The Impact of Health Care Algorithms on Racial and Ethnic Disparities : A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing concern for the potential impact of health care algorithms on racial and ethnic disparities. PURPOSE: To examine the evidence on how health care algorithms and associated mitigation strategies affect racial and ethnic disparities. DATA SOURCES: Several databases were searched for relevant studies published from 1 January 2011 to 30 September 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Using predefined criteria and dual review, studies were screened and selected to determine: 1) the effect of algorithms on racial and ethnic disparities in health and health care outcomes and 2) the effect of strategies or approaches to mitigate racial and ethnic bias in the development, validation, dissemination, and implementation of algorithms. DATA EXTRACTION: Outcomes of interest (that is, access to health care, quality of care, and health outcomes) were extracted with risk-of-bias assessment using the ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions) tool and adapted CARE-CPM (Critical Appraisal for Racial and Ethnic Equity in Clinical Prediction Models) equity extension. DATA SYNTHESIS: Sixty-three studies (51 modeling, 4 retrospective, 2 prospective, 5 prepost studies, and 1 randomized controlled trial) were included. Heterogenous evidence on algorithms was found to: a) reduce disparities (for example, the revised kidney allocation system), b) perpetuate or exacerbate disparities (for example, severity-of-illness scores applied to critical care resource allocation), and/or c) have no statistically significant effect on select outcomes (for example, the HEART Pathway [history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors, and troponin]). To mitigate disparities, 7 strategies were identified: removing an input variable, replacing a variable, adding race, adding a non-race-based variable, changing the racial and ethnic composition of the population used in model development, creating separate thresholds for subpopulations, and modifying algorithmic analytic techniques. LIMITATION: Results are mostly based on modeling studies and may be highly context-specific. CONCLUSION: Algorithms can mitigate, perpetuate, and exacerbate racial and ethnic disparities, regardless of the explicit use of race and ethnicity, but evidence is heterogeneous. Intentionality and implementation of the algorithm can impact the effect on disparities, and there may be tradeoffs in outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research.

A Narrative Review and Proposed Framework for Using Health System Data with Systematic Reviews to Support Decision-making.

Systematic reviews are a necessary, but often insufficient, source of information to address the decision-making needs of health systems. In this paper, we address when and how the use of health system data might make systematic reviews more useful to decision-makers. We describe the different ways in which health system data can be used with systematic reviews, identify scenarios in which the addition of health system data may be most helpful (i.e., to improve the strength of evidence, to improve the applicability of evidence, and to inform the implementation of evidence), and discuss the importance of framing the limitations and considerations when using unpublished health system data in reviews. We developed a framework to guide the use of health system data alongside systematic reviews based on a narrative review of the literature and empirical experience. We also offer recommendations to improve the transparency of reporting when using health system data alongside systematic reviews including providing rationale for employing additional data, details on the data source, critical appraisal to understand study design biases as well as limitations in data and information quality, and how the unpublished data compares to the systematically reviewed data. Future methodological work on how best to handle internal and external validity concerns of health system data in the context of systematically reviewed data and work on developing infrastructure to do this type of work is needed.

Effectiveness of indoor allergen reduction in asthma management: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: This review will inform updated National Asthma Education and Prevention Program clinical practice guidelines. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of allergen reduction interventions on asthma outcomes. METHODS: We systematically searched the "gray literature" and 5 bibliographic databases. Eligible studies included systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and nonrandomized interventional studies. Risk of bias was assessed by using the Cochrane Risk of Bias instrument and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The evidence base was assessed by using the approach of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Evidence-based Practice Center program. RESULTS: Fifty-nine randomized and 8 nonrandomized trials addressed 8 interventions: acaricide, air purification, carpet removal, high-efficiency particulate air filtration (HEPA) vacuums, mattress covers, mold removal, pest control, and pet removal. Thirty-seven studies evaluated single-component interventions, and 30 studies assessed multicomponent interventions. Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. For most interventions and outcomes, the evidence base was inconclusive or showed no effect. No interventions were associated with improvement in validated asthma control measures or pulmonary physiology. Exacerbations were diminished in multicomponent studies that included HEPA vacuums or pest control (moderate strength of evidence [SOE] for both). Quality of life improved in studies of air purifiers (SOE: low) and in multicomponent studies that included HEPA vacuums (SOE: moderate) or pest control (SOE: low). CONCLUSIONS: Single interventions were generally not associated with improvement in asthma measures, with most strategies showing inconclusive results or no effect. Multicomponent interventions improved various outcomes, but no combination of specific interventions appears to be more effective. The evidence was often inconclusive because of a lack of studies. Further research is needed comparing the effect of indoor allergen reduction interventions on validated asthma measures, with sufficient population sizes to detect clinically meaningful differences.

