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.

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.

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.

Bacteremia From a Presumed Urinary Source in Hospitalized Adults With Asymptomatic Bacteriuria.

Importance: Guidelines recommend withholding antibiotics in asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB), including among patients with altered mental status (AMS) and no systemic signs of infection. However, ASB treatment remains common. Objectives: To determine prevalence and factors associated with bacteremia from a presumed urinary source in inpatients with ASB with or without AMS and estimate antibiotics avoided if a 2% risk of bacteremia were used as a threshold to prompt empiric antibiotic treatment of ASB. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study assessed patients hospitalized to nonintensive care with ASB (no immune compromise or concomitant infections) in 68 Michigan hospitals from July 1, 2017, to June 30, 2022. Data were analyzed from August 2022 to January 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was prevalence of bacteremia from a presumed urinary source (ie, positive blood culture with matching organisms within 3 days of urine culture). To determine factors associated with bacteremia, we used multivariable logistic regression models. We estimated each patient's risk of bacteremia and determined what percentage of patients empirically treated with antibiotics had less than 2% estimated risk of bacteremia. Results: Of 11 590 hospitalized patients with ASB (median [IQR] age, 78.2 [67.7-86.6] years; 8595 female patients [74.2%]; 2235 African American or Black patients [19.3%], 184 Hispanic patients [1.6%], and 8897 White patients [76.8%]), 8364 (72.2%) received antimicrobial treatment for UTI, and 161 (1.4%) had bacteremia from a presumed urinary source. Only 17 of 2126 patients with AMS but no systemic signs of infection (0.7%) developed bacteremia. On multivariable analysis, male sex (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.45; 95% CI, 1.02-2.05), hypotension (aOR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.18-2.93), 2 or more systemic inflammatory response criteria (aOR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.21-2.46), urinary retention (aOR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.18-2.96), fatigue (aOR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.08-2.17), log of serum leukocytosis (aOR, 3.38; 95% CI, 2.48-4.61), and pyuria (aOR, 3.31; 95% CI, 2.10-5.21) were associated with bacteremia. No single factor was associated with more than 2% risk of bacteremia. If 2% or higher risk of bacteremia were used as a cutoff for empiric antibiotics, antibiotic exposure would have been avoided in 78.4% (6323 of 8064) of empirically treated patients with low risk of bacteremia. Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with ASB, bacteremia from a presumed urinary source was rare, occurring in less than 1% of patients with AMS. A personalized, risk-based approach to empiric therapy could decrease unnecessary ASB treatment.

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.

Use and Outcomes of Peripheral Vasopressors in Early Sepsis-Induced Hypotension Across Michigan Hospitals: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Vasopressors traditionally are administered via central access, but newer data suggest that peripheral administration may be safe and may avoid delays and complications associated with central line placement. RESEARCH QUESTION: How commonly are vasopressors initiated through peripheral IV lines in routine practice? Is vasopressor initiation route associated with in-hospital mortality? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included adults hospitalized with sepsis (November 2020-September 2022) at 29 hospitals in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium, a Collaborative Quality Initiative sponsored by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. We assessed route of early vasopressor initiation, factors and outcomes associated with peripheral initiation, and timing of central line placement. RESULTS: Five hundred ninety-four patients received vasopressors within 6 h of hospital arrival and were included in this study. Peripheral vasopressor initiation was common (400/594 [67.3%]). Patients with peripheral vs central initiation were similar; BMI was the only patient factor associated independently with initiation route (adjusted OR [aOR] of peripheral initiation [per 1-kg/m2 increase], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-1.00; P = .015). The specific hospital showed a large impact on initiation route (median OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.31-3.07). Compared with central initiation, peripheral initiation was faster (median, 2.5 h vs 2.7 h from hospital arrival; P = .002), but was associated with less initial norepinephrine use (84.3% vs 96.8%; P = .001). We found no independent association between initiation route and in-hospital mortality (32.3% vs 42.2%; aOR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.39-1.12). No tissue injury from peripheral vasopressors was documented. Of patients with peripheral initiation, 135 of 400 patients (33.8%) never received a central line. INTERPRETATION: Peripheral vasopressor initiation was common across Michigan hospitals and had practical benefits, including expedited vasopressor administration and avoidance of central line placement in one-third of patients. However, the findings of wide practice variation that was not explained by patient case mix and lower use of first-line norepinephrine with peripheral administration suggest that additional standardization may be needed.

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.

Institutional Structures and Processes to Support Sepsis Care: A Multihospital Study.

