Characterizing Patients Presenting on Hospital Admission With Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections: A Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: There are no systematic measures of central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) in patients maintaining central venous catheters (CVCs) outside acute care hospitals. To clarify the burden of CLABSIs in these patients, we characterized patients with CLABSI present on hospital admission (POA). METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of patients with CLABSI-POA in 3 health systems covering 11 hospitals across Maryland, Washington DC, and Missouri from November 2020 to October 2021. CLABSI-POA was defined using an adaptation of the acute care CLABSI definition. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and outcomes were collected via record review. Cox proportional hazard analysis was used to assess factors associated with the all-cause mortality rate within 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 461 patients were identified as having CLABSI-POA. CVCs were most commonly maintained in home infusion therapy (32.8%) or oncology clinics (31.2%). Enterobacterales were the most common etiologic agent (29.2%). Recurrent CLABSIs occurred in a quarter of patients (25%). Eleven percent of patients died during the hospital admission. Among patients with CLABSI-POA, mortality risk increased with age (hazard ratio vs age <20 years by age group: 20-44 years, 11.2 [95% confidence interval, 1.46-86.22]; 45-64 years, 20.88 [2.84-153.58]; ≥65 years, 22.50 [2.98-169.93]) and lack of insurance (2.46 [1.08-5.59]), and it decreased with CVC removal (0.57 [.39-.84]). CONCLUSIONS: CLABSI-POA is associated with significant in-hospital mortality risk. Surveillance is required to understand the burden of CLABSI in the community to identify targets for CLABSI prevention initiatives outside acute care settings.

Game-based learning to improve diagnostic accuracy: a pilot randomized-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Perform a pilot study of online game-based learning (GBL) using natural frequencies and feedback to teach diagnostic reasoning. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter randomized-controlled trial of computer-based training. We enrolled medical students, residents, practicing physicians and nurse practitioners. The intervention was a 45 min online GBL training vs. control education with a primary outcome of score on a scale of diagnostic accuracy (composed of 10 realistic case vignettes, requesting estimates of probability of disease after a test result, 0-100 points total). RESULTS: Of 90 participants there were 30 students, 30 residents and 30 practicing clinicians. Of these 62 % (56/90) were female and 52 % (47/90) were white. Sixty were randomized to GBL intervention and 30 to control. The primary outcome of diagnostic accuracy immediately after training was better in GBL (mean accuracy score 59.4) vs. control (37.6), p=0.0005. The GBL group was then split evenly (30, 30) into no further intervention or weekly emails with case studies. Both GBL groups performed better than control at one-month and some continued effect at three-month follow up. Scores at one-month GBL (59.2) GBL plus emails (54.2) vs. control (33.9), p=0.024; three-months GBL (56.2), GBL plus emails (42.9) vs. control (35.1), p=0.076. Most participants would recommend GBL to colleagues (73 %), believed it was enjoyable (92 %) and believed it improves test interpretation (95 %). CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, a single session with GBL nearly doubled score on a scale of diagnostic accuracy in medical trainees and practicing clinicians. The impact of GBL persisted after three months.