Development of Patient Safety Measures to Identify Inappropriate Diagnosis of Common Infections.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate diagnosis of infections results in antibiotic overuse and may delay diagnosis of underlying conditions. Here we describe the development and characteristics of 2 safety measures of inappropriate diagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI) and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), the most common inpatient infections on general medicine services. METHODS: Measures were developed from guidelines and literature and adapted based on data from patients hospitalized with UTI and CAP in 49 Michigan hospitals and feedback from end-users, a technical expert panel (TEP), and a patient focus group. Each measure was assessed for reliability, validity, feasibility, and usability. RESULTS: Two measures, now endorsed by the National Quality Forum (NQF), were developed. Measure reliability (derived from 24 483 patients) was excellent (0.90 for UTI; 0.91 for CAP). Both measures had strong validity demonstrated through (a) face validity by hospital users, the TEPs, and patient focus group, (b) implicit case review (ĸ 0.72 for UTI; ĸ 0.72 for CAP), and (c) rare case misclassification (4% for UTI; 0% for CAP) due to data errors (<2% for UTI; 6.3% for CAP). Measure implementation through hospital peer comparison in Michigan hospitals (2017 to 2020) demonstrated significant decreases in inappropriate diagnosis of UTI and CAP (37% and 32%, respectively, P < .001), supporting usability. CONCLUSIONS: We developed highly reliable, valid, and usable measures of inappropriate diagnosis of UTI and CAP for hospitalized patients. Hospitals seeking to improve diagnostic safety, antibiotic use, and patient care should consider using these measures to reduce inappropriate diagnosis of CAP and UTI.

Excellence in Antibiotic Stewardship: A mixed methods study comparing High, Medium, and Low Performing Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Despite antibiotic stewardship programs existing in most acute care hospitals, there continues to be variation in appropriate antibiotic use. While existing research examines individual prescriber behavior, contextual reasons for variation are poorly understood. METHODS: We conducted an explanatory, sequential mixed methods study of a purposeful sample of 7 hospitals with varying discharge antibiotic overuse. For each hospital, we conducted surveys, document analysis, and semi-structured interviews with antibiotic stewardship and clinical stakeholders. Data were analyzed separately and mixed during the interpretation phase, where each hospital was examined as a case, with findings organized across cases using a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats framework to identify factors accounting for differences in antibiotic overuse across hospitals. RESULTS: Surveys included 85 respondents. Interviews included 90 respondents (31 hospitalists, 33 clinical pharmacists, 14 stewardship leaders, 12 hospital leaders). On surveys, clinical pharmacists at hospitals with lower antibiotic overuse were more likely to report feeling: respected by hospitalist colleagues (p=0.001), considered valuable team members (p=0.001), comfortable recommending antibiotic changes (p=0.02). Based on mixed-methods analysis, hospitals with low antibiotic overuse had four distinguishing characteristics: a) robust knowledge of and access to antibiotic stewardship guidance, b) high quality clinical pharmacist-physician relationships, c) tools and infrastructure to support stewardship, and d) highly engaged Infectious Diseases physicians who advocated stewardship principles. CONCLUSION: This mixed-method study demonstrates the importance of organizational context for high performance in stewardship and suggests improving antimicrobial stewardship requires attention to knowledge, interactions, and relationships between clinical teams and infrastructure that supports stewardship and team interactions.