OBJECTIVES: To identify opportunities for improving hospital-based sepsis care and to inform an ongoing statewide quality improvement initiative in Michigan. DESIGN: Surveys on hospital sepsis processes, including a self-assessment of practices using a 3-point Likert scale, were administered to 51 hospitals participating in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium, a Collaborative Quality Initiative sponsored by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, at two time points (2020, 2022). Forty-eight hospitals also submitted sepsis protocols for structured review. SETTING: Multicenter quality improvement consortium. SUBJECTS: Fifty-one hospitals in Michigan. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the included hospitals, 92.2% (n = 47/51) were nonprofit, 88.2% (n = 45/51) urban, 11.8% (n = 6/51) rural, and 80.4% (n = 41/51) teaching hospitals. One hundred percent (n = 51/51) responded to the survey, and 94.1% (n = 48/51) provided a sepsis policy/protocol. All surveyed hospitals used at least one quality improvement approach, including audit/feedback (98.0%, n = 50/51) and/or clinician education (68.6%, n = 35/51). Protocols included the Sepsis-1 (18.8%, n = 9/48) or Sepsis-2 (31.3%, n = 15/48) definitions; none (n = 0/48) used Sepsis-3. All hospitals (n = 51/51) used at least one process to facilitate rapid sepsis treatment, including order sets (96.1%, n = 49/51) and/or stocking of commonly used antibiotics in at least one clinical setting (92.2%, n = 47/51). Treatment protocols included guidance on antimicrobial therapy (68.8%, n = 33/48), fluid resuscitation (70.8%, n = 34/48), and vasopressor administration (62.5%, n = 30/48). On self-assessment, hospitals reported the lowest scores for peridischarge practices, including screening for cognitive impairment (2.0%, n = 1/51 responded "we are good at this") and providing anticipatory guidance (3.9%, n = 2/51). There were no meaningful associations of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: Management Bundle performance with differences in hospital characteristics or sepsis policy document characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Most hospitals used audit/feedback, order sets, and clinician education to facilitate sepsis care. Hospitals did not consistently incorporate organ dysfunction criteria into sepsis definitions. Existing processes focused on early recognition and treatment rather than recovery-based practices.

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).

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.

Eligibility for Posthospitalization Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background A recent randomized trial, the MICHELLE trial, demonstrated improved posthospital outcomes with a 35-day course of prophylactic rivaroxaban for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at high risk of venous thromboembolism. We explored how often these findings may apply to an unselected clinical population of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods and Results Using a 35-hospital retrospective cohort of patients hospitalized between March 7, 2020, and January 23, 2021, with COVID-19 (MI-COVID19 database), we quantified the percentage of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who would be eligible for rivaroxaban at discharge per MICHELLE trial criteria and report clinical event rates. The main clinical outcome was derived from the MICHELLE trial and included a composite of symptomatic venous thromboembolism, pulmonary embolus-related death, nonhemorrhagic stroke, and cardiovascular death at 35 days. Multiple sensitivity analyses tested different eligibility and exclusion criteria definitions to determine the effect on eligibility for postdischarge anticoagulation prophylaxis. Of 2016 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who survived to discharge and did not have another indication for anticoagulation, 25.9% (n=523) would be eligible for postdischarge thromboprophylaxis per the MICHELLE trial criteria (range, 2.9%-39.4% on sensitivity analysis). Of the 416 who had discharge anticoagulant data collected, only 13.2% (55/416) were actually prescribed a new anticoagulant at discharge. Of patients eligible for rivaroxaban per the MICHELLE trial, the composite clinical outcome occurred in 1.2% (6/519); similar outcome rates were 5.7% and 0.63% in the MICHELLE trial's control (no anticoagulation) and intervention (rivaroxaban) groups, respectively. Symptomatic venous thromboembolism events and all-cause mortality were 6.2% (32/519) and 5.66% in the MI-COVID19 and MICHELLE trial control cohorts, respectively. Conclusions Across 35 hospitals in Michigan, ≈1 in 4 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 would qualify for posthospital thromboprophylaxis. With only 13% of patients actually receiving postdischarge prophylaxis, there is a potential opportunity for improvement in care.

Opioid and benzodiazepine prescribing after COVID-19 hospitalization.

Opioid and benzodiazepine prescribing after COVID-19 hospitalization is not well understood. We aimed to characterize opioid and benzodiazepine prescribing among naïve patients hospitalized for COVID and to identify the risk factors associated with a new prescription at discharge. In this retrospective study of patients across 39 Michigan hospitals from March to November 2020, we identified 857 opioid- and benzodiazepine-naïve patients admitted with COVID-19 not requiring mechanical ventilation. Of these, 22% received opioids, 13% received benzodiazepines, and 6% received both during the hospitalization. At discharge, 8% received an opioid prescription, and 3% received a benzodiazepine prescription. After multivariable adjustment, receipt of an opioid or benzodiazepine prescription at discharge was associated with the length of inpatient opioid or benzodiazepine exposure. These findings suggest that hospitalization represents a risk of opioid or benzodiazepine initiation among naïve patients, and judicious prescribing should be considered to prevent opioid-related harms.

