconsistently documented in transfer paperwork, suggesting that admission screening or enhanced inter-facility communication are needed to improve the identification of CRE-colonized patients.