RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Empiric antibiotic use among hospitalized adults in the United States (US) is largely undescribed. Identifying factors associated with broad-spectrum empiric therapy may inform antibiotic stewardship interventions and facilitate benchmarking. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of adults discharged in 2019 from 928 hospitals in the Premier Healthcare Database. "Empiric" gram-negative antibiotics were defined by administration before day 3 of hospitalization. Multivariable logistic regression models with random effects by hospital were used to evaluate associations between patient and hospital characteristics and empiric receipt of broad-spectrum, compared to narrow-spectrum, gram-negative antibiotics. RESULTS: Of 8 017 740 hospitalized adults, 2 928 657 (37%) received empiric gram-negative antibiotics. Among 1 781 306 who received broad-spectrum therapy, 30% did not have a common infectious syndrome present on admission (pneumonia, urinary tract infection, sepsis, or bacteremia), surgery, or an intensive care unit stay in the empiric window. Holding other factors constant, males were 22% more likely (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.22 [95% confidence interval, 1.22-1.23]), and all non-White racial groups 6%-13% less likely (aOR range, 0.87-0.94), to receive broad-spectrum therapy. There were significant prescribing differences by region, with the highest adjusted odds of broad-spectrum therapy in the US West South Central division. Even after model adjustment, there remained substantial interhospital variability: Among patients receiving empiric therapy, the probability of receiving broad-spectrum antibiotics varied as much as 34+ percentage points due solely to the admitting hospital (95% interval of probabilities: 43%-77%). CONCLUSIONS: Empiric gram-negative antibiotic use is highly variable across US regions, and there is high, unexplained interhospital variability. Sex and racial disparities in the receipt of broad-spectrum therapy warrant further investigation.
Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos , Neumonía , Masculino , Adulto , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Estudios Retrospectivos , Hospitalización , Neumonía/tratamiento farmacológico , HospitalesRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The relationship between common patient characteristics, such as sex and metabolic comorbidities, and mortality from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains incompletely understood. Emerging evidence suggests that metabolic risk factors may also vary by age. This study aimed to determine the association between common patient characteristics and mortality across age-groups among COVID-19 inpatients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients discharged from hospitals in the Premier Healthcare Database between April-June 2020. Inpatients were identified using COVID-19 ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes. A priori-defined exposures were sex and present-on-admission hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and interactions between age and these comorbidities. Controlling for additional confounders, we evaluated relationships between these variables and in-hospital mortality in a log-binomial model. RESULTS: Among 66 646 (6.5%) admissions with a COVID-19 diagnosis, across 613 U.S. hospitals, 12 388 (18.6%) died in-hospital. In multivariable analysis, male sex was independently associated with 30% higher mortality risk (aRR, 1.30, 95% CI: 1.26-1.34). Diabetes without chronic complications was not a risk factor at any age (aRR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.96-1.06), and hypertension without chronic complications was a risk factor only in 20-39 year-olds (aRR, 1.68, 95% CI: 1.17-2.40). Diabetes with chronic complications, hypertension with chronic complications, and obesity were risk factors in most age-groups, with highest relative risks among 20-39 year-olds (respective aRRs 1.79, 2.33, 1.92; P-values ≤ .002). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized men with COVID-19 are at increased risk of death across all ages. Hypertension, diabetes with chronic complications, and obesity demonstrated age-dependent effects, with the highest relative risks among adults aged 20-39.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Adulto , Prueba de COVID-19 , Hospitales , Humanos , Pacientes Internos , Masculino , Estudios Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2RESUMEN
We report a case of septic shock attributable to monomicrobial bloodstream infection secondary to Wohlfahrtiimonas chitiniclastica infection. This case suggests that W. chitiniclastica likely possesses the virulence to cause severe disease. Culture-independent techniques were essential in the identification of this organism, which enabled selection of appropriate therapy.
