Validating a prediction tool to determine the risk of nosocomial multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli infection in critically ill patients: A retrospective case-control study.

BACKGROUND: The Singapore GSDCS score was developed to enable clinicians predict the risk of nosocomial multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli (RGNB) infection in critically ill patients. We aimed to validate this score in a UK setting. METHOD: A retrospective case-control study was conducted including patients who stayed for more than 24h in intensive care units (ICUs) across two tertiary National Health Service hospitals in London, UK (April 2011-April 2016). Cases with RGNB and controls with sensitive Gram-negative bacilli (SGNB) infection were identified. RESULTS: The derived GSDCS score was calculated from when there was a step change in antimicrobial therapy in response to clinical suspicion of infection as follows: prior Gram-negative organism, Surgery, Dialysis with end-stage renal disease, prior Carbapenem use and intensive care Stay of more than 5 days. A total of 110 patients with RGNB infection (cases) were matched 1:1 to 110 geotemporally chosen patients with SGNB infection (controls). The discriminatory ability of the prediction tool by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis in our validation cohort was 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.65-0.81), which is comparable with the area under the curve of the derivation cohort (0.77). The GSDCS score differentiated between low- (0-1.3), medium- (1.4-2.3) and high-risk (2.4-4.3) patients for RGNB infection (P<0.001) in a UK setting. CONCLUSION: A simple bedside clinical prediction tool may be used to identify and differentiate patients at low, medium and high risk of RGNB infection prior to initiation of prompt empirical antimicrobial therapy in the intensive care setting.

Substance abuse treatment counselors and tobacco use: a comparison of comprehensive and indoor-only workplace smoking bans.

INTRODUCTION: While indoor smoking bans reduce employee tobacco use, less is known about whether comprehensive bans, which prohibit smoking in both indoor and outdoor areas, are associated with lower rates of tobacco use than indoor-only bans. METHODS: This study integrated data collected via mailed surveys from 1,910 substance abuse treatment counselors and telephone interviews with 417 administrators of substance abuse treatment organizations. Multinomial logistic regression was used to estimate the associations between counselors' self-reported tobacco use and administrators' reports about organizational smoking bans while controlling for counselors' professional and demographic characteristics. RESULTS: In this sample, 20.3% of counselors were current tobacco users, 47.7% identified as former users, and 32.0% reported never using tobacco products. Only 19.5% of counselors worked in a treatment organization that had a comprehensive smoking ban. The likelihood of being a current tobacco user, compared with being a former user or nonuser, was significantly lower for counselors in organizations with comprehensive bans even after controlling for professional and demographic characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Although relatively few substance abuse counselors worked in treatment organizations with comprehensive bans, such bans may represent a promising direction for tobacco control. Given recent research documenting how tobacco use is negatively associated with the delivery of smoking cessation services by health care workers, additional research on the impact of comprehensive environmental tobacco policies is needed.