RESUMEN
Importance: Urinary tract infection (UTI) is the second most common infection leading to hospitalization and is often associated with gram-negative multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). Clinicians overuse extended-spectrum antibiotics although most patients are at low risk for MDRO infection. Safe strategies to limit overuse of empiric antibiotics are needed. Objective: To evaluate whether computerized provider order entry (CPOE) prompts providing patient- and pathogen-specific MDRO risk estimates could reduce use of empiric extended-spectrum antibiotics for treatment of UTI. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cluster-randomized trial in 59 US community hospitals comparing the effect of a CPOE stewardship bundle (education, feedback, and real-time and risk-based CPOE prompts; 29 hospitals) vs routine stewardship (n = 30 hospitals) on antibiotic selection during the first 3 hospital days (empiric period) in noncritically ill adults (≥18 years) hospitalized with UTI with an 18-month baseline (April 1, 2017-September 30, 2018) and 15-month intervention period (April 1, 2019-June 30, 2020). Interventions: CPOE prompts recommending empiric standard-spectrum antibiotics in patients ordered to receive extended-spectrum antibiotics who have low estimated absolute risk (<10%) of MDRO UTI, coupled with feedback and education. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was empiric (first 3 days of hospitalization) extended-spectrum antibiotic days of therapy. Secondary outcomes included empiric vancomycin and antipseudomonal days of therapy. Safety outcomes included days to intensive care unit (ICU) transfer and hospital length of stay. Outcomes were assessed using generalized linear mixed-effect models to assess differences between the baseline and intervention periods. Results: Among 127â¯403 adult patients (71â¯991 baseline and 55â¯412 intervention period) admitted with UTI in 59 hospitals, the mean (SD) age was 69.4 (17.9) years, 30.5% were male, and the median Elixhauser Comorbidity Index count was 4 (IQR, 2-5). Compared with routine stewardship, the group using CPOE prompts had a 17.4% (95% CI, 11.2%-23.2%) reduction in empiric extended-spectrum days of therapy (rate ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.77-0.89]; P < .001). The safety outcomes of mean days to ICU transfer (6.6 vs 7.0 days) and hospital length of stay (6.3 vs 6.5 days) did not differ significantly between the routine and intervention groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with routine stewardship, CPOE prompts providing real-time recommendations for standard-spectrum antibiotics for patients with low MDRO risk coupled with feedback and education significantly reduced empiric extended-spectrum antibiotic use among noncritically ill adults admitted with UTI without changing hospital length of stay or days to ICU transfers. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03697096.
Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos , Programas de Optimización del Uso de los Antimicrobianos , Sistemas de Entrada de Órdenes Médicas , Infecciones Urinarias , Adulto , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Farmacorresistencia Bacteriana Múltiple , Hospitales Comunitarios , Tiempo de Internación , Infecciones Urinarias/tratamiento farmacológico , Anciano de 80 o más AñosRESUMEN
Importance: Pneumonia is the most common infection requiring hospitalization and is a major reason for overuse of extended-spectrum antibiotics. Despite low risk of multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) infection, clinical uncertainty often drives initial antibiotic selection. Strategies to limit empiric antibiotic overuse for patients with pneumonia are needed. Objective: To evaluate whether computerized provider order entry (CPOE) prompts providing patient- and pathogen-specific MDRO infection risk estimates could reduce empiric extended-spectrum antibiotics for non-critically ill patients admitted with pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cluster-randomized trial in 59 US community hospitals comparing the effect of a CPOE stewardship bundle (education, feedback, and real-time MDRO risk-based CPOE prompts; n = 29 hospitals) vs routine stewardship (n = 30 hospitals) on antibiotic selection during the first 3 hospital days (empiric period) in non-critically ill adults (≥18 years) hospitalized with pneumonia. There was an 18-month baseline period from April 1, 2017, to September 30, 2018, and a 15-month intervention period from April 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020. Intervention: CPOE prompts recommending standard-spectrum antibiotics in patients ordered to receive extended-spectrum antibiotics during the empiric period who have low estimated absolute risk (<10%) of MDRO pneumonia, coupled with feedback and education. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was empiric (first 3 days of hospitalization) extended-spectrum antibiotic days of therapy. Secondary outcomes included empiric vancomycin and antipseudomonal days of therapy and safety outcomes included days to intensive care unit (ICU) transfer and hospital length of stay. Outcomes compared differences between baseline and intervention periods across strategies. Results: Among 59 hospitals with 96â¯451 (51â¯671 in the baseline period and 44â¯780 in the intervention period) adult patients admitted with pneumonia, the mean (SD) age of patients was 68.1 (17.0) years, 48.1% were men, and the median (IQR) Elixhauser comorbidity count was 4 (2-6). Compared with routine stewardship, the group using CPOE prompts had a 28.4% reduction in empiric extended-spectrum days of therapy (rate ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.66-0.78]; P < .001). Safety outcomes of mean days to ICU transfer (6.5 vs 7.1 days) and hospital length of stay (6.8 vs 7.1 days) did not differ significantly between the routine and CPOE intervention groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Empiric extended-spectrum antibiotic use was significantly lower among adults admitted with pneumonia to non-ICU settings in hospitals using education, feedback, and CPOE prompts recommending standard-spectrum antibiotics for patients at low risk of MDRO infection, compared with routine stewardship practices. Hospital length of stay and days to ICU transfer were unchanged. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03697070.
Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos , Programas de Optimización del Uso de los Antimicrobianos , Neumonía , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Farmacorresistencia Bacteriana Múltiple , Hospitalización , Sistemas de Entrada de Órdenes Médicas , Neumonía/tratamiento farmacológico , Neumonía Bacteriana/tratamiento farmacológico , Estados Unidos , Anciano de 80 o más AñosRESUMEN
Importance: Universal nasal mupirocin plus chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) bathing in intensive care units (ICUs) prevents methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections and all-cause bloodstream infections. Antibiotic resistance to mupirocin has raised questions about whether an antiseptic could be advantageous for ICU decolonization. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of iodophor vs mupirocin for universal ICU nasal decolonization in combination with CHG bathing. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two-group noninferiority, pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial conducted in US community hospitals, all of which used mupirocin-CHG for universal decolonization in ICUs at baseline. Adult ICU patients in 137 randomized hospitals during baseline (May 1, 2015-April 30, 2017) and intervention (November 1, 2017-April 30, 2019) were included. Intervention: Universal decolonization involving switching to iodophor-CHG (intervention) or continuing mupirocin-CHG (baseline). Main Outcomes and Measures: ICU-attributable S aureus clinical cultures (primary outcome), MRSA clinical cultures, and all-cause bloodstream infections were evaluated using proportional hazard models to assess differences from baseline to intervention periods between the strategies. Results were also compared with a 2009-2011 trial of mupirocin-CHG vs no decolonization in the same hospital network. The prespecified noninferiority margin for the primary outcome was 10%. Results: Among the 801â¯668 admissions in 233 ICUs, the participants' mean (SD) age was 63.4 (17.2) years, 46.3% were female, and the mean (SD) ICU length of stay was 4.8 (4.7) days. Hazard ratios (HRs) for S aureus clinical isolates in the intervention vs baseline periods were 1.17 for iodophor-CHG (raw rate: 5.0 vs 4.3/1000 ICU-attributable days) and 0.99 for mupirocin-CHG (raw rate: 4.1 vs 4.0/1000 ICU-attributable days) (HR difference in differences significantly lower by 18.4% [95% CI, 10.7%-26.6%] for mupirocin-CHG, P < .001). For MRSA clinical cultures, HRs were 1.13 for iodophor-CHG (raw rate: 2.3 vs 2.1/1000 ICU-attributable days) and 0.99 for mupirocin-CHG (raw rate: 2.0 vs 2.0/1000 ICU-attributable days) (HR difference in differences significantly lower by 14.1% [95% CI, 3.7%-25.5%] for mupirocin-CHG, P = .007). For all-pathogen bloodstream infections, HRs were 1.00 (2.7 vs 2.7/1000) for iodophor-CHG and 1.01 (2.6 vs 2.6/1000) for mupirocin-CHG (nonsignificant HR difference in differences, -0.9% [95% CI, -9.0% to 8.0%]; P = .84). Compared with the 2009-2011 trial, the 30-day relative reduction in hazards in the mupirocin-CHG group relative to no decolonization (2009-2011 trial) were as follows: S aureus clinical cultures (current trial: 48.1% [95% CI, 35.6%-60.1%]; 2009-2011 trial: 58.8% [95% CI, 47.5%-70.7%]) and bloodstream infection rates (current trial: 70.4% [95% CI, 62.9%-77.8%]; 2009-2011 trial: 60.1% [95% CI, 49.1%-70.7%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Nasal iodophor antiseptic did not meet criteria to be considered noninferior to nasal mupirocin antibiotic for the outcome of S aureus clinical cultures in adult ICU patients in the context of daily CHG bathing. In addition, the results were consistent with nasal iodophor being inferior to nasal mupirocin. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03140423.