Asunto(s)
Bacteriemia , Gammaproteobacteria , Infecciones por Bacterias Gramnegativas , Xanthomonadaceae , Bacteriemia/diagnóstico , Bacteriemia/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones por Bacterias Gramnegativas/diagnóstico , Infecciones por Bacterias Gramnegativas/tratamiento farmacológico , Humanos , MasculinoRESUMEN
Hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) often receive antibiotics for suspected bacterial coinfection. We estimated the incidence of bacterial coinfection and secondary infection in COVID-19 using clinical diagnoses to determine how frequently antibiotics are administered when bacterial infection is absent. We performed a retrospective cohort study of inpatients with COVID-19 present on admission to hospitals in the Premier Healthcare Database between April and June 2020. Bacterial infections were defined using ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes and associated "present on admission" coding. Coinfections were defined by bacterial infection present on admission, while secondary infections were defined by bacterial infection that developed after admission. Coinfection and secondary infection were not mutually exclusive. A total of 18.5% of 64,961 COVID-19 patients (n = 12,040) presented with bacterial infection at admission, 3.8% (n = 2,506) developed secondary infection after admission, and 0.9% (n = 574) had both; 76.3% (n = 49,551) received an antibiotic while hospitalized, including 71% of patients who had no diagnosis of bacterial infection. Secondary bacterial infection occurred in 5.7% of patients receiving steroids in the first 2 days of hospitalization, 9.9% receiving tocilizumab in the first 2 days of hospitalization, and 10.3% of patients receiving both. After adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics, bacterial coinfection (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11 to 1.20) and secondary infection (aRR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.82 to 2.04) were both independently associated with increased mortality. Although 1 in 5 inpatients with COVID-19 presents with bacterial infection, secondary infections in the hospital are uncommon. Most inpatients with COVID-19 receive antibiotic therapy, including 71% of those not diagnosed with bacterial infection.
Asunto(s)
Infecciones Bacterianas , COVID-19 , Coinfección , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Infecciones Bacterianas/tratamiento farmacológico , Coinfección/tratamiento farmacológico , Hospitalización , Humanos , Pacientes Internos , Estudios Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Sepsis is the leading cause of in-hospital death. The SEP-1 sepsis bundle is a protocol for early sepsis care that requires providers to diagnose and treat sepsis quickly. Limited evidence suggests that adherence to the sepsis bundle is lower in cases of hospital-onset sepsis. OBJECTIVE: To compare sepsis bundle adherence in hospital-onset vs. community-onset sepsis. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using multivariable analysis of clinical data. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 4658 inpatients age 18 or older were identified by diagnosis codes consistent with sepsis or disseminated infection. SETTING: Four university hospitals in California between 2014 and 2016. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was adherence to key components of the sepsis bundle defined by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in their core measure, SEP-1. Covariates included clinical characteristics related to the patient, infection, and pathogen. KEY RESULTS: Compared with community-onset, cases of hospital-onset sepsis were less likely to receive SEP-1 adherent care (relative risk 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.29-0.38, p < 0.001). With the exception of vasopressors (RR 1.11, p = 0.002), each component of SEP-1 evaluated-blood cultures (RR 0.76, p < 0.001), serum lactate (RR 0.51, p < 0001), broad-spectrum antibiotics (RR 0.62, p < 0.001), intravenous fluids (0.47, p < 0.001), and follow-up lactate (RR 0.71, p < 0.001)-was less likely to be performed within the recommended time frame in hospital-onset sepsis. Within the hospital, cases of hospital-onset sepsis arising on the ward were less likely to receive SEP-1-adherent care than were cases arising in the intensive care unit (RR 0.68, p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Inpatients with hospital-onset sepsis receive different management than individuals with community-onset sepsis. It remains to be determined whether system-level factors, provider-level factors, or factors related to measurement explain the observed variation in care or whether variation in care affects outcomes.
Asunto(s)
Medicare , Sepsis , Adolescente , Anciano , Adhesión a Directriz , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Hospitales , Humanos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Sepsis/diagnóstico , Sepsis/epidemiología , Sepsis/terapia , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Risk factors for osteoporotic fracture as well as inpatient utilization and mortality have not been thoroughly studied in patients with cirrhosis. We analyzed data from a national database to determine fracture risk in patients with cirrhosis, specific risk factors, and the effect of fractures on health care utilization. METHODS: We performed an observational study using serial cross-sectional data to examine fracture-related hospitalizations of patients with cirrhosis using the National Inpatient Sample from 2012 to 2013. We collected data on fracture-related hospitalizations and utilization in the form of length of stay (LOS), total hospital costs, and inpatient mortality. We used multivariate regression to determine risk factors for fracture and fracture-related mortality. RESULTS: Patients with cirrhosis and an osteoporotic fracture had a mean LOS of 10.4 days and incurred $26,582 per hospitalization, which were statistically different from noncirrhotic patients with fracture (LOS: 6.60 d, cost: $17,918) and cirrhotic patients without fracture (LOS: 7.84 d, $18,912). Malnutrition was associated with increased odds of fracture [odds ratio (OR), 1.29; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.20-1.39] and inpatient mortality (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.12-1.76). Obesity was protective against both fracture (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71-0.85) and fracture-related mortality (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.59-1.14). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalizations for osteoporotic fractures in patients with cirrhosis are a significant source of health care burden and mortality. More attention should be paid to screening patients with cirrhosis for low bone mass. Malnutrition is associated with increased fracture risk and fracture-related mortality, representing a modifiable risk factor worthy of addressing in patients with cirrhosis.
