An electronic medical record-based intervention to improve hepatitis A vaccination rates in the emergency department during a regional outbreak.

BACKGROUND: In response to the severe hepatitis A outbreak that occurred in Michigan between August 2016 and September 2019, our multihospital health system implemented an electronic medical record (EMR)-based vaccination intervention across its nine emergency departments (EDs). The objectives were to explore the impact of this intervention on increasing vaccination rates among high-risk individuals and to assess the barriers to use of a computerised vaccine reminder system. METHODS: All patients who were 18 years or older were screened using an electronic nursing questionnaire. If a patient was at high risk based on the questionnaire, an electronic best practice advisory (BPA) would trigger and give the physician or advanced practice provider the option to order the hepatitis A vaccine. We explored the vaccination rates in the 24-month preintervention and the 18-month intervention periods. We then administered a survey to physicians, advanced practice providers and nurses evaluating their perceptions and barriers to use of the EMR intervention. RESULTS: During the preintervention period, 49 vaccines were ordered (5.5 per 100 000 patient visits) and 32 were administered (3.6 per 100 000 patient visits). During the intervention period, 574 865 patient visits (74.3%) were screened. 2494 vaccines (322 per 100 000 patient visits) were ordered, and 1205 vaccines (155 per 100 000 patients visits) were administered. Physicians and advanced practice providers were initially compliant with the BPA's use, but compliance declined over time. Surveys revealed that the major barrier to use was lack of time. CONCLUSIONS: EMR screening tools and BPAs can be used in the ED as an effective strategy to vaccinate high-risk individuals. This may be translatable to outbreaks of other vaccine-preventable illnesses like influenza, measles or SARS-CoV-2. Providing ongoing education about the public health initiative and giving feedback to physicians, advanced practice providers and nurses about tool compliance are needed to sustain the improvement over time.

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.

Safety and Outcomes of Midline Catheters vs Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters for Patients With Short-term Indications: A Multicenter Study.

Importance: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and midlines are frequently used for short-term venous access; whether one is safer than the other in this setting has not been adequately reported. Objective: To compare outcomes between patients who had a PICC vs midline placed for the indication of difficult vascular access or antibiotic therapy for 30 or fewer days. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed data from a multihospital registry including patients admitted to a participating site from December 2017 through January 2020 who had a PICC or midline placement for the indications of difficult venous access or intravenous antibiotic therapy prescribed for 30 or fewer days. Data were analyzed from October 2020 to March 2021. Exposures: PICC and midline placement. Main Outcomes and Measures: Major complications, including a composite of symptomatic catheter-associated deep vein thrombosis (DVT), catheter-related bloodstream infection, and catheter occlusion. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression models (taking into account catheter dwell) were used to estimate risk for major complications, adjusting for patient and device characteristics and the clustered nature of the data. Sensitivity analyses limiting analyses to 10 days of device dwell were performed. Results: Data on 10 863 patients, 5758 with PICCs and 5105 with midlines (median [IQR] age of device recipients, 64.8 [53.4-75.4] years; 5741 [52.8%] were female), were included. After adjusting for patient characteristics, comorbidities, catheter lumens, and dwell time in logit models, patients who received PICCs had a greater risk of developing a major complication compared with those who received midlines (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.61-2.47). Reduction in complications stemmed from lower rates of occlusion (2.1% vs 7.0%; P < .001) and bloodstream infection (0.4% vs 1.6%; P < .001) in midlines vs PICCs; no significant difference in the risk of DVT between PICCs and midlines was observed. In time-to-event models, similar outcomes for bloodstream infection and catheter occlusion were noted; however, the risk of DVT events was lower in patients who received PICCs vs midlines (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.38-0.74). Results were robust to sensitivity analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study among patients with placement of midline catheters vs PICCs for short-term indications, midlines were associated with a lower risk of bloodstream infection and occlusion compared with PICCs. Whether DVT risk is similar or greater with midlines compared with PICCs for short-term use is unclear. Randomized clinical trials comparing these devices for this indication are needed.

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.

Derivation and external validation of a simple risk score to predict in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized for COVID-19: A multicenter retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT: As severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 continues to spread, easy-to-use risk models that predict hospital mortality can assist in clinical decision making and triage. We aimed to develop a risk score model for in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized with 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) that was robust across hospitals and used clinical factors that are readily available and measured standardly across hospitals.In this retrospective observational study, we developed a risk score model using data collected by trained abstractors for patients in 20 diverse hospitals across the state of Michigan (Mi-COVID19) who were discharged between March 5, 2020 and August 14, 2020. Patients who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 during hospitalization or were discharged with an ICD-10 code for COVID-19 (U07.1) were included. We employed an iterative forward selection approach to consider the inclusion of 145 potential risk factors available at hospital presentation. Model performance was externally validated with patients from 19 hospitals in the Mi-COVID19 registry not used in model development. We shared the model in an easy-to-use online application that allows the user to predict in-hospital mortality risk for a patient if they have any subset of the variables in the final model.Two thousand one hundred and ninety-three patients in the Mi-COVID19 registry met our inclusion criteria. The derivation and validation sets ultimately included 1690 and 398 patients, respectively, with mortality rates of 19.6% and 18.6%, respectively. The average age of participants in the study after exclusions was 64 years old, and the participants were 48% female, 49% Black, and 87% non-Hispanic. Our final model includes the patient's age, first recorded respiratory rate, first recorded pulse oximetry, highest creatinine level on day of presentation, and hospital's COVID-19 mortality rate. No other factors showed sufficient incremental model improvement to warrant inclusion. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for the derivation and validation sets were .796 (95% confidence interval, .767-.826) and .829 (95% confidence interval, .782-.876) respectively.We conclude that the risk of in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients can be reliably estimated using a few factors, which are standardly measured and available to physicians very early in a hospital encounter.