Asunto(s)
Antiinfecciosos , Baños , Clorhexidina , Yodóforos , Mupirocina , Sepsis , Infecciones Estafilocócicas , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Administración Intranasal , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Antiinfecciosos/administración & dosificación , Antiinfecciosos/uso terapéutico , Antiinfecciosos Locales/uso terapéutico , Baños/métodos , Clorhexidina/administración & dosificación , Clorhexidina/uso terapéutico , Infección Hospitalaria/epidemiología , Infección Hospitalaria/microbiología , Infección Hospitalaria/prevención & control , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos/estadística & datos numéricos , Yodóforos/administración & dosificación , Yodóforos/uso terapéutico , Staphylococcus aureus Resistente a Meticilina/aislamiento & purificación , Mupirocina/administración & dosificación , Mupirocina/uso terapéutico , Ensayos Clínicos Pragmáticos como Asunto , Sepsis/epidemiología , Sepsis/microbiología , Sepsis/prevención & control , Infecciones Estafilocócicas/epidemiología , Infecciones Estafilocócicas/microbiología , Infecciones Estafilocócicas/prevención & control , Staphylococcus aureus/aislamiento & purificación , Estados Unidos/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need to understand the real-world effectiveness of remdesivir in the treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: This was a retrospective comparative effectiveness study. Individuals hospitalized in a large private healthcare network in the United States from 23 February 2020 through 11 February 2021 with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 and ICD-10 diagnosis codes consistent with symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were included. Remdesivir recipients were matched to controls using time-dependent propensity scores. The primary outcome was time to improvement with a secondary outcome of time to death. RESULTS: Of 96 859 COVID-19 patients, 42 473 (43.9%) received at least 1 remdesivir dose. The median age of remdesivir recipients was 65 years, 23 701 (55.8%) were male, and 22 819 (53.7%) were non-White. Matches were found for 18 328 patients (43.2%). Remdesivir recipients were significantly more likely to achieve clinical improvement by 28 days (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.22). Remdesivir patients on no oxygen (aHR 1.30, 95% CI, 1.22-1.38) or low-flow oxygen (aHR 1.23, 95% CI, 1.19-1.27) were significantly more likely to achieve clinical improvement by 28 days. There was no significant impact on the likelihood of mortality overall (aHR 1.02, 95% CI, .97-1.08). Remdesivir recipients on low-flow oxygen were significantly less likely to die than controls (aHR 0.85, 95% CI, .77-.92; 28-day mortality 8.4% [865 deaths] for remdesivir patients, 12.5% [1334 deaths] for controls). CONCLUSIONS: These results support the use of remdesivir for hospitalized COVID-19 patients on no or low-flow oxygen. Routine initiation of remdesivir in more severely ill patients is unlikely to be beneficial.
Asunto(s)
Tratamiento Farmacológico de COVID-19 , Adenosina Monofosfato/análogos & derivados , Adulto , Anciano , Alanina/análogos & derivados , Antivirales/uso terapéutico , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Estudios Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2 , Estados Unidos/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The profound changes wrought by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on routine hospital operations may have influenced performance on hospital measures, including healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). We aimed to evaluate the association between COVID-19 surges and HAI and cluster rates. METHODS: In 148 HCA Healthcare-affiliated hospitals, from 1 March 2020 to 30 September 2020, and a subset of hospitals with microbiology and cluster data through 31 December 2020, we evaluated the association between COVID-19 surges and HAIs, hospital-onset pathogens, and cluster rates using negative binomial mixed models. To account for local variation in COVID-19 pandemic surge timing, we included the number of discharges with a laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis per staffed bed per month. RESULTS: Central line-associated blood stream infections (CLABSI), catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI), and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia increased as COVID-19 burden increased. There were 60% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 23-108%) more CLABSI, 43% (95% CI: 8-90%) more CAUTI, and 44% (95% CI: 10-88%) more cases of MRSA bacteremia than expected over 7 months based on predicted HAIs had there not been COVID-19 cases. Clostridioides difficile infection was not significantly associated with COVID-19 burden. Microbiology data from 81 of the hospitals corroborated the findings. Notably, rates of hospital-onset bloodstream infections and multidrug resistant organisms, including MRSA, vancomycin-resistant enterococcus, and Gram-negative organisms, were each significantly associated with COVID-19 surges. Finally, clusters of hospital-onset pathogens increased as the COVID-19 burden increased. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 surges adversely impact HAI rates and clusters of infections within hospitals, emphasizing the need for balancing COVID-related demands with routine hospital infection prevention.
Asunto(s)
Bacteriemia , COVID-19 , Infecciones Relacionadas con Catéteres , Infección Hospitalaria , Staphylococcus aureus Resistente a Meticilina , Neumonía Asociada al Ventilador , Infecciones Urinarias , Enterococos Resistentes a la Vancomicina , Bacteriemia/epidemiología , Bacteriemia/prevención & control , COVID-19/epidemiología , Prueba de COVID-19 , Infecciones Relacionadas con Catéteres/prevención & control , Infección Hospitalaria/microbiología , Atención a la Salud , Humanos , Pandemias , Neumonía Asociada al Ventilador/microbiología , Infecciones Urinarias/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Most health care organizations' efforts to reduce harm focus on physical harm, but other forms of harm are both prevalent and important. These "nonphysical" harms can be framed using the concepts of respect and dignity: Disrespect is an affront to dignity and can cause harm. Organizations should strive to eliminate disrespect to patients, to families, and among health care professionals. METHODS: A diverse, interdisciplinary panel of experts was convened to discuss strategies to guide health care systems to embrace an expanded definition of patient harm that includes nonphysical harm. Subsequently, using a modified Delphi process, a guide was developed for health care professionals and organizations to improve the practice of respect across the continuum of care. RESULTS: Five rounds of surveys were required to reach predefined metrics of consensus. Delphi participants identified a total of 25 strategies associated with six high-level recommendations: "Leaders must champion a culture of respect and dignity"; with other professionals sharing the responsibility to "Promote accountability"; "Engage and support the health care workforce"; "Partner with patients and families"; "Establish systems to learn about and improve the practice of respect"; and "Expand the research agenda and measurement tools, and disseminate what is learned." CONCLUSION: Harm from disrespect is the next frontier in preventable harm. This consensus statement provides a road map for health care organizations and professionals interested in engaging in a reliable practice of respect. Further work is needed to develop the specific tactics that will lead health care organizations to prevent harm from disrespect.