Asunto(s)
Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricos , Cirrosis Hepática/complicaciones , Fracturas Osteoporóticas/epidemiología , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Estudios de Cohortes , Estudios Transversales , Bases de Datos Factuales , Femenino , Costos de Hospital/estadística & datos numéricos , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Hospitalización/economía , Humanos , Tiempo de Internación/estadística & datos numéricos , Cirrosis Hepática/epidemiología , Cirrosis Hepática/mortalidad , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Fracturas Osteoporóticas/etiología , Fracturas Osteoporóticas/mortalidad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
Melioidosis is a potentially fatal infection caused by the bacterium Burkholderia pseudomallei Clinical diagnosis of melioidosis can be challenging since there is no pathognomonic clinical syndrome, and the organism is often misidentified by methods used routinely in clinical laboratories. Although the disease is more prevalent in Thailand and northern Australia, sporadic cases may be encountered in areas where it is not endemic, including the United States. Since the organism is considered a tier 1 select agent according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, clinical laboratories must be proficient at rapidly recognizing isolates suspicious for B. pseudomallei, be able to safely perform necessary rule-out tests, and to refer suspect isolates to Laboratory Response Network reference laboratories. In this minireview, we report a case of melioidosis encountered at our institution and discuss the laboratory challenges encountered when dealing with clinical isolates suspicious for B. pseudomallei or clinical specimens from suspected melioidosis cases.
Asunto(s)
Aneurisma Infectado/cirugía , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Técnicas de Tipificación Bacteriana/métodos , Burkholderia pseudomallei/aislamiento & purificación , Melioidosis/diagnóstico , Melioidosis/tratamiento farmacológico , Anciano , Aneurisma Infectado/microbiología , Burkholderia pseudomallei/clasificación , Burkholderia pseudomallei/efectos de los fármacos , Farmacorresistencia Bacteriana Múltiple , Femenino , Humanos , Melioidosis/microbiología , Pruebas de Sensibilidad MicrobianaRESUMEN
Objective: This study aimed to assess the impact of clinical decision support (CDS) to improve ordering of multiplex gastrointestinal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing panel ("GI panel"). Design: Single-center, retrospective, before-after study. Setting: Tertiary care Veteran's Affairs (VA) Medical Center provides inpatient, outpatient, and residential care. Patients: All patients tested with a GI panel between June 22, 2022 and April 20, 2023. Intervention: We designed a CDS questionnaire in the electronic medical record (EMR) to guide appropriate ordering of the GI panel. A "soft stop" reminder at the point of ordering prompted providers to confirm five appropriateness criteria: 1) documented diarrhea, 2) no recent receipt of laxatives, 3) C. difficile is not the leading suspected cause of diarrhea, 4) time period since a prior test is >14 days or prior positive test is >4 weeks and 5) duration of hospitalization <72 hours. The CDS was implemented in November 2022. Results: Compared to the pre-implementation period (n = 136), fewer tests were performed post-implementation (n = 92) with an IRR of 0.61 (p = 0.003). Inappropriate ordering based on laxative use or undocumented diarrhea decreased (IRR 0.37, p = 0.012 and IRR 0.25, p = 0.08, respectively). However, overall inappropriate ordering and outcome measures did not significantly differ before and after the intervention. Conclusions: Implementation of CDS in the EMR decreased testing and inappropriate ordering based on use of laxatives or undocumented diarrhea. However, inappropriate ordering of tests overall remained high post-intervention, signaling the need for continued diagnostic stewardship efforts.