Interfacility Referral Communication for PICU Transfer.

OBJECTIVES: For patients requiring transfer to a higher level of care, excellent interfacility communication is essential. Our objective was to characterize verbal handoffs for urgent interfacility transfers of children to the PICU and compare these characteristics with known elements of high-quality intrahospital shift-to-shift handoffs. DESIGN: Mixed methods retrospective study of audio-recorded referral calls between referring clinicians and receiving PICU physicians for urgent interfacility PICU transfers. SETTING: Academic tertiary referral PICU. PATIENTS: Children 0-18 years old admitted to a single PICU following interfacility transfer over a 4-month period (October 2019 to January 2020). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We reviewed interfacility referral phone calls for 49 patients. Referral calls between clinicians lasted a median of 9.7 minutes (interquartile range, 6.8-14.5 min). Most referring clinicians provided information on history (96%), physical examination (94%), test results (94%), and interventions (98%). Fewer clinicians provided assessments of illness severity (87%) or code status (19%). Seventy-seven percent of referring clinicians and 6% of receiving PICU physicians stated the working diagnosis. Only 9% of PICU physicians summarized information received. Interfacility handoffs usually involved: 1) indirect references to illness severity and diagnosis rather than explicit discussions, 2) justifications for PICU admission, 3) statements communicating and addressing uncertainty, and 4) statements indicating the referring hospital's reliance on PICU resources. Interfacility referral communication was similar to intrahospital shift-to-shift handoffs with some key differences: 1) use of contextual information for appropriate PICU triage, 2) difference in expertise between communicating clinicians, and 3) reliance of referring clinicians and PICU physicians on each other for accurate information and medical/transport guidance. CONCLUSIONS: Interfacility PICU referral communication shared characteristics with intrahospital shift-to-shift handoffs; however, communication did not adhere to known elements of high-quality handovers. Structured tools specific to PICU interfacility referral communication must be developed and investigated for effectiveness in improving communication and patient outcomes.

Examining barriers to implementing a surgical-site infection bundle.

BACKGROUND: Surgical-site infections (SSIs) can be catastrophic. Bundles of evidence-based practices can reduce SSIs but can be difficult to implement and sustain. OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand the implementation of SSI prevention bundles in 6 US hospitals. DESIGN: Qualitative study. METHODS: We conducted in-depth semistructured interviews with personnel involved in bundle implementation and conducted a thematic analysis of the transcripts. SETTING: The study was conducted in 6 US hospitals: 2 academic tertiary-care hospitals, 3 academic-affiliated community hospitals, 1 unaffiliated community hospital. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 30 hospital personnel participated. Participants included surgeons, laboratory directors, clinical personnel, and infection preventionists. RESULTS: Bundle complexity impeded implementation. Other barriers varied across services, even within the same hospital. Multiple strategies were needed, and successful strategies in one service did not always apply in other areas. However, early and sustained interprofessional collaboration facilitated implementation. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence-based SSI bundle is complicated and can be difficult to implement. One implementation process probably will not work for all settings. Multiple strategies were needed to overcome contextual and implementation barriers that varied by setting and implementation climate. Appropriate adaptations for specific settings and populations may improve bundle adoption, fidelity, acceptability, and sustainability.

Alcohol-based decontamination of gloved hands: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The gold standard for hand hygiene (HH) while wearing gloves requires removing gloves, performing HH, and donning new gloves between WHO moments. The novel strategy of applying alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) directly to gloved hands might be effective and efficient. DESIGN: A mixed-method, multicenter, 3-arm, randomized trial. SETTING: Adult and pediatric medical-surgical, intermediate, and intensive care units at 4 hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare personnel (HCP). INTERVENTIONS: HCP were randomized to 3 groups: ABHR applied directly to gloved hands, the current standard, or usual care. METHODS: Gloved hands were sampled via direct imprint. Gold-standard and usual-care arms were compared with the ABHR intervention. RESULTS: Bacteria were identified on gloved hands after 432 (67.4%) of 641 observations in the gold-standard arm versus 548 (82.8%) of 662 observations in the intervention arm (P < .01). HH required a mean of 14 seconds in the intervention and a mean of 28.7 seconds in the gold-standard arm (P < .01). Bacteria were identified on gloved hands after 133 (98.5%) of 135 observations in the usual-care arm versus 173 (76.6%) of 226 observations in the intervention arm (P < .01). Of 331 gloves tested 6 (1.8%) were found to have microperforations; all were identified in the intervention arm [6 (2.9%) of 205]. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with usual care, contamination of gloved hands was significantly reduced by applying ABHR directly to gloved hands but statistically higher than the gold standard. Given time savings and microbiological benefit over usual care and lack of feasibility of adhering to the gold standard, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization should consider advising HCP to decontaminate gloved hands with ABHR when HH moments arise during single-patient encounters.Trial Registration: NCT03445676.

