A qualitative assessment of the diagnosis and management of ventilator-associated pneumonia among critical care clinicians exploring opportunities for diagnostic stewardship.

BACKGROUND: Prompt diagnosis and intervention for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is critical but can lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. OBJECTIVES: We investigated healthcare provider (HCP) perceptions and challenges associated with VAP diagnosis, and we sought to identify opportunities for diagnostic stewardship. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study of 30 HCPs at a tertiary-care hospital. Participants included attending physicians, residents and fellows (trainees), advanced practice providers (APPs), and pharmacists. Interviews were composed of open-ended questions in 4 sections: (1) clinical suspicion and thresholds for respiratory culture ordering, (2) preferences for respiratory sample collection, (3) culture report interpretation, and (4) VAP diagnosis and treatment. Interviews transcripts were analyzed using Nvivo 12 software, and responses were organized into themes. RESULTS: Overall, 10 attending physicians (75%) and 16 trainees (75%) trainees and APPs believed they were overdiagnosing VAP; this response was frequent among HCPs in practice 5-10 years (91%, n = 12). Increased identification of bacteria as a result of frequent respiratory culturing, misinterpretation of culture data, and fear of missing diagnosis were recognized as drivers of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Although most HCPs rely on clinical and radiographic changes to initiate work-up, the fear of missing a diagnosis leads to sending cultures even in the absence of those changes. CONCLUSIONS: HCPs believe that VAP overdiagnosis and overtreatment are common due to fear of missing diagnosis, overculturing, and difficulty distinguishing colonization from infection. Although we identified opportunities for diagnostic stewardship, interventions influencing the ordering of cultures and starting antimicrobials will need to account for strongly held beliefs and ICU practices.

Esophageal Cooling Device Versus Other Temperature Modulation Devices for Therapeutic Normothermia in Subarachnoid and Intracranial Hemorrhage.

Achieving and maintaining normothermia (NT) after subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) or intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) often require temperature modulating devices (TMD). Shivering is a common adverse effect of TMDs that can lead to further costs and complications. We evaluated an esophageal TMD, the EnsoETM (Attune Medical, Chicago, IL), to compare NT performance, shiver burden, and cost of shivering interventions with existing TMDs. Patients with SAH or ICH and refractory fever were treated with the EnsoETM. Patient demographics, temperature data, shiver severity, and amounts and costs of medications used for shiver management were prospectively collected. Controls who received other TMDs were matched for age, gender, and body surface area to EnsoETM recipients, and similar retrospective data were collected. All patients were mechanically ventilated. Fever burden was calculated as areas of curves of time spent above 37.5°C or 38°C. Demographics, temperature data, and costs of EnsoETM recipients were compared with recipients of other TMDs. Eight EnsoETM recipients and 24 controls between October 2015 and November 2016 were analyzed. There were no differences between the two groups in demographics or patient characteristics. No difference was found in temperature at initiation (38.7°C vs. 38.5°C, p = 0.4) and fever burden above 38°C (-0.44°C × hours vs. -0.53°C × hours, p = 0.47). EnsoETM recipients showed a nonsignificant trend in taking longer to achieve NT than other TMDs (5.4 hours vs. 2.9 hours, p = 0.07). EnsoETM recipients required fewer shiver interventions than controls (14 vs. 30, p = 0.02). EnsoETM recipients incurred fewer daily costs than controls ($124.27 vs. $232.76, p = 0.001). The EnsoETM achieved and maintained NT in SAH and ICH patients and was associated with less shivering and lower pharmaceutical costs than other TMDs. Further studies in larger populations are needed to determine the EnsoETM's efficacy in comparison to other TMDs.

Evaluation of pharmacist utilization of a poison center as a resource for patient care.

The objective of this study was to evaluate pharmacist use of a Regional Poison Information Center (RPIC), identify potential barriers to utilization, and provide strategies to overcome these barriers. All calls placed to a RPIC by a pharmacist, physician, or nurse over a 5-year period were retrieved. These data were analyzed to assess the pharmacist utilization of the RPIC and the variation of call types. Additionally, a survey, designed to assess the past and future use of the RPIC by pharmacists, was distributed to pharmacists in the region. Of the 37,799 calls made to the RPIC, 26,367 (69.8%) were from nurses, 8096 (21.4%) were from physicians, and 3336 (8.8%) were from pharmacists. Among calls initiated by pharmacists, the majority involved medication identification (n = 2391, 71.7%). The survey had a 38.9% response rate (n = 715) and revealed a trend toward less RPIC utilization by pharmacists with more formal training but less practice experience. The utilization of the RPIC was lowest among pharmacists as compared to other health care professionals. This may be due to pharmacists' unfamiliarity with the poison center's scope of services and resources. Therefore, it is important that pharmacists are educated on the benefit of utilizing poison centers in clinical situations.