Awareness of Peripheral IV Catheters Among Nurses, Physicians, and Trainees: A Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVs) are the most frequently used invasive device in hospitalized patients. These devices are not benign and may put patients at risk of serious complications. However, clinician awareness of their presence is variable and poorly understood. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multi-center, observational point prevalence study to assess awareness of PIV presence among clinicians caring for hospitalized patients in four hospitals between 05/2018 and 02/2019 located in Michigan, United States of America. We first assessed patients for presence of a PIV then interviewed their providers. Differences in awareness by provider type was assessed via chi-square tests; p< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Analyses were performed on Stata MP v16 (College Station, TX). RESULTS: A total of 1,385 patients and 4,003 providers were interviewed. Nurses had the greatest awareness of overall PIV presence, 98.6%, while attendings were correct 88.1% of the time. Nurses were more likely to correctly assess PIV presence and exact location than physicians (67.7% vs. < 30% for all others). Awareness of PIV presence did not significantly vary among providers in patients with multiple vascular access device(s), on contact precautions, or those receiving active infusions. CONCLUSIONS: Given the ubiquity of PIVs and known complications, variable awareness of vascular devices is problematic. Methods to increase awareness to ensure appropriate care and removal appear necessary.

Patient Preferences for Telemedicine Video Backgrounds.

This cross-sectional study assesses patient preferences for various visual backgrounds during telemedicine video visits.

International patient preferences for physician attire: results from cross-sectional studies in four countries across three continents.

OBJECTIVE: The patient-physician relationship impacts patients' experiences and health outcomes. Physician attire is a form of nonverbal communication that influences this relationship. Prior studies examining attire preferences suffered from heterogeneous measurement and limited context. We thus performed a multicentre, cross-sectional study using a standardised survey instrument to compare patient preferences for physician dress in international settings. SETTING: 20 hospitals and healthcare practices in Italy, Japan, Switzerland and the USA. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of 9171 adult patients receiving care in academic hospitals, general medicine clinics, specialty clinics and ophthalmology practices. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The survey was randomised and included photographs of a male or female physician dressed in assorted forms of attire. The primary outcome measure was attire preference, comprised of composite ratings across five domains: how knowledgeable, trustworthy, caring and approachable the physician appeared, and how comfortable the respondent felt. Secondary outcome measures included variation in preferences by country, physician type and respondent characteristics. RESULTS: The highest rated forms of attire differed by country, although each most preferred attire with white coat. Low ratings were conferred on attire extremes (casual and business suit). Preferences were more uniform for certain physician types. For example, among all respondents, scrubs garnered the highest rating for emergency department physicians (44.2%) and surgeons (42.4%). However, attire preferences diverged for primary care and hospital physicians. All types of formal attire were more strongly preferred in the USA than elsewhere. Respondent age influenced preferences in Japan and the USA only. CONCLUSIONS: Patients across a myriad of geographies, settings and demographics harbour specific preferences for physician attire. Some preferences are nearly universal, whereas others vary substantially. As a one-size-fits-all dress policy is unlikely to reflect patient desires and expectations, a tailored approach should be sought that attempts to match attire to clinical context.

Patient Preferences for Physician Attire: A Multicenter Study in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that patients have specific expectations regarding physician dress. Japan has a cultural background that is in many ways distinct from western countries. Thus, physician attire may have a different impact in Japan. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, cross-sectional study to examine patients' preferences for and perceptions of physician attire in Japan. The questionnaire was developed using photographs of either a male or female physician dressed in seven different forms of attire, and it was randomly distributed to inpatients and outpatients. Respondents were asked to rate the provider pictured; they were also asked to provide preferences for different forms of attire in varied clinical settings. Preference was evaluated for five domains (knowledgeable, trustworthy, caring, approachable, and comfortable). We also assessed variation in preferences for attire by respondent characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 1,233 (61%) patients indicated that physician dress was important, and 950 (47%) patients agreed that it influenced their satisfaction with care. Compared with all forms, casual attire with a white coat was the most preferred dress. Older patients more often preferred formal attire with a white coat in primary care and hospital settings. In addition, physician attire had a greater impact on older respondents' satisfaction and experience. CONCLUSION: The majority of Japanese patients indicated that physician attire is important and influenced their satisfaction with care. Geography, settings of care, and patient age appear to play a role in patient preferences.