Direct Gloving vs Hand Hygiene Before Donning Gloves in Adherence to Hospital Infection Control Practices: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Current guidelines require hand hygiene before donning nonsterile gloves, but evidence to support this requirement is lacking. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of a direct-gloving policy on adherence to infection prevention practices in a hospital setting. Design, Setting, and Participants: This mixed-method, multicenter, cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted at 4 academic centers in Baltimore, Maryland, or Iowa City, Iowa, from January 1, 2016, to November 30, 2017. Data analysis was completed April 25, 2019. Participants were 3790 health care personnel (HCP) across 13 hospital units. Intervention: Hospital units were randomly assigned to direct gloving, with hand hygiene not required before donning gloves (intervention), or to usual care (hand hygiene before donning nonsterile gloves). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was adherence to the expected practice at room entry and exit. A random sample of HCPs' gloved hands were imprinted on agar plates at entry to contact precautions rooms. The intention-to-treat approach was followed, and all analyses were conducted at the level of the participating unit. Primary and secondary outcomes between treatment groups were assessed using generalized estimating equations with an unstructured working correlation matrix to adjust for clustering; multivariate analysis using generalized estimating equations was conducted to adjust for covariates, including baseline adherence. Results: In total, 13 hospital units participated in the trial, and 3790 HCP were observed. Adherence to expected practice was greater in the 6 units with the direct-gloving intervention than in the 7 usual care units (1297 of 1491 [87%] vs 954 of 2299 [41%]; P < .001) even when controlling for baseline hand hygiene rates, unit type, and universal gloving policies (risk ratio [RR], 1.76; 95% CI, 1.58-1.97). Glove use on entry to contact precautions rooms was also higher in the direct-gloving units (1297 of 1491 [87%] vs 1530 of 2299 [67%]; P = .008. The intervention had no effect on hand hygiene adherence measured at entry to non-contact precautions rooms (951 of 1315 [72%] for usual care vs 1111 of 1688 [66%] for direct gloving; RR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.91-1.10]) or at room exit (1587 of 1897 [84%] for usual care vs 1525 of 1785 [85%] for direct gloving; RR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.91-1.07]). The intervention was associated with increased total bacteria colony counts (adjusted incidence RR, 7.13; 95% CI, 3.95-12.85) and greater detection of pathogenic bacteria (adjusted incidence RR, 10.18; 95% CI, 2.13-44.94) on gloves in the emergency department and reduced colony counts in pediatrics units (adjusted incidence RR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.19-0.63), with no change in either total colony count (RR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.60 to 1.25] for adult intensive care unit; RR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.31-1.10] for hemodialysis unit) or presence of pathogenic bacteria (RR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.40-2.14] for adult intensive care unit; RR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.15-2.04] for hemodialysis unit) in the other units. Conclusions and Relevance: Current guidelines require hand hygiene before donning nonsterile gloves, but evidence to support this requirement is lacking. The findings from this cluster randomized clinical trial indicate that a direct-gloving strategy without prior hand hygiene should be considered by health care facilities. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03119389.

