Improving Appropriate Use of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters Through a Statewide Collaborative Hospital Initiative: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement (QI) programs require significant financial investment. The authors evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a physician-led, performance-incentivized, QI intervention that increased appropriate peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) use. METHODS: The authors used an economic evaluation from a health care sector perspective. Implementation costs included incentive payments to hospitals and costs for data abstractors and the coordinating center. Effectiveness was calculated from propensity score-matched observations across two time periods for complications (venous thromboembolism [VTE], central line-associated bloodstream infection [CLABSI], and catheter occlusion): preintervention period (January 2015 through December 2016) and intervention period (January 2017 through December 2021). Cost-effectiveness was presented as the cost-offset per averted complication, reflecting the health care costs avoided due to having lower complication rates. RESULTS: Across 35 hospitals, this study sampled 17,418 PICCs placed preintervention and 26,004 placed during the intervention period. PICC complications decreased significantly following the intervention. CLABSIs decreased from 2.1% to 1.5%, VTEs from 3.2% to 2.3%, and catheter occlusions from 10.8% to 7.0% (all p < 0.01). Estimated number of complications prevented included 871 CLABSIs, 2,535 VTEs, and 8,743 catheter occlusions. Project implementation costs were $31.8 million, and the cost-offset related to avoided complications was $64.4 million. Each participating hospital averaged $932,073 in cost-offset over seven years, and the average cost-offset per complication averted was $2,614 (95% CI [confidence interval] $2,314-$3,003). CONCLUSION: A large-scale, multihospital QI initiative to improve appropriate PICC use yielded substantial return on investment from cost-offset of prevented complications.

Protocol for a parallel cluster randomized trial of a participatory tailored approach to reduce overuse of antibiotics at hospital discharge: the ROAD home trial.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic overuse at hospital discharge is common, costly, and harmful. While discharge-specific antibiotic stewardship interventions are effective, they are resource-intensive and often infeasible for hospitals with resource constraints. This weakness impacts generalizability of stewardship interventions and has health equity implications as not all patients have access to the benefits of stewardship based on where they receive care. There may be different pathways to improve discharge antibiotic prescribing that vary widely in feasibility. Supporting hospitals in selecting interventions tailored to their context may be an effective approach to feasibly reduce antibiotic overuse at discharge across diverse hospitals. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the Reducing Overuse of Antibiotics at Discharge Home multicomponent implementation strategy ("ROAD Home") on antibiotic overuse at discharge for community-acquired pneumonia and urinary tract infection. METHODS: This 4-year two-arm parallel cluster-randomized trial will include three phases: baseline (23 months), intervention (12 months), and postintervention (12 months). Forty hospitals recruited from the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium will undergo covariate-constrained randomization with half randomized to the ROAD Home implementation strategy and half to a "stewardship as usual" control. ROAD Home is informed by the integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services Framework and includes (1) a baseline needs assessment to create a tailored suite of potential stewardship interventions, (2) supported decision-making in selecting interventions to implement, and (3) external facilitation following an implementation blueprint. The primary outcome is baseline-adjusted days of antibiotic overuse at discharge. Secondary outcomes include 30-day patient outcomes and antibiotic-associated adverse events. A mixed-methods concurrent process evaluation will identify contextual factors influencing the implementation of tailored interventions, and assess implementation outcomes including acceptability, feasibility, fidelity, and sustainment. DISCUSSION: Reducing antibiotic overuse at discharge across hospitals with varied resources requires tailoring of interventions. This trial will assess whether a multicomponent implementation strategy that supports hospitals in selecting evidence-based stewardship interventions tailored to local context leads to reduced overuse of antibiotics at discharge. Knowledge gained during this study could inform future efforts to implement stewardship in diverse hospitals and promote equity in access to the benefits of quality improvement initiatives. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT06106204 on 10/30/23.

Inappropriate Diagnosis of Pneumonia Among Hospitalized Adults.

