Impact of a change in universal gloving protocol on rates of central line-related bloodstream infection, Clostridioides difficile, and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus.

In this retrospective cohort of adult hematology-oncology and transplant patients, discontinuation of universal gloving did not result in significant changes in rates of central line-associated bloodstream infection, Clostridioides difficile infection, or vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus colonization. Active surveillance and subsequent isolation may be a viable alternative strategy to universal precautions.

The validity of validation: A practical assessment.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the time to achieve reliable reporting of electronic health record data compared with manual reporting during validation. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of aggregate data for number of patients present, number of patients with a central venous catheter, and number of patients with an indwelling urinary catheter during validation of an electronic health record reporting tool. SETTING: Mayo Clinic Health System in Wisconsin. PARTICIPANTS: Mayo Clinic infection prevention and control staff, unit champions, and all inpatients. METHODS: We simultaneously collected electronic and manual counts of device data and compared discrepancies to determine their source. If manual data entry was incorrect, manual counts were coded as inaccurate. If electronically abstracted data did not reflect an accurate count, errors were attributed to the system. Data were compared using standard statistical methods. RESULTS: Within 30 days after beginning validation of electronic reporting for central venous catheter days and urinary catheter days, electronic counts were durably more reliable than manual counts. CONCLUSIONS: Manual validation for capturing and reporting electronic data and reporting can be shorter than the 90 days currently mandated by National Healthcare Safety Network criteria. Compared with a longer validation period, a shorter validation period may yield substantial savings while achieving the same validity.

Postoperative Surgical Site Infections: Understanding the Discordance Between Surveillance Systems.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize agreement in the ascertainment of surgical site infections (SSIs) between the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN), and administrative data. BACKGROUND: The NSQIP, NHSN, and administrative data are the primary systems used to monitor and report SSIs for the purpose of quality control and benchmarking of hospitals and surgeons. These systems have different methods for identifying SSIs. METHODS: We queried the NHSN, NSQIP, and administrative data systems for patients who had an operation at 1 of 4 hospitals within a single health system between January 2013 and September 2015. The detection of an SSI during a postoperative hospitalization was the outcome of analysis. Any SSI detected by one (or more) of these systems was analyzed by 2 reviewers to determine the presence of discrete elements of documentation constituting evidence of SSI. Concordance between the 3 systems (NHSN, NSQIP, and administrative data) was analyzed using Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: After application of appropriate exclusion criteria, a cohort of 9447 inpatient operations was analyzed. In total, 130 SSIs were detected by 1 or more of the 3 systems, with reported SSI rates of 0.5% (NHSN), 0.7% (administrative data), and 1.0% (NSQIP). Of these 130 SSIs, only 17 SSIs were reported by all 3 systems. The concordance between these 3 systems was moderate (kappa values NSQIP-NHSN = 0.50 [0.40-0.60], administrative-NHSN = 0.36 [0.24-0.47], and administrative-NSQIP = 0.47 [0.38-0.57]). Chart review found that reasons for discordance were related to issues of different criteria as well as inaccuracies. CONCLUSION: There is significant discordance in the determination of SSIs reported by the NHSN, NSQIP, and administrative data. The differences and limitations of each of these systems have to be recognized, especially when using these data for quality reports and pay for performance.

The clinical case for proton beam therapy.

Over the past 20 years, several proton beam treatment programs have been implemented throughout the United States. Increasingly, the number of new programs under development is growing. Proton beam therapy has the potential for improving tumor control and survival through dose escalation. It also has potential for reducing harm to normal organs through dose reduction. However, proton beam therapy is more costly than conventional x-ray therapy. This increased cost may be offset by improved function, improved quality of life, and reduced costs related to treating the late effects of therapy. Clinical research opportunities are abundant to determine which patients will gain the most benefit from proton beam therapy. We review the clinical case for proton beam therapy. SUMMARY SENTENCE: Proton beam therapy is a technically advanced and promising form of radiation therapy.