Asunto(s)
Personal de Salud/psicología , Administración de los Servicios de Salud/normas , Seguridad del Paciente/normas , Respeto , Técnica Delphi , Humanos , Comunicación Interdisciplinaria , Liderazgo , Rol Profesional , Compromiso LaboralRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The nature and consequences of patient and family emotional harm stemming from preventable medical error, such as losing a loved one or surviving serious medical injury, is poorly understood. Patients and families, clinicians, social scientists, lawyers, and foundation/policy leaders were brought together to establish research priorities for this issue. METHODS: A one-day conference of diverse stakeholder groups to establish a consensus-driven research agenda focused on (1) priorities for research on the short-term and long-term emotional impact of harmful events on patients and families, (2) barriers and enablers to conducting such research, and (3) actionable steps toward better supporting harmed patients and families now. RESULTS: Stakeholders discussed patient and family experiences after serious harmful events, including profound isolation, psychological distress, damaging aspects of medical culture, health care aversion, and negative effects on communities. Stakeholder groups reached consensus, defining four research priorities: (1) Establish conceptual framework and patient-centered taxonomy of harm and healing; (2) Describe epidemiology of emotional harm; (3) Determine how to make emotional harm and long-term impacts visible to health care organizations and society at large; and (4) Develop and implement best practices for emotional support of patients and families. The group also created a strategy for overcoming research barriers and actionable "Do Now" approaches to improve the patient and family experience while research is ongoing. CONCLUSION: Emotional and other long-term impacts of harmful events can have profound consequences for patients and families. Stakeholders designed a path forward to inform approaches that better support harmed patients and families, with both immediately actionable and longer-term research strategies.
Asunto(s)
Errores Médicos/psicología , Seguridad del Paciente , Trauma Psicológico/epidemiología , Trauma Psicológico/psicología , Investigación/organización & administración , Consenso , Emociones , Familia/psicología , Humanos , Pacientes Internos/psicología , Atención Dirigida al Paciente/organización & administración , Proyectos de Investigación , Grupos de Autoayuda/organización & administración , Participación de los Interesados , Estados Unidos , United States Agency for Healthcare Research and QualityRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Detection and containment of hospital outbreaks currently depend on variable and personnel-intensive surveillance methods. Whether automated statistical surveillance for outbreaks of health care-associated pathogens allows earlier containment efforts that would reduce the size of outbreaks is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized trial in 82 community hospitals within a larger health care system. All hospitals followed an outbreak response protocol when outbreaks were detected by their infection prevention programs. Half of the hospitals additionally used statistical surveillance of microbiology data, which alerted infection prevention programs to outbreaks. Statistical surveillance was also applied to microbiology data from control hospitals without alerting their infection prevention programs. The primary outcome was the number of additional cases occurring after outbreak detection. Analyses assessed differences between the intervention period (July 2019 to January 2022) versus baseline period (February 2017 to January 2019) between randomized groups. A post hoc analysis separately assessed pre-coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and Covid-19 pandemic intervention periods. RESULTS: Real-time alerts did not significantly reduce the number of additional outbreak cases (intervention period versus baseline: statistical surveillance relative rate [RR]=1.41, control RR=1.81; difference-in-differences, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40 to 1.52; P=0.46). Comparing only the prepandemic intervention with baseline periods, the statistical outbreak surveillance group was associated with a 64.1% reduction in additional cases (statistical surveillance RR=0.78, control RR=2.19; difference-in-differences, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.99). There was no similarly observed association between the pandemic versus baseline periods (statistical surveillance RR=1.56, control RR=1.66; difference-in-differences, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.46 to 1.92). CONCLUSIONS: Automated detection of hospital outbreaks using statistical surveillance did not reduce overall outbreak size in the context of an ongoing pandemic. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04053075. Support for HCA Healthcare's participation in the study was provided in kind by HCA.).