Importance: Little is known about incidence of, risk factors for, and harms associated with inappropriate diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Objective: To characterize inappropriate diagnosis of CAP in hospitalized patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study, including medical record review and patient telephone calls, took place across 48 Michigan hospitals. Trained abstractors retrospectively assessed hospitalized patients treated for CAP between July 1, 2017, and March 31, 2020. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were adults admitted to general care with a discharge diagnostic code of pneumonia who received antibiotics on day 1 or 2 of hospitalization. Data were analyzed from February to December 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Inappropriate diagnosis of CAP was defined using a National Quality Forum-endorsed metric as CAP-directed antibiotic therapy in patients with fewer than 2 signs or symptoms of CAP or negative chest imaging. Risk factors for inappropriate diagnosis were assessed and, for those inappropriately diagnosed, 30-day composite outcomes (mortality, readmission, emergency department visit, Clostridioides difficile infection, and antibiotic-associated adverse events) were documented and stratified by full course (>3 days) vs brief (≤3 days) antibiotic treatment using generalized estimating equation models adjusting for confounders and propensity for treatment. Results: Of the 17 290 hospitalized patients treated for CAP, 2079 (12.0%) met criteria for inappropriate diagnosis (median [IQR] age, 71.8 [60.1-82.8] years; 1045 [50.3%] female), of whom 1821 (87.6%) received full antibiotic courses. Compared with patients with CAP, patients inappropriately diagnosed were older (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.11 per decade) and more likely to have dementia (AOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.55-2.08) or altered mental status on presentation (AOR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.39-2.19). Among those inappropriately diagnosed, 30-day composite outcomes for full vs brief treatment did not differ (25.8% vs 25.6%; AOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79-1.23). Full vs brief duration of antibiotic treatment among patients was associated with antibiotic-associated adverse events (31 of 1821 [2.1%] vs 1 of 258 [0.4%]; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, inappropriate diagnosis of CAP among hospitalized adults was common, particularly among older adults, those with dementia, and those presenting with altered mental status. Full-course antibiotic treatment of those inappropriately diagnosed with CAP may be harmful.

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 two 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 < 0.001), 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.

Midline catheters in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Midline catheters (midlines) are increasingly used in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). OBJECTIVE: This study describes current practice and acute complications associated with midlines in CKD patients. DESIGNS, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Trained abstractors at 66 hospitals from the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety (HMS) Consortium collected data on a sample of patients who received a midline during hospitalization. Patients were classified as having advanced CKD if their estimated glomerular filtration rate was <45 mL/min/1.73 m2 . MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Midline recipients with advanced CKD were compared to those without advanced CKD by patient, provider, and device characteristics, and by the occurrence of acute complications including major (e.g., upper extremity deep vein thrombosis [UE-DVT] and catheter-related bloodstream infection [CRBSI]) or minor (e.g., catheter occlusion, catheter dislodgement, infiltration, superficial thrombophlebitis, and leaking at insertion site) events. Multivariable mixed effects logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between catheter-related complications and stage of CKD. RESULTS: Of 21,415 midline recipients, 5272 (24.6%) had advanced CKD, while 16,143 (75.4%) did not. Most midlines were single lumen (90.5%) and remained in place for a median of 6 days. A major or minor midline complication occurred in 804 (15.3%) patients with and 2239 (14.4%) patients without advanced CKD (adjusted odds ratios = 1.04; 95% confidence interval: 0.94-1.14). Among patients with advanced CKD, CRBSI occurred in 13 patients (0.2%) and UE-DVT occurred in 65 patients (1.2%). The proportion of advanced CKD among midline recipients and the frequency of midline-related complications varied across hospitals (interquartile range [IQR] = 19.2% to 29.8% [median = 25.0%] and IQR = 11.0%-18.9% [median = 15.4%], respectively).

Improving Access to Care for Patients Taking Opioids for Chronic Pain: Recommendations from a Modified Delphi Panel in Michigan.