Impact of a Hospital Evidence-Based Practice Center (EPC) on Nursing Policy and Practice.

BACKGROUND: In 2006, our healthcare system created a hospital Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) to support the local delivery of high-quality, safe and high value patient care. Since then, the importance of healthcare staff work life has also been highlighted, and together these four elements form the Quadruple Aim framework. Synergistic to this Aim, the Magnet® program promotes and recognizes organizational nursing excellence. OBJECTIVE: To examine the EPC's work to inform nursing policy and practice in support of the goals of the Quadruple Aim framework and Magnet® designation. METHODS: Methods used included the following: (1) descriptive analysis of the hospital EPC's database of rapid reviews; and (2) administration of a 40-item electronic questionnaire to nurses who requested an EPC review during fiscal years (FY) 2015 and 2016. RESULTS: Of 308 rapid reviews completed in the EPC's first 10 years, 59 (19%) addressed nursing topics. The proportion of reviews relevant to nursing increased from 5% (2/39) in the center's first 2 years to 44% (25/60) in FY 2015-2016. The majority of nursing reviews (39/59) examined processes of care. Of 23 nurses eligible to participate in the survey, 21 responded (91%). Nurses with administrative or managerial responsibilities requested 70% of reviews; clinical nurse specialists and bedside nurses requested 17% and 9%, respectively. Reviews were used to support clinical program development (48%), provide clinical guidance (33%), update nursing policies or procedures (24%) and develop training and curricula (24%). Nurses were satisfied with the hospital EPC reviews (mean; 4.7/5), and 95% indicated they were likely to request a future review. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: A dedicated hospital EPC in partnership with nursing offers a unique mechanism for promoting a culture of evidence-based practice. Nurses at all organizational levels use the services of a hospital EPC to inform nursing policy and practice and are highly satisfied with the process, supporting the Quadruple Aim and Magnet® designation.

Cleaning Hospital Room Surfaces to Prevent Health Care-Associated Infections: A Technical Brief.

The cleaning of hard surfaces in hospital rooms is critical for reducing health care-associated infections. This review describes the evidence examining current methods of cleaning, disinfecting, and monitoring cleanliness of patient rooms, as well as contextual factors that may affect implementation and effectiveness. Key informants were interviewed, and a systematic search for publications since 1990 was done with the use of several bibliographic and gray literature resources. Studies examining surface contamination, colonization, or infection with Clostridium difficile, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or vancomycin-resistant enterococci were included. Eighty studies were identified-76 primary studies and 4 systematic reviews. Forty-nine studies examined cleaning methods, 14 evaluated monitoring strategies, and 17 addressed challenges or facilitators to implementation. Only 5 studies were randomized, controlled trials, and surface contamination was the most commonly assessed outcome. Comparative effectiveness studies of disinfecting methods and monitoring strategies were uncommon. Future research should evaluate and compare newly emerging strategies, such as self-disinfecting coatings for disinfecting and adenosine triphosphate and ultraviolet/fluorescent surface markers for monitoring. Studies should also assess patient-centered outcomes, such as infection, when possible. Other challenges include identifying high-touch surfaces that confer the greatest risk for pathogen transmission; developing standard thresholds for defining cleanliness; and using methods to adjust for confounders, such as hand hygiene, when examining the effect of disinfecting methods.

Penicillin Allergy Testing and Delabeling for Patients Who Are Prescribed Penicillin: A Systematic Review for a World Health Organization Guideline.