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Infección Hospitalaria , Brotes de Enfermedades , Humanos , Brotes de Enfermedades/prevención & control , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Infección Hospitalaria/epidemiología , Infección Hospitalaria/prevención & control , Control de Infecciones/métodos , SARS-CoV-2 , Hospitales ComunitariosRESUMEN
Importance: The reported incidence of many health care-associated infections (HAIs) increased during the COVID-19 pandemic; however, it is unclear whether this is due to increased patient risk or to increased pressure on the health care system. Objective: To assess HAI occurrence among patients admitted to hospitals with and without COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional retrospective analysis of inpatients discharged both with and without laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection was conducted. Data were obtained between January 1, 2019, and March 31, 2022, from community hospitals affiliated with a large health care system in the US. Exposure: COVID-19 infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: Occurrence of central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia, and Clostridioides difficile infection as reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network. Results: Among nearly 5 million hospitalizations in 182 hospitals between 2020 and 2022, the occurrence of health care-associated infections (HAIs) was high among the 313â¯200 COVID-19 inpatients (median [SD] age, 57 [27.3] years; 56.0% women). Incidence per 100â¯000 patient-days showed higher HAIs among those with COVID-19 compared with those without. For CLABSI, the incidence for the full 9 quarters of the study was nearly 4-fold higher among the COVID-19 population than the non-COVID-19 population (25.4 vs 6.9). For CAUTI, the incidence in the COVID-19 population was 2.7-fold higher in the COVID-19 population (16.5 vs 6.1), and for MRSA, 3.0-fold higher (11.2 vs 3.7). Quarterly trends were compared with the same quarter in 2019. The greatest increase in the incidence of HAI in comparison with the same quarter in 2019 for the entire population occurred in quarter 3 of 2020 for CLABSI (11.0 vs 7.3), quarter 4 of 2021 for CAUTI (7.8 vs 6.8), and quarter 3 of 2021 for MRSA (5.2 vs 3.9). When limited to the non-COVID-19 population, the increase in CLABSI incidence vs the 2019 incidence was eliminated, and the quarterly rates of MRSA and CAUTI were lower vs the prepandemic 2019 comparator quarter. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of hospitals during the pandemic, HAI occurrence among inpatients without COVID-19 was similar to that during 2019 despite additional pressures for infection control and health care professionals. The findings suggest that patients with COVID-19 may be more susceptible to HAIs and may require additional prevention measures.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Infecciones Relacionadas con Catéteres , Infección Hospitalaria , Staphylococcus aureus Resistente a Meticilina , Infecciones Urinarias , Humanos , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Masculino , Estudios Transversales , Infecciones Relacionadas con Catéteres/epidemiología , Estudios Retrospectivos , Pandemias , COVID-19/epidemiología , Infección Hospitalaria/epidemiología , Infección Hospitalaria/prevención & control , Hospitales ComunitariosRESUMEN
We described care received by hospitalized children with COVID-19 or multi-system inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) prior to the 2021 COVID-19 Omicron variant surge in the US. We identified hospitalized children <18 years of age with a COVID-19 or MIS-C diagnosis (COVID-19 not required), separately, from February 2020-September 2021 (n = 126 hospitals). We described high-risk conditions, inpatient treatments, and complications among these groups. Among 383,083 pediatric hospitalizations, 2,186 had COVID-19 and 395 had MIS-C diagnosis. Less than 1% had both COVID-19 and MIS-C diagnosis (n = 154). Over half were >6 years old (54% COVID-19, 70% MIS-C). High-risk conditions included asthma (14% COVID-19, 11% MIS-C), and obesity (9% COVID-19, 10% MIS-C). Pulmonary complications in children with COVID-19 included viral pneumonia (24%) and acute respiratory failure (11%). In reference to children with COVID-19, those with MIS-C had more hematological disorders (62% vs 34%), sepsis (16% vs 6%), pericarditis (13% vs 2%), myocarditis (8% vs 1%). Few were ventilated or died, but some required oxygen support (38% COVID-19, 45% MIS-C) or intensive care (42% COVID-19, 69% MIS-C). Treatments included: methylprednisolone (34% COVID-19, 75% MIS-C), dexamethasone (25% COVID-19, 15% MIS-C), remdesivir (13% COVID-19, 5% MIS-C). Antibiotics (50% COVID-19, 68% MIS-C) and low-molecular weight heparin (17% COVID-19, 34% MIS-C) were frequently administered. Markers of illness severity among hospitalized children with COVID-19 prior to the 2021 Omicron surge are consistent with previous studies. We report important trends on treatments in hospitalized children with COVID-19 to improve the understanding of real-world treatment patterns in this population.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Humanos , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Niño , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/terapia , SARS-CoV-2 , HospitalesRESUMEN
Importance: Many pulse oximeters have been shown to overestimate oxygen saturation in persons of color, and this phenomenon has potential clinical implications. The relationship between overestimation of oxygen saturation with timing of COVID-19 medication delivery and clinical outcomes remains unknown. Objective: To investigate the association between overestimation of oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry and delay in administration of COVID-19 therapy, hospital length of stay, risk of hospital readmission, and in-hospital mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included patients hospitalized for COVID-19 at 186 acute care facilities in the US with at least 1 functional arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2) measurement between March 2020 and October 2021. A subset of patients were admitted after July 1, 2020, without immediate need for COVID-19 therapy based on pulse oximeter saturation (SpO2 levels of 94% or higher without supplemental oxygen). Exposures: Self-reported race and ethnicity, difference between concurrent SaO2 and pulse oximeter saturation (SpO2) within 10 minutes, and initially unrecognized need for COVID-19 therapy (first SaO2 reading below 94% despite SpO2 levels of 94% or above). Main Outcome and Measures: The association of race and ethnicity with degree of pulse oximeter measurement error (SpO2 - SaO2) and odds of unrecognized need for COVID-19 therapy were determined using linear mixed-effects models. Associations of initially unrecognized need for treatment with time to receipt of therapy (remdesivir or dexamethasone), in-hospital mortality, 30-day hospital