Purpose: About 5-8 million US patients take long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain. In the context of policies and guidelines instituted to reduce inappropriate opioid prescribing, abrupt discontinuations in opioid prescriptions have increased and many primary care clinics will not prescribe opioids for new patients, reducing access to care. This may result in uncontrolled pain and other negative outcomes, such as transition to illicit opioids. The objective of this study was to generate policy, intervention, and research recommendations to improve access to care for these patients. Participants and Methods: We conducted a RAND/UCLA Modified Delphi, consisting of workshops, background videos and reading materials, and moderated web-based panel discussions held September 2020-January 2021. The panel consisted of 24 individuals from across Michigan, identified via expert nomination and snowball recruitment, including clinical providers, health science researchers, state-level policymakers and regulators, care coordination experts, patient advocates, payor representatives, and community and public health experts. The panel proposed intervention, policy, and research recommendations, scored the feasibility, impact, and importance of each on a 9-point scale, and ranked all recommendations by implementation priority. Results: The panel produced 11 final recommendations across three themes: reimbursement reform, provider education, and reducing racial inequities in care. The 3 reimbursement-focused recommendations were highest ranked (theme average = 4.2/11), including the two top-ranked recommendations: increasing reimbursement for time needed to treat complex chronic pain (ranked #1/11) and bundling payment for multimodal pain care (#2/11). Four provider education recommendations ranked slightly lower (theme average = 6.2/11) and included clarifying the spectrum of opioid dependence and training providers on multimodal treatments. Four recommendations addressed racial inequities (theme average = 7.2/11), such as standardizing pain management protocols to reduce treatment disparities. Conclusion: Panelists indicated reimbursement should incentivize traditionally lower-paying evidence-based pain care, but multiple strategies may be needed to meaningfully expand access.

A Statewide Quality Initiative to Reduce Unnecessary Antibiotic Treatment of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria.

Importance: Hospitalized patients with asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) often receive unnecessary antibiotic treatment, which increases antibiotic resistance and adverse events. Objective: To determine whether diagnostic stewardship (avoiding unnecessary urine cultures) or antibiotic stewardship (reducing unnecessary antibiotic treatment after an unnecessary culture) is associated with better outcomes in reducing antibiotic use for ASB. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 3-year, prospective quality improvement study included hospitalized general care medicine patients with a positive urine culture among 46 hospitals participating in a collaborative quality initiative, the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium. Data were collected from July 1, 2017, through March 31, 2020, and analyzed from February to October 2022. Exposure: Participation in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium with antibiotic and diagnostic stewardship strategies at hospital discretion. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall improvement in ASB-related antibiotic use was estimated as change in percentage of patients treated with antibiotics who had ASB. Effect of diagnostic stewardship was estimated as change in percentage of patients with a positive urine culture who had ASB. Effect of antibiotic stewardship was estimated as change in percentage of patients with ASB who received antibiotics and antibiotic duration. Results: Of the 14 572 patients with a positive urine culture included in the study (median [IQR] age, 75.8 [64.2-85.1] years; 70.5% female); 28.4% (n = 4134) had ASB, of whom 76.8% (n = 3175) received antibiotics. Over the study period, the percentage of patients treated with antibiotics who had ASB (overall ASB-related antibiotic use) declined from 29.1% (95% CI, 26.2%-32.2%) to 17.1% (95% CI, 14.3%-20.2%) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.94 per quarter; 95% CI, 0.92-0.96). The percentage of patients with a positive urine culture who had ASB (diagnostic stewardship metric) declined from 34.1% (95% CI, 31.0%-37.3%) to 22.5% (95% CI, 19.7%-25.6%) (aOR, 0.95 per quarter; 95% CI, 0.93-0.97). The percentage of patients with ASB who received antibiotics (antibiotic stewardship metric) remained stable, from 82.0% (95% CI, 77.7%-85.6%) to 76.3% (95% CI, 68.5%-82.6%) (aOR, 0.97 per quarter; 95% CI, 0.94-1.01), as did adjusted mean antibiotic duration, from 6.38 (95% CI, 6.00-6.78) days to 5.93 (95% CI, 5.54-6.35) days (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.99 per quarter; 95% CI, 0.99-1.00). Conclusions and Relevance: This quality improvement study showed that over 3 years, ASB-related antibiotic use decreased and was associated with a decline in unnecessary urine cultures. Hospitals should prioritize reducing unnecessary urine cultures (ie, diagnostic stewardship) to reduce antibiotic treatment related to ASB.