A Statewide Collaborative Quality Initiative to Improve Antibiotic Duration and Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized With Uncomplicated Community-Acquired Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common cause for hospitalization and antibiotic overuse. We aimed to improve antibiotic duration for CAP across 41 hospitals participating in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium (HMS). METHODS: This prospective collaborative quality initiative included patients hospitalized with uncomplicated CAP who qualified for a 5-day antibiotic duration. Between 23 February 2017 and 5 February 2020, HMS targeted appropriate 5-day antibiotic treatment through benchmarking, sharing best practices, and pay-for-performance incentives. Changes in outcomes, including appropriate receipt of 5 ± 1-day antibiotic treatment and 30-day postdischarge composite adverse events (ie, deaths, readmissions, urgent visits, and antibiotic-associated adverse events), were assessed over time (per 3-month quarter), using logistic regression and controlling for hospital clustering. RESULTS: A total of 41 hospitals and 6553 patients were included. The percentage of patients treated with an appropriate 5 ±â€…1-day duration increased from 22.1% (predicted probability, 20.9% [95% confidence interval: 17.2%-25.0%]) to 45.9% (predicted probability, 43.9% [36.8%-51.2%]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per quarter, 1.10 [1.07-1.14]). Thirty-day composite adverse events occurred in 18.5% of patients (1166 of 6319) and decreased over time (aOR per quarter, 0.98 [95% confidence interval: .96-.99]) owing to a decrease in antibiotic-associated adverse events (aOR per quarter, 0.91 [.87-.95]). CONCLUSIONS: Across diverse hospitals, HMS participation was associated with more appropriate use of short-course therapy and fewer adverse events in hospitalized patients with uncomplicated CAP. Establishment of national or regional collaborative quality initiatives with data collection and benchmarking, sharing of best practices, and pay-for-performance incentives may improve antibiotic use and outcomes for patients hospitalized with uncomplicated CAP.

Antibiotic Stewardship Strategies and Their Association With Antibiotic Overuse After Hospital Discharge: An Analysis of the Reducing Overuse of Antibiotics at Discharge (Road) Home Framework.

BACKGROUND: Strategies to optimize antibiotic prescribing at discharge are not well understood. METHODS: In fall 2019, we surveyed 39 Michigan hospitals on their antibiotic stewardship strategies. The association of reported strategies with discharge antibiotic overuse (unnecessary, excess, suboptimal fluoroquinolones) for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and urinary tract infection (UTI) was evaluated in 2 ways: (1) all strategies assumed equal weight and (2) strategies were weighted based on the ROAD (Reducing Overuse of Antibiotics at Discharge) Home Framework (ie, Tier 1-Critical infrastructure, Tier 2-Broad inpatient interventions, Tier 3-Discharge-specific strategies) with Tier 3 strategies receiving the highest weight. RESULTS: Between 1 July 2017 and 30 July 2019, 39 hospitals with 20 444 patients (56.5% CAP; 43.5% UTI) were included. Survey response was 100%. Hospitals reported a median (interquartile range [IQR]) 12 (9-14) of 34 possible stewardship strategies. On analyses of individual stewardship strategies, the Tier 3 intervention, review of antibiotics prior to discharge, was the only strategy consistently associated with lower antibiotic overuse at discharge (adjusted incident rate ratio [aIRR] 0.543, 95% confidence interval [CI]: .335-.878). On multivariable analysis, weighting by ROAD Home tier predicted antibiotic overuse at discharge for both CAP and UTI. For diseases combined, having more weighted strategies was associated with lower antibiotic overuse at discharge (aIRR 0.957, 95% CI: .927-.987, per weighted intervention); discharge-specific stewardship strategies were associated with a 12.4% relative decrease in antibiotic overuse days at discharge. CONCLUSIONS: The more stewardship strategies a hospital reported, the lower its antibiotic overuse at discharge. However, Tier 3, or discharge-specific strategies, appeared to have the largest effect on antibiotic prescribing at discharge.

