RESUMO
Introduction: Modern laboratory techniques cannot differentiate between Clostridium difficile colonization and infection; therefore, testing must be indicated clinically. To reduce hospital-onset of C. difficile infections (HO-CDI), Ascension Via Christi Hospitals (AVCH) in Wichita intervened in three stages by introducing: 1) a C. diflcile testing algorithm; 2) an electronic medical record (EMR)-based decision support system to enforce said algorithm; and 3) phone calls from the infection prevention department to providers to discontinue tests not collected within 24 hours of the order. The goal of this study was to determine if these interventions improved the HO-CDI rate. Methods: At AVCH, the three study periods were compared: baseline with algorithm training only, the EMR intervention, and the EMR intervention with additional phone calls (EMR with phone calls). Data were abstracted from the hospital EMR. Results: A total of 311 charts were reviewed. Adherence to the algorithm increased from 34% at baseline to 52% after the EMR intervention (p = 0.010). During the EMR with phone calls period, more tests were discontinued (87%; n = 39) compared to baseline (54%; n = 15) and EMR (54%; n = 15; p = 0.003). The HO-CDI rate ranged from 8.5 cases per 10,000 patient-days at baseline, to 7.9 during EMR, to 4.0 during EMR with phone calls (p = 0.007). Conclusions: The EMR and EMR with phone call interventions were associated with a significant decrease in the HO-CDI rate and an increase in provider adherence to the algorithm.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate is increasingly being performed at academic centers but implementation in community based health systems has lagged and literature regarding clinical impact in this setting is limited. We describe our experience developing a community based prostate magnetic resonance imaging program, including the evolution of interpretation and reporting methods, and the resulting clinical impact during a period of more than 5 years (August 2010 to December 2015). METHODS: Data collected for prostate magnetic resonance imaging included demographic, clinical, scanning, pathology and treatment/management information. Suspicion level on prostate magnetic resonance imaging was correlated with pathology results when available. Outcomes were compared across 3 reporting eras, ie early, mid and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2. RESULTS: A total of 537 prostate magnetic resonance images were obtained for diagnosed prostate cancer (60%) or screening (37%). During the study period the number of scans and ordering physicians increased. The proportion of patients with suspected extraprostatic extension (17.5%), lymph node metastasis (6.9%) and bone/other metastasis (4.3%) on prostate magnetic resonance imaging remained relatively constant. When stratified by era, there was a significant increase in low suspicion studies (p = 0.0002) and a trend toward a significant increase in cancer detection at biopsy (p = 0.09), reflecting increased specificity in the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2 era. CONCLUSIONS: While staging information with prostate magnetic resonance imaging was accurate early in the implementation of the program, lesion characterization improved with use of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2 criteria and standardized reporting. Regular multidisciplinary participation in community based prostate magnetic resonance imaging programs may maximize clinical impact.