The Association of Vasopressor Administration through a Midline Catheter with Catheter-related Complications.

Rationale: Little is known about the safety of infusing vasopressors through a midline catheter. Objectives: To evaluate safety outcomes after vasopressor administration through a midline. Methods: We conducted a cohort study of adults admitted to 39 hospitals in Michigan (December 2017-March 2022) who received vasopressors while either a midline or peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) was in place. Patients receiving vasopressors through a midline were compared with those receiving vasopressors through a PICC and, separately, to those with midlines in place but who received vasopressors through a different catheter. We used descriptive statistics to characterize and compare cohort characteristics. Multivariable mixed effects logistic regression models were fit to determine the association between vasopressor administration through a midline with outcomes, primarily catheter-related complications (bloodstream infection, superficial thrombophlebitis, exit site infection, or catheter occlusion). Results: Our cohort included 287 patients with midlines through which vasopressors were administered, 1,660 with PICCs through which vasopressors were administered, and 884 patients with midlines who received vasopressors through a separate catheter. Age (median [interquartile range]: 68.7 [58.6-75.7], 66.6 [57.1-75.0], and 67.6 [58.7-75.8] yr) and gender (percentage female: 50.5%, 47.3%, and 43.8%) were similar in all groups. The frequency of catheter-related complications was lower in patients with midlines used for vasopressors than PICCs used for vasopressors (5.2% vs. 13.4%; P < 0.001) but similar to midlines with vasopressor administration through a different device (5.2% vs. 6.3%; P = 0.49). After adjustment, administration of vasopressors through a midline was not associated with catheter-related complications compared with PICCs with vasopressors (adjusted odds ratios [aOR], 0.65 [95% confidence interval, 0.31-1.33]; P = 0.23) or midlines with vasopressors elsewhere (aOR, 0.85 [0.46-1.58]; P = 0.59). Midlines used for vasopressors were associated with greater risk of systemic thromboembolism (vs. PICCs with vasopressors: aOR, 2.69 [1.31-5.49]; P = 0.008; vs. midlines with vasopressors elsewhere: aOR, 2.42 [1.29-4.54]; P = 0.008) but not thromboses restricted to the ipsilateral upper extremity (vs. PICCs with vasopressors: aOR, 2.35 [0.83-6.63]; P = 0.10; model did not converge for vs. midlines with vasopressors elsewhere). Conclusions: We found no significant association of vasopressor administration through a midline with catheter-related complications. However, we identified increased odds of systemic (but not ipsilateral upper extremity) venous thromboembolism warranting further evaluation.