readmission, and length of stay were evaluated using mixed-effects models. All models accounted for demographics, clinical characteristics, and hospital site. Effect modification by race and ethnicity was evaluated using interaction terms. Results: Among 24â¯504 patients with concurrent SpO2 and SaO2 measurements (mean [SD] age, 63.9 [15.8] years; 10â¯263 female [41.9%]; 3922 Black [16.0%], 7895 Hispanic [32.2%], 2554 Asian, Native American or Alaskan Native, Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or another race or ethnicity [10.4%], and 10â¯133 White [41.4%]), pulse oximetry overestimated SaO2 for Black (adjusted mean difference, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.74-1.12] percentage points), Hispanic (0.49 [95% CI, 0.34-0.63] percentage points), and other (0.53 [95% CI, 0.35-0.72] percentage points) patients compared with White patients. In a subset of 8635 patients with a concurrent SpO2 - SaO2 pair without immediate need for COVID-19 therapy, Black patients were significantly more likely to have pulse oximetry values that masked an indication for COVID-19 therapy compared with White patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.65; 95% CI, 1.33-2.03). Patients with an unrecognized need for COVID-19 therapy were 10% less likely to receive COVID-19 therapy (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.97) and higher odds of readmission (aOR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.39-4.18) regardless of race (P for interaction = .45 and P = .14, respectively). There was no association of unrecognized need for COVID-19 therapy with in-hospital mortality (aOR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-1.01) or length of stay (mean difference, -1.4 days; 95% CI, -3.1 to 0.2 days). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, overestimation of oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry led to delayed delivery of COVID-19 therapy and higher probability of readmission regardless of race. Black patients were more likely to have unrecognized need for therapy with potential implications for population-level health disparities.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Saturación de Oxígeno , Humanos , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios de Cohortes , COVID-19/terapia , Oximetría , EtnicidadRESUMEN
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services require hospitals to report on quality metrics which are used to financially penalize those that perform in the lowest quartile. Surgical site infections (SSIs) are a critical component of the quality metrics that target healthcare-associated infections. However, the accuracy of such hospital profiling is highly affected by small surgical volumes which lead to a large amount of uncertainty in estimating standardized hospital-specific infection rates. Currently, hospitals with less than one expected SSI are excluded from rankings, but the effectiveness of this exclusion criterion is unknown. Tools that can quantify the classification accuracy and can determine the minimal surgical volume required for a desired level of accuracy are lacking. We investigate the effect of surgical volume on the accuracy of identifying poorly performing hospitals based on the standardized infection ratio and develop simulation-based algorithms for quantifying the classification accuracy. We apply our proposed method to data from HCA Healthcare (2014-2016) on SSIs in colon surgery patients. We estimate that for a procedure like colon surgery with an overall SSI rate of 3%, to rank hospitals in the HCA colon SSI dataset, hospitals that perform less than 200 procedures have a greater than 10% chance of being incorrectly assigned to the worst performing quartile. Minimum surgical volumes and predicted events criteria are required to make evaluating hospitals reliable, and these criteria vary by overall prevalence and between-hospital variability.
Asunto(s)
Procedimientos Quirúrgicos del Sistema Digestivo , Medicare , Anciano , Humanos , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Estudios Retrospectivos , Hospitales , Infección de la Herida Quirúrgica/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
Importance: Non-ventilator-associated hospital-acquired pneumonia (NV-HAP) is a common and deadly hospital-acquired infection. However, inconsistent surveillance methods and unclear estimates of attributable mortality challenge prevention. Objective: To estimate the incidence, variability, outcomes, and population attributable mortality of NV-HAP. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study retrospectively applied clinical surveillance criteria for NV-HAP to electronic health record data from 284 US hospitals. Adult patients admitted to the Veterans Health Administration hospital from 2015 to 2020 and HCA Healthcare hospitals from 2018 to 2020 were included. The medical records of 250 patients who met the surveillance criteria were reviewed for accuracy. Exposures: NV-HAP, defined as sustained deterioration in oxygenation for 2 or more days in a patient who was not ventilated concurrent with abnormal temperature or white blood cell count, performance of chest imaging, and 3 or more days of new antibiotics. Main Outcomes and Measures: NV-HAP incidence, length-of-stay, and crude inpatient mortality. Attributable inpatient mortality by 60 days follow-up was estimated using inverse probability weighting, accounting for both baseline and time-varying confounding. Results: Among 6â¯022â¯185 hospitalizations (median [IQR] age, 66 [54-75] years; 1â¯829â¯475 [26.1%] female), there were 32â¯797 NV-HAP events (0.55 per 100 admissions [95% CI, 0.54-0.55] per 100 admissions and 0.96 per 1000 patient-days [95% CI, 0.95-0.97] per 1000 patient-days). Patients with NV-HAP had multiple comorbidities (median [IQR], 6 [4-7]), including congestive heart failure (9680 [29.5%]), neurologic conditions (8255 [25.2%]), chronic lung disease (6439 [19.6%]), and cancer (5,467 [16.7%]); 24â¯568 cases (74.9%) occurred outside intensive care units. Crude inpatient mortality was 22.4% (7361 of 32â¯797) for NV-HAP vs 1.9% (115â¯530 of 6â¯022â¯185) for all hospitalizations; 12â¯449 (8.0%) were discharged to hospice. Median [IQR] length-of-stay was 16 (11-26) days vs 4 (3-6) days. On medical record review, pneumonia was confirmed by reviewers or bedside clinicians in 202 of 250 patients (81%). It was estimated that NV-HAP accounted for 7.3% (95% CI, 7.1%-7.5%) of all hospital deaths (total hospital population inpatient death risk of 1.87% with NV-HAP events included vs 1.73% with NV-HAP events excluded; risk ratio, 0.927; 95% CI, 0.925-0.929). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, NV-HAP, which was defined using electronic surveillance criteria, was present in approximately 1 in 200 hospitalizations, of whom 1 in 5 died in the hospital. NV-HAP may account for up to 7% of all hospital deaths. These findings underscore the need to systematically monitor NV-HAP, define best practices for prevention, and track their impact.