Secondary prevention with penicillin aims to prevent further episodes of acute rheumatic fever and subsequent development of rheumatic heart disease (RHD). Penicillin allergy, self-reported by 10% of the population, can affect secondary prevention programs. We aimed to assess the role for (i) routine penicillin allergy testing and the (ii) safety of penicillin allergy delabeling approaches in this context. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, ISRCTN, and CPCI-S to identify the relevant reports. We found 2419 records, but no studies addressed our initial question. Following advice from the WHO-Guideline committee and experts, we identified 6 manuscripts on allergy testing focusing on other populations showing that the prevalence of allergy confirmed by testing was low and the incidence of life-threatening reactions to BPG was very low (< 1-3/1000 individuals treated). A subsequent search addressed penicillin allergy delabeling. This found 516 records, and 5 studies addressing the safety of direct oral drug challenge vs. skin testing followed by drug administration in patients with suspected penicillin allergy. Immediate allergic reactions of minor severity were observed for a minority of patients and occurred less frequently in the direct drug challenge group: 2.3% vs. 11.5%; RR = 0.25, 95%CI 0.15-0.45, P < 0.00001, I2 = 0%. No anaphylaxis or deaths were observed. Severe allergic reactions to penicillin are extremely rare and can be recognized and dealt by trained healthcare workers. Confirmation of penicillin allergy diagnosis or delabeling using direct oral drug challenge or penicillin skin testing seems to be safe and is associated with a low rate of adverse reactions.

Critical Appraisal for Racial and Ethnic Equity in Clinical Prediction Models Extension: Development of a Critical Appraisal Tool Extension to Assess Racial and Ethnic Equity-Related Risk of Bias for Clinical Prediction Models.

Introduction: Despite mounting evidence that the inclusion of race and ethnicity in clinical prediction models may contribute to health disparities, existing critical appraisal tools do not directly address such equity considerations. Objective: This study developed a critical appraisal tool extension to assess algorithmic bias in clinical prediction models. Methods: A modified e-Delphi approach was utilized to develop and obtain expert consensus on a set of racial and ethnic equity-based signaling questions for appraisal of risk of bias in clinical prediction models. Through a series of virtual meetings, initial pilot application, and an online survey, individuals with expertise in clinical prediction model development, systematic review methodology, and health equity developed and refined this tool. Results: Consensus was reached for ten equity-based signaling questions, which led to the development of the Critical Appraisal for Racial and Ethnic Equity in Clinical Prediction Models (CARE-CPM) extension. This extension is intended for use along with existing critical appraisal tools for clinical prediction models. Conclusion: CARE-CPM provides a valuable risk-of-bias assessment tool extension for clinical prediction models to identify potential algorithmic bias and health equity concerns. Further research is needed to test usability, interrater reliability, and application to decision-makers.

Interventions for malnutrition in hospitalized adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition is associated with poor outcomes in hospitalized adults. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of hospital-initiated interventions for patients with malnutrition. METHODS: Data sources included MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library from January 1, 2000 to June 3, 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing interventions for hospitalized adults diagnosed or identified as at-risk for malnutrition using malnutrition screening and diagnostic assessment tools. Individual reviewers extracted study data and performed quality checks for accuracy. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model with variance correction. We assessed the overall strength of evidence at the outcome level. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. RESULTS: We found 11 RCTs that assessed two types of interventions: specialized nutrition care (8 RCTs) and increased protein provision (3 RCTs). The pooled findings of 11 RCTs found moderate strength of evidence that specialized nutrition care and increased protein provision reduced mortality by 21% (relative risk [RR]: 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63-0.98; absolute risk reduction [ARR]: -0.02, 95% CI: -0.03 to -0.00). Pooled estimates indicated a nonsignificant decrease of 0.18 days in the length of stay (9 RCTs) and a 10% reduction in readmissions (7 RCTs). No eligible RCTs assessed parenteral or enteral nutrition. CONCLUSION: Certain malnutrition-focused hospital-initiated interventions (e.g., specialized nutrition care and increased protein provision) reduce mortality and may improve the quality of life among patients at risk for or diagnosed with malnutrition. Future trials are needed to assess the effectiveness of parenteral and enteral nutrition.