Empiric Antibacterial Therapy and Community-onset Bacterial Coinfection in Patients Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Multi-hospital Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Antibacterials may be initiated out of concern for bacterial coinfection in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We determined prevalence and predictors of empiric antibacterial therapy and community-onset bacterial coinfections in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A randomly sampled cohort of 1705 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in 38 Michigan hospitals between 3/13/2020 and 6/18/2020. Data were collected on early (within 2 days of hospitalization) empiric antibacterial therapy and community-onset bacterial coinfections (positive microbiologic test ≤3 days). Poisson generalized estimating equation models were used to assess predictors. RESULTS: Of 1705 patients with COVID-19, 56.6% were prescribed early empiric antibacterial therapy; 3.5% (59/1705) had a confirmed community-onset bacterial infection. Across hospitals, early empiric antibacterial use varied from 27% to 84%. Patients were more likely to receive early empiric antibacterial therapy if they were older (adjusted rate ratio [ARR]: 1.04 [1.00-1.08] per 10 years); had a lower body mass index (ARR: 0.99 [0.99-1.00] per kg/m2), more severe illness (eg, severe sepsis; ARR: 1.16 [1.07-1.27]), a lobar infiltrate (ARR: 1.21 [1.04-1.42]); or were admitted to a for-profit hospital (ARR: 1.30 [1.15-1.47]). Over time, COVID-19 test turnaround time (returned ≤1 day in March [54.2%, 461/850] vs April [85.2%, 628/737], P < .001) and empiric antibacterial use (ARR: 0.71 [0.63-0.81] April vs March) decreased. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of confirmed community-onset bacterial coinfections was low. Despite this, half of patients received early empiric antibacterial therapy. Antibacterial use varied widely by hospital. Reducing COVID-19 test turnaround time and supporting stewardship could improve antibacterial use.

Antibiotic Overuse After Hospital Discharge: A Multi-hospital Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics are commonly prescribed to patients as they leave the hospital. We aimed to create a comprehensive metric to characterize antibiotic overuse after discharge among hospitalized patients treated for pneumonia or urinary tract infection (UTI), and to determine whether overuse varied across hospitals and conditions. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study of hospitalized patients treated for pneumonia or UTI in 46 hospitals between 1 July 2017-30 July 2019, we quantified the proportion of patients discharged with antibiotic overuse, defined as unnecessary antibiotic use, excess antibiotic duration, or suboptimal fluoroquinolone use. Using linear regression, we assessed hospital-level associations between antibiotic overuse after discharge in patients treated for pneumonia versus a UTI. RESULTS: Of 21 825 patients treated for infection (12 445 with pneumonia; 9380 with a UTI), nearly half (49.1%) had antibiotic overuse after discharge (56.9% with pneumonia; 38.7% with a UTI). For pneumonia, 63.1% of overuse days after discharge were due to excess duration; for UTIs, 43.9% were due to treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria. The percentage of patients discharged with antibiotic overuse varied 5-fold among hospitals (from 15.9% [95% confidence interval, 8.7%-24.6%] to 80.6% [95% confidence interval, 69.4%-88.1%]) and was strongly correlated between conditions (regression coefficient = 0.85; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic overuse after discharge was common and varied widely between hospitals. Antibiotic overuse after discharge was associated between conditions, suggesting that the prescribing culture, physician behavior, or organizational processes contribute to overprescribing at discharge. Multifaceted efforts focusing on all 3 types of overuse and multiple conditions should be considered to improve antibiotic prescribing at discharge.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Adults with Community-acquired Pneumonia. An Official Clinical Practice Guideline of the American Thoracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Background: This document provides evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on the management of adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia.Methods: A multidisciplinary panel conducted pragmatic systematic reviews of the relevant research and applied Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology for clinical recommendations.Results: The panel addressed 16 specific areas for recommendations spanning questions of diagnostic testing, determination of site of care, selection of initial empiric antibiotic therapy, and subsequent management decisions. Although some recommendations remain unchanged from the 2007 guideline, the availability of results from new therapeutic trials and epidemiological investigations led to revised recommendations for empiric treatment strategies and additional management decisions.Conclusions: The panel formulated and provided the rationale for recommendations on selected diagnostic and treatment strategies for adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia.