Asunto(s)
Neumonía Asociada al Ventilador , Adulto , Humanos , Femenino , Anciano , Masculino , Estudios de Cohortes , Estudios Retrospectivos , Incidencia , Hospitales , ElectrónicaRESUMEN
In a survey of infection prevention programs, leaders reported frequent clinical and infection prevention practice modifications to avoid coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) exposure that exceeded national guidance. Future pandemic responses should emphasize balanced approaches to precautions, prioritize educational campaigns to manage safety concerns, and generate an evidence-base that can guide appropriate infection prevention practices.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Humanos , Estados Unidos , COVID-19/prevención & control , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Laws and regulations require many hospitals to implement rapid-response systems. However, the optimal resource intensity for such systems is unknown. We sought to determine whether a rapid-response system that relied on a patient's usual care providers, not a critical-care-trained rapid-response team, would improve patient outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: An interrupted time-series analysis of over a 59-month period. SETTING: Urban, academic hospital. PATIENTS: One hundred seven-one thousand, three hundred forty-one consecutive adult admissions. INTERVENTION: In the intervention period, patients were monitored for predefined, standardized, acute, vital-sign abnormalities or marked nursing concern. If these criteria were met, a team consisting of the patient's existing care providers was assembled. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The unadjusted risk of unexpected mortality was 72% lower (95% confidence interval 55%-83%) in the intervention period (absolute risk: 0.02% vs. 0.09%, p < .0001). The unadjusted in-hospital mortality rate was not significantly lower (1.9% vs. 2.1%, p = .07). After adjustment for age, gender, race, season of admission, case mix, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and intensive care unit bed capacity, the intervention period was associated with an 80% reduction (95% confidence interval 63%-89%, p < .0001) in the odds of unexpected death, but no significant change in overall mortality [odds ratio 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.82-1.02), p = .09]. Analyses that also adjusted for secular time trends confirmed these findings (relative risk reduction for unexpected mortality at end of intervention period: 65%, p = .0001; for in-hospital mortality, relative risk reduction = 5%, p = .2). CONCLUSIONS: A primary-team-based implementation of a rapid response system was independently associated with reduced unexpected mortality. This system relied on the patient's usual care providers, not an intensive care unit based rapid response team, and may offer a more cost-effective approach to rapid response systems, particularly for systems with limited intensivist availability.
Asunto(s)
Causas de Muerte , Enfermedad Crítica/mortalidad , Enfermedad Crítica/terapia , Mortalidad Hospitalaria/tendencias , Equipo Hospitalario de Respuesta Rápida/organización & administración , Adulto , Anciano , Estudios de Cohortes , Intervalos de Confianza , Bases de Datos Factuales , Urgencias Médicas , Femenino , Implementación de Plan de Salud/organización & administración , Hospitales Universitarios , Humanos , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Estimación de Kaplan-Meier , Tiempo de Internación , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Oportunidad Relativa , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud , Grupo de Atención al Paciente/organización & administración , Estudios Retrospectivos , Medición de Riesgo , Análisis de Supervivencia , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Statins are a commonly used class of drugs, and reports have suggested that their use may affect COVID-19 disease severity and mortality risk. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this analysis was to determine the effect of discontinuation of previous atorvastatin therapy in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 on the risk of mortality and ventilation. METHODS: Data from 146,413 hospitalized COVID-19 patients were classified according to statin therapy. Home + in hospital atorvastatin use (continuation of therapy); home + no in hospital atorvastatin use (discontinuation of therapy); no home + no in hospital atorvastatin use (no statins). Logistic regression was performed to assess the association between atorvastatin administration and either mortality or use of mechanical ventilation during the encounter. RESULTS: Continuous use of atorvastatin (home and in hospital) was associated with a 35% reduction in the odds of mortality compared to patients who received atorvastatin at home but not in hospital (odds ratio [OR]: 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-0.72, p < .001). Similarly, the odds of ventilation were lower with continuous atorvastatin therapy (OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.64-0.77, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Discontinuation of previous atorvastatin therapy is associated with worse outcomes for COVID-19 patients. Providers should consider maintaining existing statin therapy for patients with known or suspected previous use.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Inhibidores de Hidroximetilglutaril-CoA Reductasas , Atorvastatina/efectos adversos , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Hospitales , Humanos , Inhibidores de Hidroximetilglutaril-CoA Reductasas/efectos adversosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Ambulatory safety risks including delayed diagnoses or missed abnormal test results are difficult for clinicians to see, because they often occur in the space between visits. Experts advocate greater patient engagement to improve safety, but strategies are limited. Patient access to clinical notes ("OpenNotes") may help close the safety gap between visits. METHODS: We surveyed patients and families who logged on to the patient portal and had at least one ambulatory note available in the past 12 months at two academic hospitals during June to September 2016, focusing on patient-reported effects of OpenNotes on safety knowledge, behaviors, and attitudes. RESULTS: A total of 6913 (28%) of 24,722 patients at an adult hospital and 3672 (17%) of 21,579 participants at the children's hospital submitted surveys. Approximately 75% of patients and parents each reported that reading notes helped them understand the reason for both tests and referrals, and approximately 50% felt that it helped them complete tests and referrals. Roughly 75% of participants were more likely to check and understand test results. Overall, 97% of participants reported that trust in the provider, activation, patient-provider goal alignment, and teamwork were each better or the same after reading 1 note or more. Nonwhite participants and those with high school education or less were 30% to 50% more likely to report that reading notes helped them complete tests compared with white and more educated respondents, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the majority of more than 10,000 patients and parents reported reading notes helped them understand and follow through on tests and referrals. As information transparency spreads, OpenNotes can help activate patients and families, facilitate safety behaviors, and forge stronger partnerships with clinicians.