Planning and Reporting Effective Web-Based RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method Panels: Literature Review and Preliminary Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM), a variant of the Delphi Method, was developed to synthesize existing evidence and elicit the clinical judgement of medical experts on the appropriate treatment of specific clinical presentations. Technological advances now allow researchers to conduct expert panels on the internet, offering a cost-effective and convenient alternative to the traditional RAM. For example, the Department of Veterans Affairs recently used a web-based RAM to validate clinical recommendations for de-intensifying routine primary care services. A substantial literature describes and tests various aspects of the traditional RAM in health research; yet we know comparatively less about how researchers implement web-based expert panels. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study are twofold: (1) to understand how the web-based RAM process is currently used and reported in health research and (2) to provide preliminary reporting guidance for researchers to improve the transparency and reproducibility of reporting practices. METHODS: The PubMed database was searched to identify studies published between 2009 and 2019 that used a web-based RAM to measure the appropriateness of medical care. Methodological data from each article were abstracted. The following categories were assessed: composition and characteristics of the web-based expert panels, characteristics of panel procedures, results, and panel satisfaction and engagement. RESULTS: Of the 12 studies meeting the eligibility criteria and reviewed, only 42% (5/12) implemented the full RAM process with the remaining studies opting for a partial approach. Among those studies reporting, the median number of participants at first rating was 42. While 92% (11/12) of studies involved clinicians, 50% (6/12) involved multiple stakeholder types. Our review revealed that the studies failed to report on critical aspects of the RAM process. For example, no studies reported response rates with the denominator of previous rounds, 42% (5/12) did not provide panelists with feedback between rating periods, 50% (6/12) either did not have or did not report on the panel discussion period, and 25% (3/12) did not report on quality measures to assess aspects of the panel process (eg, satisfaction with the process). CONCLUSIONS: Conducting web-based RAM panels will continue to be an appealing option for researchers seeking a safe, efficient, and democratic process of expert agreement. Our literature review uncovered inconsistent reporting frameworks and insufficient detail to evaluate study outcomes. We provide preliminary recommendations for reporting that are both timely and important for producing replicable, high-quality findings. The need for reporting standards is especially critical given that more people may prefer to participate in web-based rather than in-person panels due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Improving peripherally inserted central catheter appropriateness and reducing device-related complications: a quasiexperimental study in 52 Michigan hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC) provides evidence-based criteria for peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) use. Whether implementing MAGIC improves PICC appropriateness and reduces complications is unknown. METHODS: A quasiexperimental study design to implement MAGIC in 52 Michigan hospitals was used. Data were collected from medical records by trained abstractors. Hospital performance on three appropriateness criteria was measured: short-term PICC use (≤5 days), use of multilumen PICCs and PICC placement in patients with chronic kidney disease. PICC appropriateness and device complications preintervention (January 2013 to December 2016) versus postintervention (January 2017 to January 2020) were compared. Change-point analysis was used to evaluate the effect of the intervention on device appropriateness. Logistic regression and Poisson models were fit to assess the association between appropriateness and complications (composite of catheter occlusion, venous thromboembolism (VTE) and central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI)). RESULTS: Among 38 592 PICCs, median catheter dwell ranged from 8 to 56 days. During the preintervention period, the mean frequency of appropriate PICC use was 31.9% and the mean frequency of complications was 14.7%. Following the intervention, PICC appropriateness increased to 49.0% (absolute difference 17.1%, p<0.001) while complications decreased to 10.7% (absolute difference 4.0%, p=0.001). Compared with patients with inappropriate PICC placement, appropriate PICC use was associated with a significantly lower odds of complications (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.34), including decreases in occlusion (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.29), CLABSI (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.81) and VTE (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.47, all p<0.01). Patients with appropriate PICC placement had lower rate of complications than those with inappropriate PICC use (incidence rate ratio 0.987, 95% CI 0.98 to 0.99, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of MAGIC in Michigan hospitals was associated with improved PICC appropriateness and fewer complications. These findings have important quality, safety and policy implications for hospitals, patients and payors.

The Michigan Plan for Appropriate Tailored Healthcare in Pregnancy Prenatal Care Recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: To describe MiPATH (the Michigan Plan for Appropriate Tailored Healthcare in pregnancy) panel process and key recommendations for prenatal care delivery. METHODS: We conducted an appropriateness study using the RAND Corporation and University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method, a modified e-Delphi process, to develop MiPATH recommendations using sequential steps: 1) definition and scope of key terms, 2) literature review and data synthesis, 3) case scenario development, 4) panel selection and scenario revisions, and 5) two rounds of panel appropriateness ratings with deliberation. Recommendations were developed for average-risk pregnant individuals (eg, individuals not requiring care by maternal-fetal medicine specialists). Because prenatal services (eg, laboratory tests, vaccinations) have robust evidence, panelists considered only how services are delivered (eg, visit frequency, telemedicine). RESULTS: The appropriateness of key aspects of prenatal care delivery across individuals with and without common medical and pregnancy complications, as well as social and structural determinants of health, was determined by the panel. Panelists agreed that a risk assessment for medical, social, and structural determinants of health should be completed as soon as individuals present for care. Additionally, the panel provided recommendations for: 1) prenatal visit schedules (care initiation, visit timing and frequency, routine pregnancy assessments), 2) integration of telemedicine (virtual visits and home devices), and 3) care individualization. Panelists recognized significant gaps in existing evidence and the need for policy changes to support equitable care with changing practices. CONCLUSION: The MiPATH recommendations offer more flexible prenatal care delivery for average-risk individuals.