Prevalence and Characteristics of Diagnostic Error in Pediatric Critical Care: A Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVES: Effective interventions to prevent diagnostic error among critically ill children should be informed by diagnostic error prevalence and etiologies. We aimed to determine the prevalence and characteristics of diagnostic errors and identify factors associated with error in patients admitted to the PICU. DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective cohort study using structured medical record review by trained clinicians using the Revised Safer Dx instrument to identify diagnostic error (defined as missed opportunities in diagnosis). Cases with potential errors were further reviewed by four pediatric intensivists who made final consensus determinations of diagnostic error occurrence. Demographic, clinical, clinician, and encounter data were also collected. SETTING: Four academic tertiary-referral PICUs. PATIENTS: Eight hundred eighty-two randomly selected patients 0-18 years old who were nonelectively admitted to participating PICUs. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 882 patient admissions, 13 (1.5%) had a diagnostic error up to 7 days after PICU admission. Infections (46%) and respiratory conditions (23%) were the most common missed diagnoses. One diagnostic error caused harm with a prolonged hospital stay. Common missed diagnostic opportunities included failure to consider the diagnosis despite a suggestive history (69%) and failure to broaden diagnostic testing (69%). Unadjusted analysis identified more diagnostic errors in patients with atypical presentations (23.1% vs 3.6%, p = 0.011), neurologic chief complaints (46.2% vs 18.8%, p = 0.024), admitting intensivists greater than or equal to 45 years old (92.3% vs 65.1%, p = 0.042), admitting intensivists with more service weeks/year (mean 12.8 vs 10.9 wk, p = 0.031), and diagnostic uncertainty on admission (77% vs 25.1%, p < 0.001). Generalized linear mixed models determined that atypical presentation (odds ratio [OR] 4.58; 95% CI, 0.94-17.1) and diagnostic uncertainty on admission (OR 9.67; 95% CI, 2.86-44.0) were significantly associated with diagnostic error. CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill children, 1.5% had a diagnostic error up to 7 days after PICU admission. Diagnostic errors were associated with atypical presentations and diagnostic uncertainty on admission, suggesting possible targets for intervention.

Patients' experiences and compliance with preoperative screening and decolonization.

BACKGROUND: To improve adherence with pre-surgical screening for Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriage and decolonization, we need more information about patients' experiences with these protocols. METHODS: We surveyed patients undergoing orthopedic, neurosurgical, or cardiac operations at Johns Hopkins Hospitals (JHH), the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (UIHC) at MercyOne Northeast Iowa Neurosurgery (MONIN) to assess patients' experiences with decolonization protocols. RESULTS: Five hundred thirty-four patients responded. Respondents at JHH were significantly more likely than those at the UIHC to report using mupirocin and were significantly more likely than those at the UIHC and MONIN to feel they received adequate information about surgical site infection (SSI) prevention and decolonization. Respondents at JHH were the least likely to not worry about SSI and they were more willing to do anything they could to prevent SSI. Few patients reported barriers to adherence and side effects of mupirocin or chlorhexidine. CONCLUSION: Respondents did not report either major side effects or barriers to adherence. Patients varied in their level of concern about SSI, their willingness to invest effort in preventing SSI, and their assessments of preoperative information. To improve patients' adherence, clinicians and hospitals should assess their patients' needs and desires and tailor their preoperative processes, education, and prophylaxis accordingly.

Effectiveness and acceptability of intranasal povidone-iodine decolonization among fracture fixation surgery patients to reduce Staphylococcus aureus nasal colonization.

We evaluated povidone-iodine (PVI) decolonization among 51 fracture-fixation surgery patients. PVI was applied twice on the day of surgery. Patients were tested for S. aureus nasal colonization and surveyed. Mean S. aureus concentrations decreased from 3.13 to 1.15 CFU/mL (P = .03). Also, 86% of patients stated that they felt neutral or positive about their PVI experience.

Impact of subspecialty consultations on diagnosis in the pediatric intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVES: Intensivists and subspecialists often collaborate in diagnosing patients in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Our objectives were to characterize critically ill children for whom subspecialty consultations were requested, describe consultation characteristics, and determine consultations' impact on PICU diagnosis. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study using chart review in a single tertiary referral PICU including children admitted for acute illness. We collected data on patients with and without subspecialty consultations within the first three days of PICU admission and determined changes in PICU clinicians' diagnostic evaluation or treatment after consultations. RESULTS: PICU clinicians requested 152 subspecialty consultations for 87 of 101 (86%) patients. Consultations were requested equally for assistance in diagnosis (65%) and treatment (66%). Eighteen of 87 (21%) patients with consultations had a change in diagnosis from PICU admission to discharge, 11 (61%) attributed to subspecialty input. Thirty-nine (45%) patients with consultations had additional imaging and/or laboratory testing and 48 (55%) had medication changes and/or a procedure performed immediately after consultation. CONCLUSIONS: Subspecialty consultations were requested during a majority of PICU admissions. Consultations can influence the diagnosis and treatment of critically ill children. Future research should investigate PICU interdisciplinary collaborations, which are essential for teamwork in diagnosis.

Diagnosis Documentation of Critically Ill Children at Admission to a PICU.