Asunto(s)
Participación del Paciente , Portales del Paciente , Adulto , Niño , Registros Electrónicos de Salud , Humanos , Lectura , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has migrated to regions that were initially spared, and it is likely that different populations are currently at risk for illness. Herein, we present our observations of the change in characteristics and resource use of COVID-19 patients over time in a national system of community hospitals to help inform those managing surge planning, operational management, and future policy decisions.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/terapia , Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricos , Adulto , Factores de Edad , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , COVID-19/etnología , COVID-19/mortalidad , Femenino , Hispánicos o Latinos/estadística & datos numéricos , Hospitales Comunitarios , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , SARS-CoV-2/aislamiento & purificación , Virginia/epidemiología , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To determine risk factors for mortality among COVID-19 patients admitted to a system of community hospitals in the United States. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of patient data collected from the routine care of COVID-19 patients. SETTING: System of >180 acute-care facilities in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: All admitted patients with positive identification of COVID-19 and a documented discharge as of May 12, 2020. METHODS: Determination of demographic characteristics, vital signs at admission, patient comorbidities and recorded discharge disposition in this population to construct a logistic regression estimating the odds of mortality, particular for those patients characterized as not being critically ill at admission. RESULTS: In total, 6,180 COVID-19+ patients were identified as of May 12, 2020. Most COVID-19+ patients (4,808, 77.8%) were admitted directly to a medical-surgical unit with no documented critical care or mechanical ventilation within 8 hours of admission. After adjusting for demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and vital signs at admission in this subgroup, the largest driver of the odds of mortality was patient age (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.06-1.08; P < .001). Decreased oxygen saturation at admission was associated with increased odds of mortality (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.06-1.12; P < .001) as was diabetes (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.21-2.03; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The identification of factors observable at admission that are associated with mortality in COVID-19 patients who are initially admitted to non-critical care units may help care providers, hospital epidemiologists, and hospital safety experts better plan for the care of these patients.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19/patología , Signos Vitales , Factores de Edad , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , COVID-19/mortalidad , Femenino , Humanos , Modelos Logísticos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Oxígeno/sangre , Admisión del Paciente/estadística & datos numéricos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , Estados Unidos/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: OpenNotes, a national movement inviting patients to read their clinicians' notes online, may enhance safety through patient-reported documentation errors. OBJECTIVE: To test an OpenNotes patient reporting tool focused on safety concerns. METHODS: We invited 6225 patients through a patient portal to provide note feedback in a quality improvement pilot between August 2014 and 2015. A link at the end of the note led to a 9-question survey. Patient Relations personnel vetted responses, shared safety concerns with providers and documented whether changes were made. RESULTS: 2736/6225(44%) of patients read notes; among these, 1 in 12 patients used the tool, submitting 260 reports. Nearly all (96%) respondents reported understanding the note. Patients and care partners documented potential safety concerns in 23% of reports; 2% did not understand the care plan and 21% reported possible mistakes, including medications, existing health problems, something important missing from the note or current symptoms. Among these, 64% were definite or possible safety concerns on clinician review, and 57% of cases confirmed with patients resulted in a change to the record or care. The feedback tool exceeded the reporting rate of our ambulatory online clinician adverse event reporting system several-fold. After a year, 99% of patients and care partners found the tool valuable, 97% wanted it to continue, 98% reported unchanged or improved relationships with their clinician, and none of the providers in the small pilot reported worsening workflow or relationships with patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and care partners reported potential safety concerns in about one-quarter of reports, often resulting in a change to the record or care. Early data from an OpenNotes patient reporting tool may help engage patients as safety partners without apparent negative consequences for clinician workflow or patient-clinician relationships.