A Novel Approach for a Novel Pathogen: Using a Home Assessment Team to Evaluate Patients for COVID-19.

Thousands of people in the United States have required testing for SARS-CoV-2. Evaluation for a special pathogen is resource intensive. We report an innovative approach to home assessment that, in collaboration with public health, enables safe evaluation and specimen collection outside the healthcare setting, avoiding unnecessary exposures and resource utilization.

Enhanced Perioperative Care for Major Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: The enhanced perioperative care (EPOC) program is an institutional quality improvement initiative. We used a historically controlled study design to evaluate patients who underwent major spine surgery before and after the implementation of the EPOC program. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether multidisciplinary EPOC program was associated with an improvement in clinical and financial outcomes for elective adult major spine surgery patients. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs successfully implemented in hip and knee replacement surgeries, and improved clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. METHODS: We compared 183 subjects in traditional care (TRDC) group to 267 intervention period (EPOC) in a single academic quaternary spine surgery referral center. One hundred eight subjects in no pathway (NOPW) care group was also examined to exclude if the observed changes between the EPOC and TRDC groups might be due to concurrent changes in practice or population over the same time period. Our primary outcome variables were hospital and intensive care unit lengths of stay and the secondary outcomes were postoperative complications, 30-day hospital readmission and cost. RESULTS: In this highly complex patient population, we observed a reduction in mean hospital length of stay (HLOS) between TRDC versus EPOC groups (8.2 vs. 6.1 d, standard deviation [SD] = 6.3 vs. 3.6, P < 0.001) and intensive care unit length of stay (ILOS) (3.1 vs. 1.9 d, SD = 4.7 vs. 1.4, P = 0.01). The number (rate) of postoperative intensive care unit (ICU) admissions was higher for the TRDC n = 109 (60%) than the EPOC n = 129 (48%) (P = 0.02). There was no difference in postoperative complications and 30-day hospital readmissions. The EPOC spine program was associated with significant average cost reduction-$62,429 to $53,355 (P < 0.00). CONCLUSION: The EPOC program has made a clinically relevant contribution to institutional efforts to improve patient outcomes and value. We observed a reduction in HLOS, ILOS, costs, and variability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Standardized Review and Approval Process for High-Cost Medication Use Promotes Value-Based Care in a Large Academic Medical System.

BACKGROUND: As healthcare costs rise and reimbursements decrease, healthcare organization leadership and clinical providers must collaborate to provide high-value healthcare. Medications are a key driver of the increasing cost of healthcare, largely as a result of the proliferation of expensive specialty drugs, including biologic agents. Such medications contribute significantly to the inpatient diagnosis-related group payment system, often with minimal or unproved benefit over less-expensive therapies. OBJECTIVE: To describe a systematic review process to reduce non-evidence-based inpatient use of high-cost medications across a large multihospital academic health system. METHODS: We created a Pharmacy & Therapeutics subcommittee consisting of clinicians, pharmacists, and an ethics representative. This committee developed a standardized process for a timely review (<48 hours) and approval of high-cost medications based on their clinical effectiveness, safety, and appropriateness. The engagement of clinical experts in the development of the consensus-based guidelines for the use of specific medications facilitated the clinicians' acceptance of the review process. RESULTS: Over a 2-year period, a total of 85 patient-specific requests underwent formal review. All reviews were conducted within 48 hours. This review process has reduced the non-evidence-based use of specialty medications and has resulted in a pharmacy savings of $491,000 in fiscal year 2016, with almost 80% of the savings occurring in the last 2 quarters, because our process has matured. CONCLUSION: The creation of a collaborative review process to ensure consistent, evidence-based utilization of high-cost medications provides value-based care, while minimizing unnecessary practice variation and reducing the cost of inpatient care.

Executive Summary: Implementing an Antibiotic Stewardship Program: Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.