Impact of Early Corticosteroids on Preventing Clinical Deterioration in Non-critically Ill Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19: A Multi-hospital Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: While guidelines stronglyrecommend dexamethasone in critical COVID-19, the optimal threshold to initiate corticosteroids in non-critically ill patients with COVID-19 remains unclear. Using data from a state-wide COVID-19 registry, we evaluated the effectiveness of early corticosteroids for preventing clinical deterioration among non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and receiving non-invasive oxygen therapy. METHODS: This was a target trial using observational data from patients hospitalized for COVID-19 at 39 hospitals participating in the MI-COVID19 registry between March 16, 2020 and August 24, 2020. We studied the impact of corticosteroids initiated within 2 calendar days of hospitalization ("early steroids") versus no early steroids among non-ICU patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV2 receiving non-invasive supplemental oxygen therapy. Our primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality, transfer to intensive care, and receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and propensity score-weighted regression to measure the association of early steroids and outcomes. RESULTS: Among 1002 patients meeting study criteria, 231 (23.1%) received early steroids. After IPTW, to balance potential confounders between the treatment groups, early steroids were not associated with a decrease in the composite outcome (aOR 1.1, 95%CI 0.8-1.6) or in any components of the primary outcome. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence that early corticosteroid therapy prevents clinical deterioration among hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients receiving non-invasive oxygen therapy. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal threshold for initiating corticosteroids in this population.

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.

Antibiotic overuse after discharge from medical short-stay units.

Of 100 patients discharged from short-stay units (SSUs) with antibiotics, 47 had a skin and soft-tissue infection, 22 had pneumonia, and 21 had a urinary tract infection. Among all discharge antibiotic prescriptions, 78% involved antibiotic overuse, most commonly excess duration (54 of 100) and guideline discordant selection (44 of 100).

Risk factors and outcomes associated with community-onset and hospital-acquired coinfection in patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A multihospital cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the incidence of community-onset and hospital-acquired coinfection in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to evaluate associated predictors and outcomes. METHODS: In this multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from March 2020 to August 2020 across 38 Michigan hospitals, we assessed prevalence, predictors, and outcomes of community-onset and hospital-acquired coinfections. In-hospital and 60-day mortality, readmission, discharge to long-term care facility (LTCF), and mechanical ventilation duration were assessed for patients with versus without coinfection. RESULTS: Of 2,205 patients with COVID-19, 141 (6.4%) had a coinfection: 3.0% community onset and 3.4% hospital acquired. Of patients without coinfection, 64.9% received antibiotics. Community-onset coinfection predictors included admission from an LTCF (OR, 3.98; 95% CI, 2.34-6.76; P < .001) and admission to intensive care (OR, 4.34; 95% CI, 2.87-6.55; P < .001). Hospital-acquired coinfection predictors included fever (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.15-5.27; P = .02) and advanced respiratory support (OR, 40.72; 95% CI, 13.49-122.93; P < .001). Patients with (vs without) community-onset coinfection had longer mechanical ventilation (OR, 3.31; 95% CI, 1.67-6.56; P = .001) and higher in-hospital mortality (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.06-3.40; P = .03) and 60-day mortality (OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.05-3.29; P = .03). Patients with (vs without) hospital-acquired coinfection had higher discharge to LTCF (OR, 8.48; 95% CI, 3.30-21.76; P < .001), in-hospital mortality (OR, 4.17; 95% CI, 2.37-7.33; P ≤ .001), and 60-day mortality (OR, 3.66; 95% CI, 2.11-6.33; P ≤ .001). CONCLUSION: Despite community-onset and hospital-acquired coinfection being uncommon, most patients hospitalized with COVID-19 received antibiotics. Admission from LTCF and to ICU were associated with increased risk of community-onset coinfection. Future studies should prospectively validate predictors of COVID-19 coinfection to facilitate the reduction of antibiotic use.

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.

Variation in COVID-19 disease severity at hospital admission over time and across hospitals: A multi-institution cohort of Michigan hospitals.

ABSTRACT: During the spring 2020 COVID-19 surge, hospitals in Southeast Michigan were overwhelmed, and hospital beds were limited. However, it is unknown whether threshold for hospital admission varied across hospitals or over time.Using a statewide registry, we performed a retrospective cohort study. We identified adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Southeast Michigan (3/1/2020-6/1/2020). We classified disease severity on admission using the World Health Organization (WHO) ordinal scale. Our primary measure of interest was the proportion of patients admitted on room air. We also determined the proportion without acute organ dysfunction on admission or any point during hospitalization. We quantified variation across hospitals and over time by half-month epochs.Among 1315 hospitalizations across 22 hospitals, 57.3% (754/1,315) were admitted on room air, and 26.1% (343/1,315) remained on room air for the duration of hospitalization. Across hospitals, the proportion of COVID-19 hospitalizations admitted on room air varied from 32.3% to 80.0%. Across half-month epochs, the proportion ranged from 49.4% to 69.4% and nadired in early April 2020. Among patients admitted on room air, 75.1% (566/754) had no acute organ dysfunction on admission, and 35.3% (266/754) never developed acute organ dysfunction at any point during hospitalization; there was marked variation in both proportions across hospitals. In-hospital mortality was 13.7% for patients admitted on room air vs 26.3% for patients requiring nasal cannula oxygen.Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during the spring 2020 surge in Southeast Michigan, more than half were on room air and a third had no acute organ dysfunction upon admission, but experienced high rates of disease progression and in-hospital mortality.