OBJECTIVES: Multidisciplinary PICU teams must effectively share information while caring for critically ill children. Clinical documentation helps clinicians develop a shared understanding of the patient's diagnosis, which informs decision-making. However, diagnosis-related documentation in the PICU is understudied, thus limiting insights into how pediatric intensivists convey their diagnostic reasoning. Our objective was to describe how pediatric critical care clinicians document patients' diagnoses at PICU admission. DESIGN: Retrospective mixed methods study describing diagnosis documentation in electronic health records. SETTING: Academic tertiary referral PICU. PATIENTS: Children 0-17 years old admitted nonelectively to a single PICU over 1 year. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One hundred PICU admission notes for 96 unique patients were reviewed. In 87% of notes, both attending physicians and residents or advanced practice providers documented a primary diagnosis; in 13%, primary diagnoses were documented by residents or advanced practice providers alone. Most diagnoses (72%) were written as narrative free text, 11% were documented as problem lists/billing codes, and 17% used both formats. At least one rationale was documented to justify the primary diagnosis in 91% of notes. Diagnostic uncertainty was present in 52% of notes, most commonly suggested by clinicians' use of words indicating uncertainty (65%) and documentation of differential diagnoses (60%). Clinicians' integration and interpretation of information varied in terms of: 1) organization of diagnosis narratives, 2) use of contextual details to clarify the diagnosis, and 3) expression of diagnostic uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: In this descriptive study, most PICU admission notes documented a rationale for the primary diagnosis and expressed diagnostic uncertainty. Clinicians varied widely in how they organized diagnostic information, used contextual details to clarify the diagnosis, and expressed uncertainty. Future work is needed to determine how diagnosis narratives affect clinical decision-making, patient care, and outcomes.

Using nasal povidone-iodine to prevent bloodstream infections and transmission of Staphylococcus aureus among haemodialysis patients: a stepped-wedge cluster randomised control trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 38% of haemodialysis patients carry Staphylococcus aureus in their noses, and carriers have a nearly four-fold increased risk of S. aureus access-related bloodstream infections (BSIs) compared with non-carriers. Our objective is to determine the clinical efficacy and effectiveness of a novel intervention using nasal povidone-iodine (PVI) to prevent BSIs among patients in haemodialysis units. We will survey patients and conduct qualitative interviews with healthcare workers to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing the intervention. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform an open-label, stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial to assess the effectiveness of nasal PVI compared with standard care. Sixteen outpatient haemodialysis units will participate in the study. The 3-year trial period will be divided into a 4-month baseline period and eight additional 4-month time blocks. The primary outcome of the study will be S. aureus BSI, defined as a S. aureus positive blood culture collected in the outpatient setting or within one calendar day after a hospital admission. The study team will evaluate characteristics of individual patients and the clusters by exposure status (control or intervention) to assess the balance between groups, and calculate descriptive statistics such as average responses separately for control and intervention survey questions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received IRB approval from all study sites. A Data Safety and Monitoring Board will monitor this multicentre clinical trial. We will present our results at international meetings. The study team will publish findings in peer-reviewed journals and make each accepted peer-reviewed manuscript publicly available. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04210505.

Referral communication for pediatric intensive care unit admission and the diagnosis of critically ill children: A pilot ethnography.

PURPOSE: The effect of communication between referring and accepting clinicians during patient transitions to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) on diagnostic quality is largely unknown. This pilot study aims to determine the feasibility of using focused ethnography to understand the relationship between referral communication and the diagnostic process for critically ill children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted focused ethnography in an academic tertiary referral PICU by directly observing the referral and admission of 3 non-electively admitted children 0-17 years old. We also conducted 21 semi-structured interviews of their parents and admitting PICU staff (intensivists, fellows/residents, medical students, nurses, and respiratory therapists) and reviewed their medical records post-discharge. RESULTS: Performing focused ethnography in a busy PICU is feasible. We identified three areas for additional exploration: (1) how information transfer affects the PICU diagnostic process; (2) how uncertainty in patient assessment affects the decision to transfer to the PICU; and (3) how the PICU team's expectations are influenced by referral communication. CONCLUSIONS: Focused ethnography in the PICU is feasible to investigate relationships between clinician referral communication and the diagnostic process for critically ill children.