Interventions to Reduce Hospital Length of Stay in High-risk Populations: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Many strategies to reduce hospital length of stay (LOS) have been implemented, but few studies have evaluated hospital-led interventions focused on high-risk populations. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Learning Health System panel commissioned this study to further evaluate system-level interventions for LOS reduction. Objective: To identify and synthesize evidence regarding potential systems-level strategies to reduce LOS for patients at high risk for prolonged LOS. Evidence Review: Multiple databases, including MEDLINE and Embase, were searched for English-language systematic reviews from January 1, 2010, through September 30, 2020, with updated searches through January 19, 2021. The scope of the protocol was determined with input from AHRQ Key Informants. Systematic reviews were included if they reported on hospital-led interventions intended to decrease LOS for high-risk populations, defined as those with high-risk medical conditions or socioeconomically vulnerable populations (eg, patients with high levels of socioeconomic risk, who are medically uninsured or underinsured, with limited English proficiency, or who are hospitalized at a safety-net, tertiary, or quaternary care institution). Exclusion criteria included interventions that were conducted outside of the hospital setting, including community health programs. Data extraction was conducted independently, with extraction of strength of evidence (SOE) ratings provided by systematic reviews; if unavailable, SOE was assessed using the AHRQ Evidence-Based Practice Center methods guide. Findings: Our searches yielded 4432 potential studies. We included 19 systematic reviews reported in 20 articles. The reviews described 8 strategies for reducing LOS in high-risk populations: discharge planning, geriatric assessment, medication management, clinical pathways, interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary care, case management, hospitalist services, and telehealth. Interventions were most frequently designed for older patients, often those who were frail (9 studies), or patients with heart failure. There were notable evidence gaps, as there were no systematic reviews studying interventions for patients with socioeconomic risk. For patients with medically complex conditions, discharge planning, medication management, and interdisciplinary care teams were associated with inconsistent outcomes (LOS, readmissions, mortality) across populations. For patients with heart failure, clinical pathways and case management were associated with reduced length of stay (clinical pathways: mean difference reduction, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.33 to 2.44] days; case management: mean difference reduction, 1.28 [95% CI, 0.52 to 2.04] days). Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review found inconsistent results across all high-risk populations on the effectiveness associated with interventions, such as discharge planning, that are often widely used by health systems. This systematic review highlights important evidence gaps, such as the lack of existing systematic reviews focused on patients with socioeconomic risk factors, and the need for further research.

Improving the utility of evidence synthesis for decision makers in the face of insufficient evidence.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and suggest strategies to make insufficient evidence ratings in systematic reviews more actionable. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A workgroup comprising members from the Evidence-Based Practice (EPC) Program of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality convened throughout 2020. We conducted iterative discussions considering information from three data sources: a literature review for relevant publications and frameworks, a review of a convenience sample of past systematic reviews conducted by the EPCs, and an audit of methods used in past EPC technical briefs. RESULTS: We identified five strategies for supplementing systematic review findings when evidence on benefits or harms is expected to be, or found to be, insufficient: 1) reconsider eligible study designs, 2) summarize indirect evidence, 3) summarize contextual and implementation evidence, 4) consider modelling, and 5) incorporate unpublished health system data in the evidence synthesis. While these strategies may not increase the strength of evidence, they may improve the utility of reports for decision makers. Adopting these strategies depends on feasibility, timeline, funding, and expertise of the systematic reviewers. CONCLUSION: Throughout the process of evidence synthesis of early scoping, protocol development, review conduct, and review presentation, authors can consider these five strategies to supplement evidence with insufficient rating to make it more actionable for end-users.

Quality improvement in small office settings: an examination of successful practices.

BACKGROUND: Physicians in small to moderate primary care practices in the United States (U.S.) (<25 physicians) face unique challenges in implementing quality improvement (QI) initiatives, including limited resources, small staffs, and inadequate information technology systems 23,36. This qualitative study sought to identify and understand the characteristics and organizational cultures of physicians working in smaller practices who are actively engaged in measurement and quality improvement initiatives. METHODS: We undertook a qualitative study, based on semi-structured, open-ended interviews conducted with practices (N = 39) that used performance data to drive quality improvement activities. RESULTS: Physicians indicated that benefits to performing measurement and QI included greater practice efficiency, patient and staff retention, and higher staff and clinician satisfaction with practice. Internal facilitators included the designation of a practice champion, cooperation of other physicians and staff, and the involvement of practice leaders. Time constraints, cost of activities, problems with information management and or technology, lack of motivated staff, and a lack of financial incentives were commonly reported as barriers. CONCLUSION: These findings shed light on how physicians engage in quality improvement activities, and may help raise awareness of and aid in the implementation of future initiatives in small practices more generally.

Ambulatory quality improvement in academic medical centers: a changing landscape.

Efforts to improve the quality of ambulatory care have received tremendous attention as bold new initiatives aimed at influencing the environment of care through financial incentives, public transparency, and information technology rapidly spread. Academic medical centers, which represent a long tradition of excellence and innovation in medical care, might be expected to lead the charge in these new arenas, but motivation for change may be mitigated by the unique complexity and multiple goals of these institutions. A survey conducted in the fall of 2006 examined the early impact of these major new influences on faculty practice plans. Respondents reported that many institutions have begun to develop key components of a quality infrastructure, but much work remains before a robust model emerges at most sites. Some academic medical centers have also embraced pay-for-performance and public reporting efforts, but many are not equipped or eager to engage in these new initiatives.