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Hospital-onset bacteraemia and fungaemia (HOB) is being explored as a surveillance and quality metric. The objectives of the current study were to determine sources and preventability of HOB in hospitalised patients in the USA and to identify factors associated with perceived preventability. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of HOB events at 10 academic and three community hospitals using structured chart review. HOB was defined as a blood culture on or after hospital day 4 with growth of one or more bacterial or fungal organisms. HOB events were stratified by commensal and non-commensal organisms. Medical resident physicians, infectious disease fellows or infection preventionists reviewed charts to determine HOB source, and infectious disease physicians with training in infection prevention/hospital epidemiology rated preventability from 1 to 6 (1=definitely preventable to 6=definitely not preventable) using a structured guide. Ratings of 1-3 were collectively considered 'potentially preventable' and 4-6 'potentially not preventable'. RESULTS: Among 1789 HOB events with non-commensal organisms, gastrointestinal (including neutropenic translocation) (35%) and endovascular (32%) were the most common sources. Overall, 636/1789 (36%) non-commensal and 238/320 (74%) commensal HOB events were rated potentially preventable. In logistic regression analysis among non-commensal HOB events, events attributed to intravascular catheter-related infection, indwelling urinary catheter-related infection and surgical site infection had higher odds of being rated preventable while events with neutropenia, immunosuppression, gastrointestinal sources, polymicrobial cultures and previous positive blood culture in the same admission had lower odds of being rated preventable, compared with events without those attributes. Of 636 potentially preventable non-commensal HOB events, 47% were endovascular in origin, followed by gastrointestinal, respiratory and urinary sources; approximately 40% of those events would not be captured through existing healthcare-associated infection surveillance. DISCUSSION: Factors identified as associated with higher or lower preventability should be used to guide inclusion, exclusion and risk adjustment for an HOB-related quality metric.
Asunto(s)
Bacteriemia , Infección Hospitalaria , Fungemia , Humanos , Estudios Transversales , Bacteriemia/epidemiología , Bacteriemia/prevención & control , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Infección Hospitalaria/prevención & control , Infección Hospitalaria/epidemiología , Masculino , Femenino , Fungemia/epidemiología , Persona de Mediana Edad , Indicadores de Calidad de la Atención de Salud , AncianoRESUMEN
Coronavirus disease (COVID)-related misinformation is prevalent online, including on social media. The purpose of this study was to explore factors associated with user engagement with COVID-related misinformation on the social media platform, TikTok. A sample of TikTok videos associated with the hashtag #coronavirus was downloaded on September 20, 2020. Misinformation was evaluated on a scale (low, medium, and high) using a codebook developed by experts in infectious diseases. Multivariable modeling was used to evaluate factors associated with number of views and presence of user comments indicating intention to change behavior. One hundred and sixty-six TikTok videos were identified and reviewed. Moderate misinformation was present in 36 (22%) videos viewed a median of 6.8 million times (interquartile range [IQR] 3.6-16 million), and high-level misinformation was present in 11 (7%) videos viewed a median of 9.4 million times (IQR 5.1-18 million). After controlling for characteristics and content, videos containing moderate misinformation were less likely to generate a user response indicating intended behavior change. By contrast, videos containing high-level misinformation were less likely to be viewed but demonstrated a nonsignificant trend towards higher engagement among viewers. COVID-related misinformation is less frequently viewed on TikTok but more likely to engage viewers. Public health authorities can combat misinformation on social media by posting informative content of their own.