Patient Preferences for Physician Attire in Ophthalmology Practices.

IMPORTANCE: Interest is growing in targeting physician attire to improve the patient experience. Few studies in ophthalmology have examined patient preferences for physician attire. OBJECTIVE: To understand patient preferences for physician attire in ophthalmology practices in the United States. DESIGN: Survey-based, cohort study. SETTING: Two private and two academic ophthalmology practices. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of patients receiving ophthalmic care between June 1, 2015 and October 31, 2016. METHODS: A questionnaire containing 22 questions and photographs of a male and female physician in seven forms of attire were presented to patients; 14 unique questionnaires were randomly distributed. Patient preference for physician attire was the primary outcome determined by summing ratings of how knowledgeable, trustworthy, caring, approachable, and comfortable the pictured physician made the respondent feel. One-way ANOVA assessed differences in mean composite scores. Comparisons between respondent demographics, practice type, and attire preferences were assessed by chi-square tests. Patient satisfaction was assessed by agreement with questions about importance of physician attire and whether this influences happiness with care. RESULTS: In total, 1,297 of 1,826 (71.0%) questionnaires were completed. Physician attire was rated as "important" by 62.9% of participants. A total of 43.6% of participants indicated that physician attire influenced how happy they were with their care. Overall, formal attire with white coat was preferred to casual, formal, and business attire (all comparisons, p < 0.05). No differences in composite scores between formal attire with white coat, scrubs alone, scrubs with white coat, or casual attire with white coat were observed. However, compared with formal attire with white coat, physicians wearing scrubs without white coat appeared less knowledgeable (mean [standard deviation]: 8.2 [1.8] vs. 7.4 [2.1]; p < 0.05) and trustworthy (8.3 [1.8] vs. 7.6 [2.1]; p < 0.05). Additionally, casual attire with white coat was rated as less knowledgeable compared with formal attire with white coat (7.4 [2.0] vs. 8.2 [1.8]; p < 0.05). Preferences for attire varied by clinical setting: patients preferred surgeons (45.2%) and physicians in emergency rooms (41.7%) in scrubs rather than formal attire with white coat. CONCLUSIONS: Physician attire is important to patients receiving ophthalmic care. Policies aimed at physician attire in ophthalmology practices should be considered.

Understanding patient preference for physician attire in ambulatory clinics: a cross-sectional observational study.

OBJECTIVES: We explored patient perceptions regarding physician attire in different clinical contexts and resultant effects on the physician-patient relationship. SETTING: The 900-bed University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of patients receiving care in dermatology, infectious diseases and neurology ambulatory clinics of the University Hospital Zurich participated in a paper-based survey. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The survey instrument was randomised and showed photographs of male or female physicians wearing various forms of attire. On the basis of the respondents' ratings of how the physician's attire affected perceptions across five domains (knowledgeable, trustworthy, caring, approachable and comfort with the physician), a composite preference score for attire was calculated as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included variation in preferences by respondent characteristics and context in which care was provided. RESULTS: Of 834 patient respondents (140 in dermatology, 422 in infectious diseases and 272 in neurology), 298 (36%) agreed that physician attire was important. When compared with all available choices, the combination of white scrubs with white coat was rated highest while a business suit ranked lowest. Variation in preferences and opinions for attire were noted relative to respondent demographics and the clinical setting in which the survey was administered. For example, compared with younger patients, respondents ≥65 years of age more often reported that physician dress was both important to them and influenced how happy they were with their care (p=0.047 and p=0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Outpatients at a large Swiss University hospital prefer their physicians to be dressed in white scrubs with white coat. Substantial variation among respondents based on demographics, type of physician and clinical setting were observed. Healthcare systems should consider context of care when defining policies related to dress code.