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.

Identifying Recommendations for Stopping or Scaling Back Unnecessary Routine Services in Primary Care.

Importance: Much of health care involves established, routine use of medical services for chronic conditions or prevention. Stopping these services when the evidence changes or if the benefits no longer outweigh the risks is essential. Yet, most guidelines focus on escalating care and provide few explicit recommendations to stop or scale back (ie, deintensify) treatment and testing. Objective: To develop a systematic, transparent, and reproducible approach for identifying, specifying, and validating deintensification recommendations associated with routine adult primary care. Design, Setting, and Participants: A focused review of existing guidelines and recommendations was completed to identify and prioritize potential deintensification indications. Then, 2 modified virtual Delphi expert panels examined the synthesized evidence, suggested ways that the candidate recommendations could be improved, and assessed the validity of the recommendations using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Twenty-five physicians from Veterans Affairs and US academic institutions with knowledge in relevant clinical areas (eg, geriatrics, primary care, women's health, cardiology, and endocrinology) served as panel members. Main Outcomes and Measures: Validity of the recommendations, defined as high-quality evidence that deintensification is likely to improve patient outcomes, evidence that intense testing and/or treatment could cause harm in some patients, absence of evidence on the benefit of continued or repeated intense treatment or testing, and evidence that deintensification is consistent with high-quality care. Results: A total of 409 individual recommendations were identified representing 178 unique opportunities to stop or scale back routine services (eg, stopping population-based screening for vitamin D deficiency and decreasing concurrent use of opioids and benzodiazepines). Thirty-seven recommendations were prioritized and forwarded to the expert panels. Panelists reviewed the evidence and suggested modifications, resulting in 44 recommendations being rated. Overall, 37 recommendations (84%) were considered to be valid, as assessed by the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, a total of 178 unique opportunities to deintensify routine primary care services were identified, and 37 of these were validated as high-priority deintensification recommendations. To date, this is the first study to develop a model for identifying, specifying, and validating deintensification recommendations that can be implemented and tracked in clinical practice.

Developing Appropriateness Criteria for Pediatric Vascular Access.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the methodology undertaken to provide guidance on the appropriateness, as well as inappropriateness, of vascular access device selection, characteristics, and insertion technique for pediatric patients. METHODS: The RAND Corporation-University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Method was used. After definition of key terms and scope, a systematic review of the pediatric vascular access literature was undertaken. Clinical scenarios were developed to reflect the common indications for vascular access across pediatric health care. These were sectioned according to (1) device selection, (2) device characteristics, and (3) insertion technique. An interdisciplinary panel of experts (N = 14) consisting of leading experts representing diverse pediatric clinical disciplines including anesthesiology, cardiology and cardiac surgery, critical care and emergency, general surgery, hematology and oncology, hospital medicine, infectious disease, interventional radiology, pharmacology, regional pediatric hospitalist, and vascular access nursing specialties was convened. The scenarios were rated for appropriateness by the panel over 2 rounds (1 [highly inappropriate] to 9 [highly appropriate]). Round 1 ratings were completed anonymously and independently by panel members and classified into 3 levels of appropriateness: appropriate, uncertain, and inappropriate, or disagreement. For round 2, panelists met in-person to discuss the round 1 ratings and independently rerated the indications. All indications were reclassified into 3 levels of appropriateness or disagreement. CONCLUSIONS: The RAND Corporation-University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Method provides a rigorous, in-depth and transparent methodology to develop the first appropriateness criteria for the selection of pediatric vascular access devices in a range of patient groups.