Factors Associated With Diagnostic Error on Admission to a PICU: A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVES: Diagnostic errors can harm critically ill children. However, we know little about their prevalence in PICUs and factors associated with error. The objective of this pilot study was to determine feasibility of record review to identify patient, provider, and work system factors associated with diagnostic errors during the first 12 hours after PICU admission. DESIGN: Pilot retrospective cohort study with structured record review using a structured tool (Safer Dx instrument) to identify diagnostic error. SETTING: Academic tertiary referral PICU. PATIENTS: Patients 0-17 years old admitted nonelectively to the PICU. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Four of 50 patients (8%) had diagnostic errors in the first 12 hours after admission. The Safer Dx instrument helped identify delayed diagnoses of chronic ear infection, increased intracranial pressure (two cases), and Bartonella encephalitis. We calculated that 610 PICU admissions are needed to achieve 80% power (α = 0.05) to detect significant associations with error. CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot study found four patients with diagnostic error out of 50 children admitted nonelectively to a PICU. Retrospective record review using a structured tool to identify diagnostic errors is feasible in this population. Pilot data are being used to inform a larger and more definitive multicenter study.

Incidence and Outcomes Associated With Clostridium difficile Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: An understanding of the incidence and outcomes of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in the United States can inform investments in prevention and treatment interventions. Objective: To quantify the incidence of CDI and its associated hospital length of stay (LOS) in the United States using a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Data Sources: MEDLINE via Ovid, Cochrane Library Databases via Wiley, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Complete via EBSCO Information Services, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for studies published in the United States between 2000 and 2019 that evaluated CDI and its associated LOS. Study Selection: Incidence data were collected only from multicenter studies that had at least 5 sites. The LOS studies were included only if they assessed postinfection LOS or used methods accounting for time to infection using a multistate model or compared propensity score-matched patients with CDI with control patients without CDI. Long-term-care facility studies were excluded. Of the 119 full-text articles, 86 studies (72.3%) met the selection criteria. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers performed the data abstraction and quality assessment. Incidence data were pooled only when the denominators used the same units (eg, patient-days). These data were pooled by summing the number of hospital-onset CDI incident cases and the denominators across studies. Random-effects models were used to obtain pooled mean differences. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 value. Data analysis was performed in February 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incidence of CDI and CDI-associated hospital LOS in the United States. Results: When the 13 studies that evaluated incidence data in patient-days due to hospital-onset CDI were pooled, the CDI incidence rate was 8.3 cases per 10 000 patient-days. Among propensity score-matched studies (16 of 20 studies), the CDI-associated mean difference in LOS (in days) between patients with and without CDI varied from 3.0 days (95% CI, 1.44-4.63 days) to 21.6 days (95% CI, 19.29-23.90 days). Conclusions and Relevance: Pooled estimates from currently available literature suggest that CDI is associated with a large burden on the health care system. However, these estimates should be interpreted with caution because higher-quality studies should be completed to guide future evaluations of CDI prevention and treatment interventions.

Updates to referring clinicians regarding critically ill children admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit: a state-wide survey.

Background Front-line clinicians are expected to make accurate and timely diagnostic decisions before transferring patients to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) but may not always learn their patients' outcomes. We evaluated the characteristics of post-transfer updates received by referring clinicians regarding PICU patients and determined preferences regarding content, delivery, and timing of such updates. Methods We administered an electronic cross-sectional survey to Iowa clinicians who billed for ≥5 pediatric patients or referred ≥1 patient to the University of Iowa (UI) PICU in the year before survey administration. Results One hundred and one clinicians (51 non-UI, 50 UI-affiliated) responded. Clinicians estimated that, on average, 8% of pediatric patients they saw over 1 year required PICU admission; clinicians received updates on 40% of patients. Seventy percent of UI clinicians obtained updates via self-initiated electronic record review, while 37% of non-UI clinicians relied on PICU communication (p = 0.013). Clinicians indicated that updates regarding diagnoses/outcomes will be most relevant to their practice. Among clinicians who received updates, 13% received unexpected information; 40% changed their practice as a result. Conclusions Clinicians received updates on less than half of the patients they referred to a PICU, although such updates could potentially influence clinical practice. Study findings will inform the development of a formal feedback system from the PICU to referring clinicians.

Comparing brief, covert, directly observed hand hygiene compliance monitoring to standard methods: A multicenter cohort study.

Hand hygiene compliance is subject to the Hawthorne effect, which may be attenuated by covert observers and brief observation periods. This study demonstrated that hand hygiene compliance rates were between 8% and 29% greater when reported by infection prevention programs than when reported by covert observers over brief observation periods.