Patient-reported complications related to peripherally inserted central catheters: a multicentre prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) are frequently used to deliver medical therapies, but our knowledge regarding PICC-related complications remains incomplete. The objective of this study was to systematically elicit and characterise PICC-related complications as experienced by patients during and after hospitalisation. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Inpatient medical units at four US hospitals in two states. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive sample of patients who had a new PICC placed during a hospital stay between August 2015 and May 2017. MAIN OUTCOMES: Patient-reported signs and symptoms of a possible PICC-related complication or functional issues. RESULTS: Of the 438 patients in the analytic cohort (91.4% of those consented), two-thirds were male with a mean age of 56 years. The most common reason for PICC placement was long-term antibiotic therapy (43.4%). During the 70-day follow-up period, 61.4% of patients reported signs of at least one complication, including potentially serious complications, such as bloodstream infection (17.6%) and deep vein thrombosis (30.6%). Correspondence of these reported events with medical record documentation of the complication was generally low. More than one-quarter (27.9%) of patients reported minor complications, such as insertion site redness, discomfort or difficult removal. While the PICC was in place, 26.0% reported restrictions in activities of daily living, 14.4% social activity restrictions and 19.2% had difficulty with flushing or operating the PICC. CONCLUSION: Over 60% of patients report signs or symptoms of a possible complication or adverse effect after PICC placement. Bothersome complications from the patient perspective are clearly more common than those that typically rise to the level of healthcare provider attention or concern. Understanding the patient experience is critical for providing safe and effective care.

Role of transfusions in the development of hospital-acquired urinary tract-related bloodstream infection among United States Veterans.

BACKGROUND: Urinary tract-related bloodstream infection (BSI) is associated with substantial morbidity, mortality, and financial costs. We examined the role of red blood cell (RBC) transfusions on developing this condition among US Veterans. METHODS: We conducted a matched case-control study among adult inpatients admitted to 4 Veterans Affairs hospitals. Cases were patients with a positive urine culture result obtained 48hours or longer after admission and a blood culture obtained within 14days of the urine culture, which grew the same organism. Controls included patients with a positive urine culture result who were at risk for but did not develop BSI (control group 1) and patients without a positive urine culture result who were present in the facility at the time of case diagnosis (control group 2). RESULTS: Compared with the findings in control group 1, receipt of RBCs was not significantly associated with urinary tract-related BSI (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.07; P = .07). However, we found increased odds of urinary tract-related BSI compared with the results in patients without infection (control group 2) (odds ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.17; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Given the heightened risk of urinary tract-related BSI associated with receiving a greater number of RBC transfusions, adhering to recommendations to transfuse the minimum amount of blood products necessary may minimize the risk of this infection among Veterans.

Use of Designated Nurse PICC Teams and CLABSI Prevention Practices Among U.S. Hospitals: A Survey-Based Study.

OBJECTIVES: The use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) has increased substantially within hospitals during the past several years. Yet, the prevalence and practices of designated nurse PICC teams (i.e., specially trained nurses who are responsible for PICC insertions at a hospital) are unknown. We, therefore, identified the prevalence of and factors associated with having a designated nurse PICC team among U.S. acute care hospitals. METHODS: We conducted a survey of infection preventionists at a random sample of U.S. hospitals in May 2013, which asked about personnel who insert PICCs and the use of practices to prevent device-associated infections, including central line-associated bloodstream infection. We compared practice use between hospitals that have a designated nurse PICC team versus those that do not. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 70% (403/575). According to the respondents, nurse PICC teams inserted PICCs in more than 60% of U.S. hospitals in 2013. Moreover, certain practices to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infection, including maximum sterile barrier precautions (93% versus 88%, P = 0.06), chlorhexidine gluconate for insertion site antisepsis (96% versus 87%, P = .003) and facility-wide insertion checklists (95% versus 87%, P = 0.02) were regularly used by a higher percentage of hospitals with nurse PICC teams compared with those without. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that nurse PICC teams play an integral role in PICC use at many hospitals and that use of such teams may promote key practices to prevent complications. Better understanding of the role, composition, and practice of such teams is an important area for future study.