Use of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters in Patients With Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Background: Existing guidelines, including Choosing Wisely recommendations, endorse avoiding placement of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Objective: To describe the frequency of and characteristics associated with PICC use in hospitalized patients with stage 3b or greater CKD (glomerular filtration rate [GFR] <45 mL/min/1.73 m2). Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: 52 hospitals participating in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium. Participants: Hospitalized medical patients who received a PICC between November 2013 and September 2016. Measurements: Percentage of patients receiving PICCs who had CKD, frequency of PICC-related complications, and variation in the proportion of PICCs placed in patients with CKD. Results: Of 20 545 patients who had PICCs placed, 4743 (23.1% [95% CI, 20.9% to 25.3%]) had an estimated GFR (eGFR) less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 and 699 (3.4%) were receiving hemodialysis. In the intensive care unit (ICU), 30.9% (CI, 29.7% to 32.2%) of patients receiving PICCs had an eGFR less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m2; the corresponding percentage in wards was 19.3% (CI, 18.8% to 19.9%). Among patients with an eGFR less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m2, multilumen PICCs were placed more frequently than single-lumen PICCs. In wards, PICC-related complications occurred in 15.3% of patients with an eGFR less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 and in 15.2% of those with an eGFR of 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 or higher. The corresponding percentages in ICU settings were 22.4% and 23.9%. In patients with an eGFR less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m2, PICC placement varied widely across hospitals (interquartile range, 23.7% to 37.8% in ICUs and 12.8% to 23.7% in wards). Limitation: Nephrologist approval for placement could not be determined, and 2.7% of eGFR values were unknown and excluded. Conclusion: In this sample of hospitalized patients who received PICCs, placement in those with CKD was common and not concordant with clinical guidelines. Primary Funding Source: Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network.

Excess Antibiotic Treatment Duration and Adverse Events in Patients Hospitalized With Pneumonia: A Multihospital Cohort Study.

Background: Randomized trials demonstrate no benefit from antibiotic treatment exceeding the shortest effective duration. Objective: To examine predictors and outcomes associated with excess duration of antibiotic treatment. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: 43 hospitals in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium. Patients: 6481 general care medical patients with pneumonia. Measurements: The primary outcome was the rate of excess antibiotic treatment duration (excess days per 30-day period). Excess days were calculated by subtracting each patient's shortest effective (expected) treatment duration (based on time to clinical stability, pathogen, and pneumonia classification [community-acquired vs. health care-associated]) from the actual duration. Negative binomial generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were used to calculate rate ratios to assess predictors of 30-day rates of excess duration. Patient outcomes, assessed at 30 days via the medical record and telephone calls, were evaluated using logit GEEs that adjusted for patient characteristics and probability of treatment. Results: Two thirds (67.8% [4391 of 6481]) of patients received excess antibiotic therapy. Antibiotics prescribed at discharge accounted for 93.2% of excess duration. Patients who had respiratory cultures or nonculture diagnostic testing, had a longer stay, received a high-risk antibiotic in the prior 90 days, had community-acquired pneumonia, or did not have a total antibiotic treatment duration documented at discharge were more likely to receive excess treatment. Excess treatment was not associated with lower rates of any adverse outcomes, including death, readmission, emergency department visit, or Clostridioides difficile infection. Each excess day of treatment was associated with a 5% increase in the odds of antibiotic-associated adverse events reported by patients after discharge. Limitation: Retrospective design; not all patients could be contacted to report 30-day outcomes. Conclusion: Patients hospitalized with pneumonia often receive excess antibiotic therapy. Excess antibiotic treatment was associated with patient-reported adverse events. Future interventions should focus on whether reducing excess treatment and improving documentation at discharge improves outcomes. Primary Funding Source: Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) and Blue Care Network as part of the BCBSM Value Partnerships program.