RESUMEN
Misdiagnosis of bacterial pneumonia increases risk of exposure to inappropriate antibiotics and adverse events. We developed a diagnosis calculator (https://calculator.testingwisely.com) to inform clinical diagnosis of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia using objective indicators, including incidence of disease, risk factors, and sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests, that were identified through literature review.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Among pregnant people, COVID-19 can lead to adverse outcomes, but the specific pregnancy outcomes that are affected by the disease are unclear. In addition, the effect of the severity of COVID-19 on pregnancy outcomes has not been clearly identified. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the associations between COVID-19 with and without viral pneumonia and cesarean delivery, preterm delivery, preeclampsia, and stillbirth. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study (April 2020-May 2021) of deliveries between 20 and 42 weeks of gestation from US hospitals in the Premier Healthcare Database. The primary outcomes were cesarean delivery, preterm delivery, preeclampsia, and stillbirth. We used a viral pneumonia diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases -Tenth-Clinical Modification codes J12.8 and J12.9) to categorize patients by severity of COVID-19. Pregnancies were categorized into 3 groups: NOCOVID (no COVID-19), COVID (COVID-19 without viral pneumonia), and PNA (COVID-19 with viral pneumonia). Groups were balanced for risk factors by propensity-score matching. RESULTS: A total of 814,649 deliveries from 853 US hospitals were included (NOCOVID: n=799,132; COVID: n=14,744; PNA: n=773). After propensity-score matching, the risks of cesarean delivery and preeclampsia were similar in the COVID group compared with the NOCOVID group (matched risk ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.00; and matched risk ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.07; respectively). The risks of preterm delivery and stillbirth were greater in the COVID group than in the NOCOVID group (matched risk ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.19; and matched risk ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.66; respectively). The risks of cesarean delivery, preeclampsia, and preterm delivery were higher in the PNA group than in the COVID group (matched risk ratio, 1.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.53-2.03; matched risk ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.74; and matched risk ratio, 3.33; 95% confidence interval, 2.56-4.33; respectively). The risk of stillbirth was similar in the PNA and COVID group (matched risk ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-3.44). CONCLUSION: Within a large national cohort of hospitalized pregnant people, we found that the risk of some adverse delivery outcomes was elevated in people with COVID-19 with and without viral pneumonia, with much higher risks in the group with viral pneumonia.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Neumonía Viral , Preeclampsia , Nacimiento Prematuro , Embarazo , Recién Nacido , Femenino , Humanos , Mortinato , COVID-19/complicaciones , Estudios Retrospectivos , Preeclampsia/diagnóstico , Neumonía Viral/diagnósticoRESUMEN
Background: Empiric Gram-negative antibiotics are frequently changed in response to new information. To inform antibiotic stewardship, we sought to identify predictors of antibiotic changes using information knowable before microbiological test results. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study. Survival-time models were used to evaluate clinical factors associated with antibiotic escalation and de-escalation (defined as an increase or decrease, respectively, in the spectrum or number of Gram-negative antibiotics within 5â days of initiation). Spectrum was categorized as narrow, broad, extended or protected. Tjur's D statistic was used to estimate the discriminatory power of groups of variables. Results: In 2019, 2â751â969 patients received empiric Gram-negative antibiotics at 920 study hospitals. Antibiotic escalation occurred in 6.5%, and 49.2% underwent de-escalation; 8.8% were changed to an equivalent regimen. Escalation was more likely when empiric antibiotics were narrow-spectrum (HR 19.0 relative to protected; 95% CI: 17.9-20.1), broad-spectrum (HR 10.3; 95% CI: 9.78-10.9) or extended-spectrum (HR 3.49; 95% CI: 3.30-3.69). Patients with sepsis present on admission (HR 1.94; 95% CI: 1.91-1.96) and urinary tract infection present on admission (HR 1.36; 95% CI: 1.35-1.38) were more likely to undergo antibiotic escalation than patients without these syndromes. De-escalation was more likely with combination therapy (HR 2.62 per additional agent; 95% CI: 2.61-2.63) or narrow-spectrum empiric antibiotics (HR 1.67 relative to protected; 95% CI: 1.65-1.69). Choice of empiric regimen accounted for 51% and 74% of the explained variation in antibiotic escalation and de-escalation, respectively. Conclusions: Empiric Gram-negative antibiotics are frequently de-escalated early in hospitalization, whereas escalation is infrequent. Changes are primarily driven by choice of empiric therapy and presence of infectious syndromes.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) respiratory panels are rapid, highly sensitive tests for viral and bacterial pathogens that cause respiratory infections. In this study, we (1) described best practices in the implementation of respiratory panels based on expert perspectives and (2) identified tools for diagnostic stewardship to enhance the usefulness of testing. METHODS: We conducted a survey of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America Research Network to explore current and future approaches to diagnostic stewardship of multiplex PCR respiratory panels. RESULTS: In total, 41 sites completed the survey (response rate, 50%). Multiplex PCR respiratory panels were perceived as supporting accurate diagnoses at 35 sites (85%), supporting more efficient patient care at 33 sites (80%), and improving patient outcomes at 23 sites (56%). Thirteen sites (32%) reported that testing may support diagnosis or patient care without improving patient outcomes. Furthermore, 24 sites (58%) had implemented diagnostic stewardship, with a median of 3 interventions (interquartile range, 1-4) per site. The interventions most frequently reported as effective were structured order sets to guide test ordering (4 sites), restrictions on test ordering based on clinician or patient characteristics (3 sites), and structured communication of results (2 sites). Education was reported as "helpful" but with limitations (3 sites). CONCLUSIONS: Many hospital epidemiologists and experts in infectious diseases perceive multiplex PCR respiratory panels as useful tests that can improve diagnosis, patient care, and patient outcomes. However, institutions frequently employ diagnostic stewardship to enhance the usefulness of testing, including most commonly clinical decision support to guide test ordering.