Understanding patient preference for physician attire: a cross-sectional observational study of 10 academic medical centres in the USA.

OBJECTIVE: Several large studies have shown that improving the patient experience is associated with higher reported patient satisfaction, increased adherence to treatment and clinical outcomes. Whether physician attire can affect the patient experience-and how this influences satisfaction-is unknown. Therefore, we performed a national, cross-sectional study to examine patient perceptions, expectations and preferences regarding physicians dress. SETTING: 10 academic hospitals in the USA. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of 4062 patients recruited from 1 June 2015 to 31 October 2016. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES MEASURES: We conducted a questionnaire-based study of patients across 10 academic hospitals in the USA. The questionnaire included photographs of a male and female physician dressed in seven different forms of attire. Patients were asked to rate the provider pictured in various clinical settings. Preference for attire was calculated as the composite of responses across five domains (knowledgeable, trustworthy, caring, approachable and comfortable) via a standardised instrument. Secondary outcome measures included variation in preferences by respondent characteristics (eg, gender), context of care (eg, inpatient vs outpatient) and geographical region. RESULTS: Of 4062 patient responses, 53% indicated that physician attire was important to them during care. Over one-third agreed that it influenced their satisfaction with care. Compared with all other forms of attire, formal attire with a white coat was most highly rated (p=0.001 vs scrubs with white coat; p<0.001 all other comparisons). Important differences in preferences for attire by clinical context and respondent characteristics were noted. For example, respondents≥65 years preferred formal attire with white coats (p<0.001) while scrubs were most preferred for surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: Patients have important expectations and perceptions for physician dress that vary by context and region. Nuanced policies addressing physician dress code to improve patient satisfaction appear important.

The epidemiology of hospital-acquired urinary tract-related bloodstream infection in veterans.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired urinary tract-related bloodstream infections are rare but often lethal. Recent epidemiology of this condition among the United States veteran population is poorly described. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of hospital-acquired urinary tract-related bloodstream infections of adult inpatients admitted to 4 Veterans Affairs hospitals over 15 years. Electronic medical records were used to obtain clinical, demographic, and microbiologic information. Descriptive statistical analyses were conducted using chi-square tests of association. Test for trend was performed by genus of organism and for case fatality rate over time. RESULTS: While the most commonly isolated organisms were Staphylococcus spp. (36.5%), the incidence of infections caused by Escherichia and Klebsiella increased over time (P = .02 and P = .03, respectively). The overall in-hospital case fatality rate was 24.2% in 499 patients. The case fatality rate was 25.8% for patients with Staphylococcus infections and 20.7% for patients with enterococcal infections. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-acquired urinary tract-related bloodstream infection is commonly due to Staphylococcus spp. and is related to the high fatality among United States veterans. Focused infection control efforts could decrease the incidence of this fatal infection.

CE: Original Research: Does Certification in Vascular Access Matter? An Analysis of the PICC1 Survey.

: Background: Although certification by an accredited agency is often a practice prerequisite in health care, it is not required of vascular access specialists who insert peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). Whether certification is associated with differences in practice among inserters is unknown. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to gather information regarding whether certified and noncertified PICC inserters differ with respect to their practices and views about PICC use. METHODS: We conducted a national survey of vascular access specialists, identifying certified PICC inserters as those who had received board certification from the Association for Vascular Access, the Infusion Nurses Society, or both. The 76-item survey asked about PICC policies and procedures at respondents' facilities, use of insertion technologies, device management, management of complications, perceptions about PICC use, and relationships with other health care providers. Additional data about respondents, including years in practice and primary practice settings, were also gathered. Bivariable comparisons were made using χ tests; two-sided α with P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Of the 1,450 respondents in the final sample, 1,007 (69%) said they were certified inserters and 443 (31%) said they were not. Significantly higher percentages of certified than noncertified inserters reported having practiced for five or more years (78% versus 54%) and having placed 1,000 or more PICCs (58% versus 32%). Significantly more certified than noncertified inserters also reported being the vascular access lead for their facility (56% versus 44%). Reported practice patterns for insertion, care, and management of PICCs varied based on certification status. Some evidence-based practices (such as the use of ultrasound to measure catheter-to-vein ratios) were more often reported by certified inserters, while others (such as the use of maximal sterile barriers during PICC insertion) were not. Asked about their perceptions of PICC use at their institution, certified inserters reported higher percentages of inappropriate insertion and removal than noncertified inserters. CONCLUSION: Certified PICC inserters appear to be a distinct group of vascular access specialists. A better understanding of how and why practices differ between certified and noncertified inserters is necessary to ensuring safer, high-quality patient care.