Using a 10-step framework to support the implementation of an evidence-based clinical pathways programme.

BACKGROUND: Integration of evidence into practice is suboptimal. Clinical pathways, defined as multidisciplinary care plans, are a method for translating evidence into local settings and have been shown to improve the value of patient care. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development of a clinical pathways programme across a large academic healthcare system. METHODS: We use a 10-step framework (grounded in the Knowledge-to-Action framework and ADAPTE Collaboration methodology for guideline adaptation) to support pathway development and dissemination, including facilitating clinical owner and stakeholder engagement, developing pathway prototypes based on rapid reviews of the existing literature, developing tools for dissemination and impact assessment. We use a cloud-based technology platform (Dorsata, Washington, DC) to assist with development and dissemination across our geographically distributed care settings and providers. Content is viewable through desktop and mobile applications. We measured programme adoption and penetration by examining number of pathways developed as well as mobile application use and pathway views. RESULTS: From 1 February 2016 to 30 April 2018, a total of 202 pathways were disseminated. The three most common clinical domains represented were oncology (46.5%, n=94), pulmonary/critical care (8.9%, n=18) and cardiovascular medicine (7.4%, n=15). Users opting to register for a personal account totalled 1279; the three largest groups were physicians (45.1%, n=504), advanced practice providers (19.5%, n=245) and nurses (19.1%, n=240). Pathway views reached an average of 2150 monthly views during the last 3 months of the period. The majority of pathways reference at least one evidence-based source (93.6%, n=180). CONCLUSIONS: A healthcare system can successfully use a framework and technology platform to support the development and dissemination of pathways across a multisite institution.

In chronic disease, nationwide data show poor adherence by patients to medication and by physicians to guidelines.

PURPOSE: It is widely acknowledged in small studies that provider variation from evidence-based care guidelines and patient medication nonadherence lead to less than optimal health outcomes, increasing costs, and higher utilization. The research presented here aims to determine the prevalence of patient adherence to a medication regimen and provider adherence to guidelines for a variety of chronic conditions, using nationally representative data. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of administrative claims data from a large national insurer was conducted. METHODOLOGY: The study examined multiple quality indicators exemplifying evidence-based medicine and medication adherence for several chronic conditions. Medication possession ratio (MPR) determined patient adherence. Using EBM Connect software created by Ingenix, we measured adherence to guidelines by applying a series of clinical rules and algorithms. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Adherence to the evidence-based practice guidelines examined in this study averaged approximately 59 percent, while patient medication nonadherence rates for all the conditions studied averaged 26.2 percent, with a range of 11 percent to 42 percent. Physician adherence to guidelines was highest in the prescribing of inhaled corticosteroids for persistent asthma. Ironically, medication adherence rates for inhaled corticosteroids were the worst identified. The best medication adherence rate was observed in patients with hypertension. CONCLUSION: Like earlier studies, this analysis finds that poor adherence is common across the nation and across common chronic conditions.

Quality of care measures for migraine: a comprehensive review.

Migraine headache is a highly prevalent, chronic, episodic disorder that is associated with high direct and indirect costs. Migraine headache impacts not only patients, but also their employers due to substantial decreases in workplace productivity. Despite the prevalence and clinical and economic burdens of migraine, no national efforts to develop and implement standardized measures of quality of care have been made. The objective of this study was to collect and report on existing quality of care measures for migraine that could be suitable for quality measurement at the health-plan level. Published literature, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's National Quality Measure Clearinghouse, and resources available from quality organizations (eg, the National Committee for Quality Assurance) were examined to identify existing quality indicators that can be used to assess the quality of care delivered to migraine sufferers at the health-plan level. Among the results of the study were the following: Quality of care measures for migraine include patient-reported measures and non-patient reported, diagnosis-related, prevention-related, and treatment-related indicators. Most existing measures have been developed by the Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement or summarized and reported by the RAND Corporation. Few of these measures can be used to assess migraine quality of care at the health-plan level. In conclusion, many measures exist, but they are not intended for use at the health-plan level. Incorporation of valid and reliable quality of care measures may increase the ability of migraine disease management programs to conform to clinical care guidelines. Significant effort is needed to determine what and how to measure quality among health plans to improve the quality of care delivered to individuals with migraine.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guideline for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 2017.