Evidence-based guidelines for implementation and measurement of antibiotic stewardship interventions in inpatient populations including long-term care were prepared by a multidisciplinary expert panel of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. The panel included clinicians and investigators representing internal medicine, emergency medicine, microbiology, critical care, surgery, epidemiology, pharmacy, and adult and pediatric infectious diseases specialties. These recommendations address the best approaches for antibiotic stewardship programs to influence the optimal use of antibiotics.

Implementing an Antibiotic Stewardship Program: Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.

Evidence-based guidelines for implementation and measurement of antibiotic stewardship interventions in inpatient populations including long-term care were prepared by a multidisciplinary expert panel of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. The panel included clinicians and investigators representing internal medicine, emergency medicine, microbiology, critical care, surgery, epidemiology, pharmacy, and adult and pediatric infectious diseases specialties. These recommendations address the best approaches for antibiotic stewardship programs to influence the optimal use of antibiotics.

Successful implementation of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy at a medical respite facility for homeless patients.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) is a safe way to administer intravenous (IV) antimicrobial therapy to patients with the potential to decrease hospital length of stay (LOS). Often, homeless patients with complex infections, who could otherwise be treated as an outpatient, remain in the hospital for the duration of IV antibiotic treatment. Injection drug use (IDU) is a barrier to OPAT. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate our experience with administering OPAT to homeless patients at a medical respite facility and determine if patients could complete a successful course of antibiotics. DESIGN: Using retrospective chart review, demographics, diagnosis, and comorbidities including mental illness, current IDU, and remote IDU (>3 months ago) were recorded. Surgical, microbiologic, and antimicrobial therapy including route (IV or oral), duration of therapy, and adverse events were abstracted. PARTICIPANTS: Homeless patients >18 years old who received OPAT at medical respite after discharge, no exclusions. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome was successful completion of OPAT at medical respite. Secondary outcome was successful antimicrobial course completion for a specific diagnosis. RESULTS: Forty-six (87%) patients successfully completed a defined course of antibiotic therapy. Thirty-four (64%) patients were successfully treated with OPAT at medical respite. Readmission rate was 30%. The average length of OPAT was 22 days. The cost savings to our institution (using $1500/day inpatient cost) was $25,000 per episode of OPAT. CONCLUSIONS: OPAT can be successful in a supervised medical respite setting for homeless patients with the help of a multidisciplinary team, and can decrease inpatient LOS resulting in cost savings. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:531-535. © 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine.

Drug users seeking emergency care for soft tissue infection at high risk for subsequent hospitalization and death.

OBJECTIVE: Although soft tissue infections are common among injection drug users (IDUs), little is known about the health outcomes among those who seek care for these infections. Emergency department visits are an important point-of-health-care contact for IDUs. In this prospective cohort study, we aimed to determine the hospitalization and mortality rates and factors associated with hospitalization or death among IDUs seeking emergency care for soft tissue infection. METHOD: Participants were English-speaking IDUs, 18 years of age and older, who sought initial care for soft tissue infection in an urban emergency department. We conducted semistructured interviews, identified hospitalizations from hospital records, and identified deaths using the National Death Index. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to investigate associations between baseline characteristics and hospitalizations or death. RESULTS: Of 211 eligible patients, 156 (74%) participated (mean age = 42 years). There were 255 subsequent hospitalizations over a mean of 3.9 years follow-up. The hospitalization rate was 42 hospitalizations per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval [CI]: 38-48). The mortality rate was 2.0 per 100 person-years (95% CI: 1.1-3.7). Factors associated with increased risk for hospitalization or death included living on the street or in a shelter (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.75, 95% CI: 1.10-2.79), being recently incarcerated (AOR = 1.90, 95% CI: 1.05-3.44), and having insurance (AOR: 1.98, 95% CI: 1.22-3.23). CONCLUSIONS: IDUs who sought care in the emergency department for soft tissue infections were at high risk for subsequent hospitalization and death. Visits for soft tissue infections represent missed opportunities for preventive care.