Variation in use of technology among vascular access specialists: an analysis of the PICC1 survey.

BACKGROUND: While the use of technologies such as ultrasound and electrocardiographic (ECG) guidance systems to place peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) has grown, little is known about the clinicians who use these tools or their work settings. METHODS: Using data from a national survey of vascular access specialists, we identified technology users as PICC inserters that: (a) use ultrasound to find a suitable vein for catheter placement; (b) measure catheter-to-vein ratio; and (c) use ECG for PICC placement. Individual and organizational-level characteristics between technology users versus non-users were assessed. Bivariable comparisons were made using Chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests; two-sided alpha with p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Of the 2762 PICC inserters who accessed the survey, 1518 (55%) provided information regarding technology use. Technology users reported greater experience than non-technology users, with a higher percentage stating they had placed >1000 PICCs (55% vs. 45%, p<0.001). A significantly greater percentage of technology users also reported being certified in vascular access by an external agency than non-technology users (75% vs. 63%, p<0.001). Technology users were more often part of vascular access teams with ≥10 members compared to non-technology users (35% vs. 22%, p<0.001). Some practices also varied between the two groups: for example, use of certain securement devices and dressings differed between technology users and non-users (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Technology use by vascular access clinicians while placing PICCs is associated with clinician characteristics, work setting and practice factors. Understanding whether such differences influence clinical care or patient outcomes appears necessary.

The relationship between perceived role and appropriate use of peripherally inserted central catheters: A survey of vascular access nurses in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The presence and proliferation of vascular access nursing in hospital settings has been identified as a potential contributor to growing demand, and possible overuse, of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). OBJECTIVE: We examined vascular access nurses' perceived role related to use of PICCs and the association with appropriateness of PICC use in hospitals. DESIGN: A web-based survey was administered to members of two vascular access professional organizations. PARTICIPANTS: Of 2762 potentially eligible respondents who accessed the link, 1698 (61%) completed the survey. This sample was further restricted to vascular access nurses who worked in a U.S. hospital (n=1147). METHODS: Respondents were categorized based on perceived role: 1) an operator who inserts PICCs; 2) a consultant whose views are not valued by the care team (unvalued consultant); 3) a consultant whose views are valued by the care team (valued consultant). Facility and respondent characteristics, reported practices, leadership support and relationships with other providers were compared across groups using chi-squared tests and analysis of variance. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between perceived role and reported percentage of PICCs placed for inappropriate reasons. RESULTS: Among the 1147 respondents, 210 (18%) viewed themselves as operators, 683 (59%) as valued consultants, 236 (21%) as unvalued consultants, and 18 (2%) could not be categorized. A significantly higher percentage (93%) of valued consultants reported that vascular access nurses placed the majority of PICCs at their facility, compared to operators (83%) or unvalued consultants (76%) (p<0.001). After adjustment, compared with operators, valued consultants were significantly more likely to report that <10% of PICCs at their facility were inserted for inappropriate reasons (OR 1.7, p=0.002); the finding was reversed for unvalued consultants (OR 0.69, p=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Vascular access nurses and their perceived role as part of the healthcare team are associated with PICC use in hospitals. Strong inter-professional collaboration and respect may help ensure more appropriate use of PICCs.

Neonatal Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Practices and Providers: Results From the Neonatal PICC1 Survey.

