Impact of a Central-Line Insertion Site Assessment (CLISA) score on localized insertion site infection to prevent central-line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI).

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of a newly developed Central-Line Insertion Site Assessment (CLISA) score on the incidence of local inflammation or infection for CLABSI prevention. DESIGN: A pre- and postintervention, quasi-experimental quality improvement study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Adult inpatients with central venous catheters (CVCs) hospitalized in an intensive care unit or oncology ward at a large academic medical center. METHODS: We evaluated CLISA score impact on insertion site inflammation and infection (CLISA score of 2 or 3) incidence in the baseline period (June 2014-January 2015) and the intervention period (April 2015-October 2017) using interrupted times series and generalized linear mixed-effects multivariable analyses. These were run separately for days-to-line removal from identification of a CLISA score of 2 or 3. CLISA score interrater reliability and photo quiz results were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 6,957 CVCs assessed 40,846 times, percentage of lines with CLISA score of 2 or 3 in the baseline and intervention periods decreased by 78.2% (from 22.0% to 4.7%), with a significant immediate decrease in the time-series analysis (P < .001). According to the multivariable regression, the intervention was associated with lower percentage of lines with a CLISA score of 2 or 3, after adjusting for age, gender, CVC body location, and hospital unit (odds ratio, 0.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.34; P < .001). According to the multivariate regression, days to removal of lines with CLISA score of 2 or 3 was 3.19 days faster after the intervention (P < .001). Also, line dwell time decreased 37.1% from a mean of 14 days (standard deviation [SD], 10.6) to 8.8 days (SD, 9.0) (P < .001). Device utilization ratios decreased 9% from 0.64 (SD, 0.08) to 0.58 (SD, 0.06) (P = .039). CONCLUSIONS: The CLISA score creates a common language for assessing line infection risk and successfully promotes high compliance with best practices in timely line removal.

Definition and Implications of the Preventable Stroke.

IMPORTANCE: Although patients with acute stroke are routinely evaluated for potential treatment (ie, treatability of the stroke), preventability of the presenting stroke is generally not seriously considered. OBJECTIVE: To systematically analyze stroke preventability. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We evaluated medical records of 274 consecutive patients discharged with a diagnosis of ischemic stroke between December 2, 2010, and June 11, 2012, at the University of California Irvine Medical Center. Mean (SE) patient age was 67.2 (0.8) years. Data analysis was conducted from July 3, 2014, to August 4, 2015. EXPOSURES: Medical records were systematically examined for demographic information, stroke risk factors, stroke severity, and acute stroke treatment. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We defined stroke preventability as the degree to which the patient's presenting stroke was preventable. Using variables easily determined at onset of stroke, we developed a 10-point scale (0, not preventable; 10, most preventable) to classify the degree of stroke preventability. Our focus was effectiveness of treatment of hypertension (0-2 points), hyperlipidemia (0-2 points), and atrial fibrillation (0-4 points), as well as use of antithrombotic treatment for known prior cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disease (0-2 points). RESULTS: Total risk scores ranged from 0 to 8 (mean [SE], 2.2 [0.1]), with 207 patients (75.5%) exhibiting some degree of preventability (score of 1 or higher). Seventy-one patients (25.9%) had scores of 4 or higher, indicating that the stroke was highly preventable. Severity of stroke as determined by the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was not related to preventability of stroke. However, 21 of 71 patients (29.6%) whose stroke was highly preventable were treated with intravenous or intra-arterial acute stroke therapy while these treatments were provided for only 13 of 67 patients (19.4%) with scores of 0 (no preventability) and 19 of 136 patients (14.0%) with scores of 1 to 3 (low preventability) (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Most patients with acute stroke exhibited some degree of preventability. Preventability and treatment of stroke were significantly associated, indicating that the most preventable strokes paradoxically were more likely to receive acute treatment.