Asunto(s)
Infecciones del Sistema Respiratorio , Humanos , Infecciones del Sistema Respiratorio/diagnóstico , Infecciones del Sistema Respiratorio/epidemiología , Reacción en Cadena de la Polimerasa Multiplex , Atención a la SaludRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Hospital readmission is unsettling to patients and caregivers, costly to the healthcare system, and may leave patients at additional risk for hospital-acquired infections and other complications. We evaluated the association between comorbidities present during index coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalization and the risk of 30-day readmission. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We used the Premier Healthcare database to perform a retrospective cohort study of COVID-19 hospitalized patients discharged between April 2020 and March 2021 who were followed for 30 days after discharge to capture readmission to the same hospital. RESULTS: Among the 331,136 unique patients in the index cohort, 36,827 (11.1%) had at least 1 all-cause readmission within 30 days. Of the readmitted patients, 11,382 (3.4%) were readmitted with COVID-19 as the primary diagnosis. In the multivariable model adjusted for demographics, hospital characteristics, coexisting comorbidities, and COVID-19 severity, each additional comorbidity category was associated with an 18% increase in the odds of all-cause readmission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17-1.19) and a 10% increase in the odds of readmission with COVID-19 as the primary readmission diagnosis (aOR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.09-1.11). Lymphoma (aOR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.58-2.19), renal failure (aOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.25-1.40), and chronic lung disease (aOR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.24-1.34) were most associated with readmission for COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Readmission within 30 days was common among COVID-19 survivors. A better understanding of comorbidities associated with readmission will aid hospital care teams in improving postdischarge care. Additionally, it will assist hospital epidemiologists and quality administrators in planning resources, allocating staff, and managing bed-flow issues to improve patient care and safety.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Readmisión del Paciente , Humanos , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Estudios Retrospectivos , Cuidados Posteriores , Alta del Paciente , COVID-19/epidemiología , Factores de Riesgo , Hospitalización , ComorbilidadRESUMEN
Importance: Antibiotic treatment for asymptomatic bacteriuria is not recommended in guidelines but is a major driver of inappropriate antibiotic use. Objective: To evaluate whether clinician culture and personality traits are associated with a predisposition toward inappropriate prescribing. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study involved secondary analysis of a previously completed survey. A total of 723 primary care clinicians in active practice in Texas, the Mid-Atlantic, and the Pacific Northwest, including physicians and advanced practice clinicians, were surveyed from June 1, 2018, to November 26, 2019, regarding their approach to a hypothetical patient with asymptomatic bacteriuria. Clinician culture was represented by training background and region of practice. Attitudes and cognitive characteristics were represented using validated instruments to assess numeracy, risk-taking preferences, burnout, and tendency to maximize care. Data were analyzed from November 8, 2021, to March 29, 2022. Interventions: The survey described a male patient with asymptomatic bacteriuria and changes in urine character. Clinicians were asked to indicate whether they would prescribe antibiotics. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was self-reported willingness to prescribe antibiotics for asymptomatic bacteriuria. Willingness to prescribe antibiotics was hypothesized to be associated with clinician characteristics, background, and attitudes, including orientation on the Medical Maximizer-Minimizer Scale. Individuals with a stronger orientation toward medical maximizing prefer treatment even when the value of treatment is ambiguous. Results: Of the 723 enrolled clinicians, 551 (median age, 32 years [IQR, 29-44 years]; 292 [53%] female; 296 [54%] White) completed the survey (76% response rate), including 288 resident physicians, 202 attending physicians, and 61 advanced practice clinicians. A total of 303 respondents (55%) were from the Mid-Atlantic, 136 (25%) were from Texas, and 112 (20%) were from the Pacific Northwest. A total of 392 clinicians (71% of respondents) indicated that they would prescribe antibiotic treatment for asymptomatic bacteriuria in the absence of an indication. In multivariable analyses, clinicians with a background in family medicine (odds ratio [OR], 2.93; 95% CI, 1.53-5.62) or a high score on the Medical Maximizer-Minimizer Scale (indicating stronger medical maximizing orientation; OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.38-3.09) were more likely to prescribe antibiotic treatment for asymptomatic bacteriuria. Resident physicians (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.85) and clinicians in the Pacific Northwest (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.33-0.72) were less likely to prescribe antibiotics for asymptomatic bacteriuria. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this survey study suggest that most primary care clinicians prescribe inappropriate antibiotic treatment for asymptomatic bacteriuria in the absence of risk factors. This tendency is more pronounced among family medicine physicians and medical maximizers and is less common among resident physicians and clinicians in the US Pacific Northwest. Clinician characteristics should be considered when designing antibiotic stewardship interventions.