BACKGROUND: Neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) commonly utilize peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) to provide nutrition and long-term medications to premature and full-term infants. However, little is known about PICC practices in these settings. PURPOSE: To assess PICC practices, policies, and providers in NICUs. METHODS: The Neonatal PICC1 Survey was conducted through the use of the electronic mailing list of a national neonatal professional organization's electronic membership community. Questions addressed PICC-related policies, monitoring, practices, and providers. Descriptive statistics were used to assess results. RESULTS: Of the 156 respondents accessing the survey, 115 (73.7%) indicated that they placed PICCs as part of their daily occupation. Of these, 110 responded to at least one question (70.5%) and were included in the study. Reported use of evidence-based practices by NICU providers varied. For example, routine use of maximum sterile barriers was reported by 90.4% of respondents; however, the use of chlorhexidine gluconate for skin disinfection was reported only by 49.4% of respondents. A majority of respondents indicated that trained PICC nurses were largely responsible for routine PICC dressing changes (61.0%). Normal saline was reported as the most frequently used flushing solution (46.3%). The most common PICC-related complications in neonates were catheter migration and occlusion. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Variable practices, including the use of chlorhexidine-based solutions for skin disinfection and inconsistent flushing, exist. There is a need for development of consistent monitoring to improve patient outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Future research should include exploration of specific PICC practices, associated conditions, and outcomes.

Longitudinal Study of Transfusion Utilization in Hospitalized Veterans.

OBJECTIVE: Although transfusion guidelines have changed considerably over the past two decades, the adoption of patient blood management programs has not been fully realized across hospitals in the United States. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We evaluated trends in red blood cell (RBC), platelet and plasma transfusion at three Veterans Health Administration (VHA) hospitals from 2000 through 2010. RESULTS: There were 176,521 hospitalizations in 69,621 patients; of these, 13.6% of hospitalizations involved transfusion of blood products (12.7% RBCs, 1.4% platelets, 3.0% plasma). Transfusion occurred in 25.2% of surgical and 5.3% of medical hospitalizations. Transfusion use peaked in 2002 for surgical hospitalizations and declined afterwards (p<0.001). There was no significant change in transfusion use over time (p=0.126) for medical hospitalizations. In hospitalizations that involved transfusions, there was a 20.3% reduction in the proportion of hospitalizations in which ≥3 units of RBCs were given (from 51.7% to 41.1%; p<0.001) and a 73.6% increase when one RBC unit was given (from 8.0% to 13.8%; p<0.001) from 2000-2010. Of the hospitalizations with RBC transfusion, 9.6% involved the use of one unit over the entire study period. The most common principal diagnoses for medical patients receiving transfusion were anemia, malignancy, heart failure, pneumonia and renal failure. Over time, transfusion utilization increased in patients who were admitted for infection (p=0.009). CONCLUSION: Blood transfusions in three VHA hospitals have decreased over time for surgical patients but remained the same for medical patients. Further study examining appropriateness of blood products in medical patients appears necessary.

Vascular Access Specialist Training, Experience, and Practice in the United States: Results From the National PICC1 Survey.

Vascular access specialists are increasingly responsible for insertion and care of peripherally inserted central catheters in the United States. Despite proliferation of the specialty, little is known about the training, practice patterns, and experiences of these clinicians. In partnership with a vascular access and an infusion nursing organization, a Web-based survey of 1698 clinicians was conducted. Substantial variation in practices related to insertion, use of technology, dressing and flushing, and management of complications was observed. Some reported practices were inconsistent with available evidence-based recommendations. Therefore, opportunities to improve patient care and further explore reasons driving such variation exist and should be explored.

Evaluating a Hospitalist-Based Intervention to Decrease Unnecessary Antimicrobial Use in Patients With Asymptomatic Bacteriuria.