The Association of Antibiotic Stewardship With Fluoroquinolone Prescribing in Michigan Hospitals: A Multi-hospital Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Fluoroquinolones increase the risk of Clostridioides difficile infection and antibiotic resistance. Hospitals often use pre-prescription approval or prospective audit and feedback to target fluoroquinolone prescribing. Whether these strategies impact aggregate fluoroquinolone use is unknown. METHODS: This study is a 48-hospital, retrospective cohort of general-care, medical patients hospitalized with pneumonia or positive urine culture between December 2015-September 2017. Hospitals were surveyed on their use of pre-prescription approval and/or prospective audit and feedback to target fluoroquinolone prescribing during hospitalization (fluoroquinolone stewardship). After controlling for hospital clustering and patient factors, aggregate (inpatient and post-discharge) fluoroquinolone (ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin) exposure was compared between hospitals with and without fluoroquinolone stewardship. RESULTS: There were 11 748 patients (6820 pneumonia; 4928 positive urine culture) included at 48 hospitals. All hospitals responded to the survey: 29.2% (14/48) reported using pre-prescription approval and/or prospective audit and feedback to target fluoroquinolone prescribing. After adjustment, fluoroquinolone stewardship was associated with fewer patients receiving a fluoroquinolone (37.1% vs 48.2%; P = .01) and fewer fluoroquinolone treatment days per 1000 patients (2282 vs 3096 days/1000 patients; P = .01), driven by lower inpatient prescribing. However, most (66.6%) fluoroquinolone treatment days occurred after discharge, and hospitals with fluoroquinolone stewardship had twice as many new fluoroquinolone starts after discharge as hospitals without (15.6% vs 8.4%; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-based stewardship interventions targeting fluoroquinolone prescribing were associated with less fluoroquinolone prescribing during hospitalization, but not at discharge. To limit aggregate fluoroquinolone exposure, stewardship programs should target both inpatient and discharge prescribing.

Preventability of Early Versus Late Hospital Readmissions in a National Cohort of General Medicine Patients.

Background: Many experts believe that hospitals with more frequent readmissions provide lower-quality care, but little is known about how the preventability of readmissions might change over the postdischarge time frame. Objective: To determine whether readmissions within 7 days of discharge differ from those between 8 and 30 days after discharge with respect to preventability. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: 10 academic medical centers in the United States. Patients: 822 adults readmitted to a general medicine service. Measurements: For each readmission, 2 site-specific physician adjudicators used a structured survey instrument to determine whether it was preventable and measured other characteristics. Results: Overall, 36.2% of early readmissions versus 23.0% of late readmissions were preventable (median risk difference, 13.0 percentage points [interquartile range, 5.5 to 26.4 percentage points]). Hospitals were identified as better locations for preventing early readmissions (47.2% vs. 25.5%; median risk difference, 22.8 percentage points [interquartile range, 17.9 to 31.8 percentage points]), whereas outpatient clinics (15.2% vs. 6.6%; median risk difference, 10.0 percentage points [interquartile range, 4.6 to 12.2 percentage points]) and home (19.4% vs. 14.0%; median risk difference, 5.6 percentage points [interquartile range, -6.1 to 17.1 percentage points]) were better for preventing late readmissions. Limitation: Physician adjudicators were not blinded to readmission timing, community hospitals were not included in the study, and readmissions to nonstudy hospitals were not included in the results. Conclusion: Early readmissions were more likely to be preventable and amenable to hospital-based interventions. Late readmissions were less likely to be preventable and were more amenable to ambulatory and home-based interventions. Primary Funding Source: Association of American Medical Colleges.

Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters in the ICU: A Retrospective Study of Adult Medical Patients in 52 Hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify variation in use and complications from peripherally inserted central catheters placed in the ICU versus peripherally inserted central catheters placed on the general ward. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Fifty-two hospital Michigan quality collaborative. PATIENTS: Twenty-seven-thousand two-hundred eighty-nine patients with peripherally inserted central catheters placed during hospitalization. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient, provider, and device characteristics. Bivariate tests were used to assess differences between peripherally inserted central catheters placed in the ICU versus peripherally inserted central catheters placed on the ward. Multilevel mixed-effects generalized linear models adjusting for patient and device factors with a logit link clustered by hospital were used to examine the association between peripherally inserted central catheter complications and location of peripherally inserted central catheter placement. Variation in ICU peripherally inserted central catheter use, rates of complications, and appropriateness of use across hospitals was also examined. Eight-thousand two-hundred eighty patients (30.3%) received peripherally inserted central catheters in the ICU versus 19,009 (69.7%) on the general ward. The commonest indication for peripherally inserted central catheter use in the ICU was difficult IV access (35.1%) versus antibiotic therapy (53.3%) on wards. Compared with peripherally inserted central catheters placed in wards, peripherally inserted central catheters placed in the ICU were more often multilumen (59.5% vs 39.3; p < 0.001) and more often associated with a complication (odds ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.18-1.43; p < 0.001). Substantial variation in ICU peripherally inserted central catheter use and outcomes across hospitals was observed, with median peripherally inserted central catheter dwell time ranging from 3 to 38.5 days (p < 0.001) and complications from 0% to 40.2% (p < 0.001). Importantly, 87% (n = 45) of ICUs reported median peripherally inserted central catheter dwell times less than or equal to 14 days, a duration where traditional central venous catheters, not peripherally inserted central catheters, are considered appropriate by published criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Peripherally inserted central catheter use in the ICU is highly variable, associated with complications and often not appropriate. Further study of vascular access decision-making in the ICU appears necessary.

Patterns and Predictors of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Occlusion: The 3P-O Study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate patterns and predictors of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-related occlusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from a multihospital study were used to examine factors associated with PICC occlusion. Occlusion was defined if documented in the medical record or when tissue plasminogen activator was administered for occlusion-related concerns. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to predict occlusion, controlling for patient-, provider-, device-, and hospital-level characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 14,278 PICCs placed in 13,408 patients were included. Of these, occlusion developed in 1,716 PICCs (12%) in 1,684 patients. The most common indications for PICC insertion were intravenous antibiotic therapy (32.7%), difficult intravenous access (21.5%), and central access (13.7%). PICCs placed in the right arm had decreased odds of occlusion compared with those in the left arm (odds ratio [OR] = 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.72-0.94). Verification of catheter tip position following insertion was associated with reduction in occlusion (OR = 0.75; 95% CI = 0.61-0.92). Although normal saline solution or heparin flushes did not reduce occlusion, PICCs flushed with normal saline solution and "locked" with heparin were less likely to become occluded (OR = 0.54; 95% CI = 0.33-0.88). Compared with single-lumen devices, double- and triple-lumen PICCs were associated with greater incidences of occlusion (double, OR = 3.07; 95% CI = 2.56-3.67; triple, OR = 3.72; 95% CI = 2.92-4.74). Catheter tip malposition was also associated with occlusion (OR = 1.46; 95% CI = 1.14-1.87). CONCLUSIONS: Several patient, provider, and device characteristics appear associated with PICC occlusion. Interventions targeting these factors may prove valuable in reducing this complication.

Physician Perspectives on Factors Contributing to Readmissions and Potential Prevention Strategies: A Multicenter Survey.

BACKGROUND: The transition out of the hospital is a vulnerable time for patients, relying heavily on communication and coordination of resources across care settings. Understanding the perspectives of inpatient and outpatient physicians regarding factors contributing to readmission and potential preventive strategies is crucial in designing appropriately targeted readmission prevention efforts. OBJECTIVE: To examine and compare inpatient and outpatient physician opinions regarding reasons for readmission and interventions that might have prevented readmission. DESIGN: Cross-sectional multicenter study. PARTICIPANTS: We identified patients readmitted to general medicine services within 30 days of discharge at 12 US academic medical centers, and surveyed the primary care physician (PCP), discharging physician from the index admission, and admitting physician from the readmission regarding their endorsement of pre-specified factors contributing to the readmission and potential preventive strategies. MAIN MEASURES: We calculated kappa statistics to gauge agreement between physician dyads (PCP-discharging physician, PCP-admitting physician, and admitting-discharging physician). KEY RESULTS: We evaluated 993 readmission events, which generated responses from 356 PCPs (36 % of readmissions), 675 discharging physicians (68 % of readmissions), and 737 admitting physicians (74 % of readmissions). The most commonly endorsed contributing factors by both PCPs and inpatient physicians related to patient understanding and ability to self-manage. The most commonly endorsed preventive strategies involved providing patients with enhanced post-discharge instructions and/or support. Although PCPs and inpatient physicians endorsed contributing factors and potential preventive strategies with similar frequencies, agreement among the three physicians on the specific factors and/or strategies that applied to individual readmission events was poor (maximum kappa 0.30). CONCLUSIONS: Differing opinions among physicians on factors contributing to individual readmissions highlights the importance of communication between inpatient and outpatient providers at discharge to share their different perspectives, and suggests that multi-faceted, broadly applied interventions may be more successful than those that rely on individual providers choosing specific services based on perceived risk factors.