IMPORTANCE: The human and financial costs of treating surgical site infections (SSIs) are increasing. The number of surgical procedures performed in the United States continues to rise, and surgical patients are initially seen with increasingly complex comorbidities. It is estimated that approximately half of SSIs are deemed preventable using evidence-based strategies. OBJECTIVE: To provide new and updated evidence-based recommendations for the prevention of SSI. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A targeted systematic review of the literature was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library from 1998 through April 2014. A modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the quality of evidence and the strength of the resulting recommendation and to provide explicit links between them. Of 5759 titles and abstracts screened, 896 underwent full-text review by 2 independent reviewers. After exclusions, 170 studies were extracted into evidence tables, appraised, and synthesized. FINDINGS: Before surgery, patients should shower or bathe (full body) with soap (antimicrobial or nonantimicrobial) or an antiseptic agent on at least the night before the operative day. Antimicrobial prophylaxis should be administered only when indicated based on published clinical practice guidelines and timed such that a bactericidal concentration of the agents is established in the serum and tissues when the incision is made. In cesarean section procedures, antimicrobial prophylaxis should be administered before skin incision. Skin preparation in the operating room should be performed using an alcohol-based agent unless contraindicated. For clean and clean-contaminated procedures, additional prophylactic antimicrobial agent doses should not be administered after the surgical incision is closed in the operating room, even in the presence of a drain. Topical antimicrobial agents should not be applied to the surgical incision. During surgery, glycemic control should be implemented using blood glucose target levels less than 200 mg/dL, and normothermia should be maintained in all patients. Increased fraction of inspired oxygen should be administered during surgery and after extubation in the immediate postoperative period for patients with normal pulmonary function undergoing general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation. Transfusion of blood products should not be withheld from surgical patients as a means to prevent SSI. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This guideline is intended to provide new and updated evidence-based recommendations for the prevention of SSI and should be incorporated into comprehensive surgical quality improvement programs to improve patient safety.

Evidence synthesis activities of a hospital evidence-based practice center and impact on hospital decision making.

BACKGROUND: Hospital evidence-based practice centers (EPCs) synthesize and disseminate evidence locally, but their impact on institutional decision making is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To assess the evidence synthesis activities and impact of a hospital EPC serving a large academic healthcare system. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Descriptive analysis of the EPC's database of rapid systematic reviews since EPC inception (July 2006-June 2014), and survey of report requestors from the EPC's last 4 fiscal years. MEASUREMENTS: Descriptive analyses examined requestor and report characteristics; questionnaire examined report usability, impact, and requestor satisfaction (higher scores on 5-point Likert scales reflected greater agreement). RESULTS: The EPC completed 249 evidence reviews since inception. The most common requestors were clinical departments (29%, n = 72), chief medical officers (19%, n = 47), and purchasing committees (14%, n = 35). The most common technologies reviewed were drugs (24%, n = 60), devices (19%, n = 48), and care processes (12%, n = 31). Mean report completion time was 70 days. Thirty reports (12%) informed computerized decision support interventions. More than half of reports (56%, n = 139) were completed in the last 4 fiscal years for 65 requestors. Of the 64 eligible participants, 46 responded (72%). Requestors were satisfied with the report (mean = 4.4), and agreed it was delivered promptly (mean = 4.4), answered the questions posed (mean = 4.3), and informed their final decision (mean = 4.1). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first examination of evidence synthesis activities by a hospital EPC in the United States. Our findings suggest hospital EPCs can efficiently synthesize and disseminate evidence addressing a range of clinical topics for diverse stakeholders, and can influence local decision making.

Neonatal Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 Infection and Jewish Ritual Circumcision With Oral Suction: A Systematic Review.

Jewish ritual circumcision rarely but occasionally includes a procedure involving direct oral suction of the wound, which can expose an infant to infection with herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1). This practice has provoked international controversy in recent years, but no systematic review of the clinical literature has previously been published. We designed this review to identify and synthesize all published studies examining the association between circumcision with direct oral suction and HSV-1 infection. Our search strategy identified 6 published case series or case reports, documenting 30 cases between 1988 and 2012. Clinical findings were consistent with transmission of infection during circumcision, although the evidence base is limited by the small number of infections and incomplete case data. Published evidence suggests that circumcision with direct oral suction has resulted in severe neonatal illness and death from HSV-1 transmission, but further research is necessary to clarify the risk of infection.