OBJECTIVE Inappropriate treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) in the hospital setting is common. We sought to evaluate the treatment rate of ASB at the 3 hospitals and assess the impact of a hospitalist-focused improvement intervention. DESIGN Prospective, interventional trial. SETTING Two community hospitals and a tertiary-care academic center. PATIENTS Adult patients with a positive urine culture admitted to hospitalist services were included in this study. Exclusions included pregnancy, intensive care unit admission, history of a major urinary procedure, and actively being treated for a urinary tract infection (UTI) at the time of admission or >48 hours prior to urine collection. INTERVENTIONS An educational intervention using a pocket card was implemented at all sites followed by a pharmacist-based intervention at the academic center. Medical records of the first 50 eligible patients at each site were reviewed at baseline and after each intervention for signs and symptoms of UTI, microbiological results, antimicrobials used, and duration of treatment for positive urine cultures. Diagnosis of ASB was determined through adjudication by 2 hospitalists and 2 infectious diseases physicians. RESULTS Treatment rates of ASB decreased (23.5%; P=.001) after the educational intervention. Reductions in treatment rates for ASB differed by site and were greatest in patients without classic signs and symptoms of UTI (34.1%; P<.001) or urinary catheters (31.2%; P<.001). The pharmacist-based intervention was most effective at reducing ASB treatment rates in catheterized patients. CONCLUSIONS A hospitalist-focused educational intervention significantly reduced ASB treatment rates. The impact varied across sites and by patient characteristics, suggesting that a tailored approach may be useful. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:1044-1051.

Vascular nursing experience, practice knowledge, and beliefs: Results from the Michigan PICC1 survey.

BACKGROUND: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are increasingly used in hospitalized patients. Yet, little is known about the vascular access nurses who often place them. METHODS: We conducted a Web-based survey to assess vascular access nursing experience, practice, knowledge, and beliefs related to PICC insertion and care in 47 Michigan hospitals. RESULTS: The response rate was 81% (172 received invitations, 140 completed the survey). More than half of all respondents (58%) reported placing PICCs for ≥5 years, and 23% had obtained dedicated vascular access certification. The most common reported indications for PICC insertion included intravenous antibiotics, difficult venous access, and chemotherapy. Many respondents (46%) reported placing a PICC in a patient receiving dialysis; however, 91% of these respondents reported receiving approval from nephrology prior to insertion. Almost all respondents (91%) used ultrasound to find a suitable vein for PICC insertion, and 76% used electrocardiography guidance to place PICCs. PICC occlusion was reported as the most frequently encountered complication, followed by device migration and deep vein thrombosis. Although 94% of respondents noted that their hospitals tracked the number of PICCs placed, only 40% reported tracking duration of PICC use. Relatedly, 30% of nurses reported that their hospitals had a written policy to evaluate PICC necessity or appropriateness. CONCLUSION: This survey of vascular nursing experiences highlights opportunities to improve practices such as avoiding PICC use in dialysis, better tracking of PICC dwell times, and necessity. Hospitalists may use these data to inform clinical practice, appropriateness, and safety of PICCs in hospitalized patients.

Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Use in Skilled Nursing Facilities: A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe patterns of use, care practices, and outcomes related to peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) use in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Two community SNFs. PARTICIPANTS: Adult SNF residents with PICCs (N = 56). MEASUREMENTS: Information on indication for PICC use, device characteristics (e.g., lumens, gauge), and participant data (comorbidities, medications) were obtained from medical records. Care practices (e.g., frequency of flushing, dressing care) and problems related to PICCs were recorded. Major (central line-associated bloodstream infection, venous thromboembolism, catheter dislodgement) and minor (migration, dressing disruption, lumen occlusion, exit site infection) complications and process measures (flushing of PICC, assessment of necessity) were recorded. Bivariate analyses with t-tests, chi-square tests, or Fischer exact tests were used for continuous and categorical data. RESULTS: Participants were enrolled from two SNFs. The most common indication for PICC use was intravenous antibiotic delivery. The average PICC dwell time was 43 days, and most devices were single-lumen PICCs. Major and minor complications were common and occurred in 11 (20%) and 18 (32%) participants, respectively. Occlusion (23%, n = 13), accidental dislodgement (12%, n = 7), and dressing disruption (11%, n = 6) were the commonest complications observed. Documentation regarding catheter care practices occurred in 41% of cases. CONCLUSION: Quality improvement efforts that seek to benchmark practice, identify gaps, and institute efforts to improve PICC care and practice in SNFs appear necessary.