Overuse of testing in preoperative evaluation and syncope: a survey of hospitalists.

BACKGROUND: Health care reform efforts and initiatives seek to improve quality and reduce costs by eliminating unnecessary care. However, little is known about overuse and its drivers, especially in hospitals. OBJECTIVE: To assess the extent of and factors associated with overuse of testing in U.S. hospitals. DESIGN: National survey of practice patterns for 2 common clinical vignettes: preoperative evaluation and syncope. Respondents were randomly selected and randomly provided 1 of 4 versions of each vignette. Each version contained identical clinical information but varied in factors that could change physician behavior. Respondents were asked to identify what they believed most hospitalists at their institution would recommend in each vignette. SETTING: Mailed survey conducted from June through October 2011. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians practicing adult hospital medicine in the United States. MEASUREMENTS: Responses indicating overuse (more testing than recommended by American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines). RESULTS: 68% (1020 of 1500) of hospitalists responded. They reported overuse in 52% to 65% of the preoperative evaluation vignettes and 82% to 85% of the syncope vignettes. Overuse more frequently resulted from a physician's desire to reassure patients or themselves than an incorrect belief that it was clinically indicated (preoperative evaluation, 63% vs. 37%; syncope, 69% vs. 31%; P < 0.001 for each). LIMITATION: Survey responses may not represent actual clinical choices. CONCLUSION: Physicians reported substantial overuse in 2 common clinical situations in the hospital. Improving provider knowledge of guidelines may help reduce overuse, but despite awareness of the guidelines, physicians often deviate from them to reassure patients or themselves. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Foundation, Department of Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research, University of Michigan Specialist-Hospitalist Allied Research Program, and Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs/University of Michigan Patient Safety Enhancement Program.

The Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC): Results From a Multispecialty Panel Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

Use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) has grown substantially in recent years. Increasing use has led to the realization that PICCs are associated with important complications, including thrombosis and infection. Moreover, some PICCs may not be placed for clinically valid reasons. Defining appropriate indications for insertion, maintenance, and care of PICCs is thus important for patient safety. An international panel was convened that applied the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to develop criteria for use of PICCs. After systematic reviews of the literature, scenarios related to PICC use, care, and maintenance were developed according to patient population (for example, general hospitalized, critically ill, cancer, kidney disease), indication for insertion (infusion of peripherally compatible infusates vs. vesicants), and duration of use (≤5 days, 6 to 14 days, 15 to 30 days, or ≥31 days). Within each scenario, appropriateness of PICC use was compared with that of other venous access devices. After review of 665 scenarios, 253 (38%) were rated as appropriate, 124 (19%) as neutral/uncertain, and 288 (43%) as inappropriate. For peripherally compatible infusions, PICC use was rated as inappropriate when the proposed duration of use was 5 or fewer days. Midline catheters and ultrasonography-guided peripheral intravenous catheters were preferred to PICCs for use between 6 and 14 days. In critically ill patients, nontunneled central venous catheters were preferred over PICCs when 14 or fewer days of use were likely. In patients with cancer, PICCs were rated as appropriate for irritant or vesicant infusion, regardless of duration. The panel of experts used a validated method to develop appropriate indications for PICC use across patient populations. These criteria can be used to improve care, inform quality improvement efforts, and advance the safety of medical patients.