Asunto(s)
Bacteriuria , Adulto , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Actitud del Personal de Salud , Bacteriuria/tratamiento farmacológico , Cognición , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina , Atención Primaria de SaludRESUMEN
Though multiplex respiratory pathogen panels (RPP) have high sensitivity, multiple tests are occasionally performed simultaneously or in rapid succession in an attempt to increase the yield. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of this practice. METHODS: "Multiple testing" was defined as >1 RPP performed within 12 hours on the same patient and specimen type. All cases of multiple testing for adults at two hospitals over a 5-year period were included. Chart review was performed to determine whether discordant results led to a clinical diagnosis or change in clinical management. RESULTS: Of 18,779 RPPs, 462 (2.5%) represented cases of multiple testing. Twenty-six of 462 cases (5.6%) produced discordant results. Five discordant results (1.1% of 462 multiple testing episodes) were associated with a clinical diagnosis, and 4 (0.9%) influenced clinical management. CONCLUSION: Multiple RPP testing facilitates clinical management in <1% of cases. Medical centers may consider de-implementing this practice.
Asunto(s)
Técnicas de Diagnóstico Molecular , Infecciones del Sistema Respiratorio , Adulto , Humanos , Técnicas de Diagnóstico Molecular/métodos , Infecciones del Sistema Respiratorio/diagnósticoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether pregnancy is an independent risk factor for in-hospital mortality among patients of reproductive age hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) viral pneumonia. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study (April 2020-May 2021) of 23,574 female inpatients aged 15-45 years with an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis code for COVID-19 discharged from 749 U.S. hospitals in the Premier Healthcare Database. We used a viral pneumonia diagnosis to select for patients with symptomatic COVID-19. The associations between pregnancy and in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and mechanical ventilation were analyzed using propensity score-matched conditional logistic regression. Models were matched for age, marital status, race and ethnicity, Elixhauser comorbidity score, payer, hospital number of beds, season of discharge, hospital region, obesity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, chronic pulmonary disease, deficiency anemias, depression, hypothyroidism, and liver disease. RESULTS: In-hospital mortality occurred in 1.1% of pregnant patients and 3.5% of nonpregnant patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and viral pneumonia (propensity score-matched odds ratio [OR] 0.39, 95% CI 0.25-0.63). The frequency of ICU admission for pregnant and nonpregnant patients was 22.0% and 17.7%, respectively (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.15-1.55). Mechanical ventilation was used in 8.7% of both pregnant and nonpregnant patients (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86-1.29). Among patients who were admitted to an ICU, mortality was lower for pregnant compared with nonpregnant patients (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.20-0.57), though mechanical ventilation rates were similar (35.7% vs 38.3%, OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.70-1.16). Among patients with mechanical ventilation, pregnant patients had a reduced risk of in-hospital mortality compared with nonpregnant patients (0.26, 95% CI 0.15-0.46). CONCLUSION: Despite a higher frequency of ICU admission, in-hospital mortality was lower among pregnant patients compared with nonpregnant patients with COVID-19 viral pneumonia, and these findings persisted after propensity score matching.