Selection and Insertion of Vascular Access Devices in Pediatrics: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To critically review the evidence for the selection and insertion of pediatric vascular access devices (VADs). DATA SOURCES: Data were sourced from the US National Library of Medicine, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, the Cochrane Library databases, Embase, and international clinical trial databases. STUDY SELECTION: Clinical practice guidelines, systematic reviews, cohort designs, randomized control trials (RCTs), quasi RCTs, before-after trials, or case-control studies that reported on complications and/or risk as well as reliability of VADs in patients aged 0 to 18 years were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Articles were independently reviewed to extract and summarize details on the number of patients and catheters, population, age of participants, VAD type, study method, indication, comparators, and the frequency of VAD failure or complications. RESULTS: VAD selection and insertion decision-making in general hospitalized and some specialized patient populations were well evidenced. The use of single-lumen devices and ultrasound-guided techniques was also broadly supported. There was a lack of RCTs, and for neonates, cardiac patients, patients with difficult venous access, midline catheters, catheter-to-vein ratio, and near-infrared devices, the lack of evidence necessitated broadening the review scope. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include the lack of formal assessment of the quality of evidence and the lack of RCTs and systematic reviews. Consequently, clinical decision-making in certain pediatric populations is not guided by strong, evidence-based recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first synthesis of available evidence for the selection and insertion of VADs in pediatric patients and is important for determining the appropriateness of VADs in pediatric patients.

The Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters in Pediatrics: miniMAGIC.

OBJECTIVES: Vascular access device decision-making for pediatric patients remains a complex, highly variable process. To date, evidence-based criteria to inform these choices do not exist. The objective of the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters in pediatrics (miniMAGIC) was to provide guidance on device selection, device characteristics, and insertion technique for clinicians, balancing and contextualizing evidence with current practice through a multidisciplinary panel of experts. METHODS: The RAND Corporation and University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Method was used to develop miniMAGIC, which included the following sequential phases: definition of scope and key terms, information synthesis and literature review, expert multidisciplinary panel selection and engagement, case scenario development, and appropriateness ratings by an expert panel via 2 rounds. RESULTS: The appropriateness of the selection, characteristics, and insertion technique of intravenous catheters commonly used in pediatric health care across age populations (neonates, infants, children, and adolescents), settings, diagnoses, clinical indications, insertion locations, and vessel visualization devices and techniques was defined. Core concepts including vessel preservation, insertion and postinsertion harm minimization (eg, infection, thrombosis), undisrupted treatment provision, and inclusion of patient preferences were emphasized. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we provide evidence-based criteria for intravenous catheter selection (from umbilical catheters to totally implanted venous devices) in pediatric patients across a range of clinical indications. miniMAGIC also highlights core vascular access practices in need of collaborative research and innovation.

A Deeper Dive Into Antibiotic Stewardship Needs: A Multihospital Survey.

In a 2016 survey of 46 Michigan hospitals, we identified four key needs for antibiotic stewardship: clinically-relevant antibiotic data, monitoring compliance, syndrome-specific interventions, and discharge stewardship. A stewardship initiative now addresses these needs within the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium.

Catheter management after benign transurethral prostate surgery: RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Criteria.

OBJECTIVES: To formally assess the appropriateness of different timings of urethral catheter removal after transurethral prostate resection or ablation. Although urethral catheter placement is routine after this common treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), no guidelines inform duration of catheter use. STUDY DESIGN: RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology. METHODS: Using a standardized, multiround rating process (ie, the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology), an 11-member multidisciplinary panel reviewed a literature summary and rated clinical scenarios for urethral catheter duration after transurethral prostate surgery for BPH as appropriate (ie, benefits outweigh risks), inappropriate, or of uncertain appropriateness. We examined appropriateness across 4 clinical scenarios (no preexisting catheter, preexisting catheter [including intermittent], difficult catheter placement, significant perforation) and 5 durations (postoperative day [POD] 0, 1, 2, 3-6, or ≥7). RESULTS: Urethral catheter removal and first trial of void on POD 1 was rated appropriate for all scenarios except clinically significant perforations. In this case, waiting until POD 3 was deemed the earliest appropriate timing. Waiting 3 or more days to remove the catheter for patients with or without preexisting catheter needs, or for those with difficult catheter placement in the operating room, was rated as inappropriate. CONCLUSIONS: We defined clinically relevant guidance statements for the appropriateness of urethral catheter duration after transurethral prostate surgery. Given the lack of guidelines and this robust expert panel approach, these ratings may help clinicians and healthcare systems improve the consistency and quality of care for patients undergoing transurethral surgery for BPH.