Variation in use and outcomes related to midline catheters: results from a multicentre pilot study.

BACKGROUND: While midline vascular catheters are gaining popularity in clinical practice, patterns of use and outcomes related to these devices are not well known. METHODS: Trained abstractors collected data from medical records of hospitalised patients who received midline catheters in 12 hospitals. Device characteristics, patterns of use and outcomes were assessed at device removal or at 30 days. Rates of major (upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis [DVT], bloodstream infection [BSI] and catheter occlusion) and minor complications were assessed. χ2 tests were used to examine differences in rates of complication by number of lumens, reasons for catheter removal l, and hospital-level differences in rates of midline use. RESULTS: Complete data on 1161 midlines representing 5%-72% of all midlines placed in participating hospitals between 1 January 2017 and 1 March 2018 were available. Most (70.8%) midlines were placed in general ward settings for difficult intravenous access (61.4%). The median dwell time of midlines across hospitals was 6 days; almost half (49%) were removed within 5 days of insertion. A major or minor complication occurred in 10.3% of midlines, with minor complications such as dislodgement, leaking and infiltration accounting for 71% of all adverse events. While rates of major complications including occlusion, upper-extremity DVT and BSI were low (2.2%, 1.4% and 0.3%, respectively), they were just as likely to lead to midline removal as minor complications (53.8% vs 52.5%, p=0.90). Across hospitals, absolute volume of midlines placed varied from 100 to 1837 devices, with corresponding utilisation rates of 0.97%-12.92% (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Midline use and outcomes vary widely across hospitals. Although rates of major complications are low, device removal as a result of adverse events is common.

Risk of Venous Thromboembolism Following Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Exchange: An Analysis of 23,000 Hospitalized Patients.

BACKGROUND: Catheter exchange over a guidewire is frequently performed for malfunctioning peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). Whether such exchanges are associated with venous thromboembolism is not known. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study to assess the association between PICC exchange and risk of thromboembolism. Adult hospitalized patients that received a PICC during clinical care at one of 51 hospitals participating in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety consortium were included. The primary outcome was hazard of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (radiographically confirmed upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism) in those that underwent PICC exchange vs those that did not. RESULTS: Of 23,010 patients that underwent PICC insertion in the study, 589 patients (2.6%) experienced a PICC exchange. Almost half of all exchanges were performed for catheter dislodgement or occlusion. A total of 480 patients (2.1%) experienced PICC-associated deep vein thrombosis. The incidence of deep vein thrombosis was greater in those that underwent PICC exchange vs those that did not (3.6% vs 2.0%, P < .001). Median time to thrombosis was shorter among those that underwent exchange vs those that did not (5 vs 11 days, P = .02). Following adjustment, PICC exchange was independently associated with twofold greater risk of thrombosis (hazard ratio [HR] 1.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37-2.85) vs no exchange. The effect size of PICC exchange on thrombosis was second in magnitude to device lumens (HR 2.06; 95% CI, 1.59-2.66 and HR 2.31; 95% CI, 1.6-3.33 for double- and triple-lumen devices, respectively). CONCLUSION: Guidewire exchange of PICCs may be associated with increased risk of thrombosis. As some exchanges may be preventable, consideration of risks and benefits of exchanges in clinical practice is needed.

Patterns and Predictors of Short-Term Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Use: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The guidelines for peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) recommend avoiding insertion if the anticipated duration of use is =5 days. However, short-term PICC use is common in hospitals. We sought to identify patient, provider, and device characteristics and the clinical outcomes associated with short-term PICCs. METHODS: Between January 2014 and June 2016, trained abstractors at 52 Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety (HMS) Consortium sites collected data from medical records of adults that received PICCs during hospitalization. Patients were prospectively followed until PICC removal, death, or 70 days after insertion. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit to identify factors associated with short-term PICCs, defined as dwell time of =5 days. Complications associated with short-term use, including major (eg, venous thromboembolism [VTE] or central lineassociated bloodstream infection [CLABSI]) or minor (eg, catheter occlusion, tip migration) events were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 15,397 PICCs placed, 3902 (25.3%) had a dwell time of =5 days. Most (95.5%) short-term PICCs were removed during hospitalization. Compared to PICCs placed for >5 days, variables associated with short-term PICCs included difficult venous access (odds ratio [OR], 1.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.40-1.69), multilumen devices (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.39-1.69), and teaching hospitals (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.04-1.52). Among those with short-term PICCs, 374 (9.6%) experienced a complication, including 99 (2.5%) experiencing VTE and 17 (0.4%) experiencing CLABSI events. The most common minor complications were catheter occlusion (4%) and tip migration (2.2%). CONCLUSION: Short-term use of PICCs is common and associated with patient, provider, and device factors. As PICC placement, even for brief periods, is associated with complications, efforts targeted at factors underlying such use appear necessary.

Improving PICC use and outcomes in hospitalised patients: an interrupted time series study using MAGIC criteria.

BACKGROUND: Although important in clinical care, reports of inappropriate peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) use are growing. OBJECTIVE: To test whether implementation of the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC) can improve PICC use and patient outcomes. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental, interrupted time series design at one study site with nine contemporaneous external controls. SETTING: Ten hospitals participating in a state-wide quality collaborative from 1 August 2014 to 31 July 2016. PATIENTS: 963 hospitalised patients who received a PICC at the study site vs 6613 patients at nine control sites. INTERVENTION: A multimodal intervention (tool, training, electronic changes, education) derived from MAGIC. MEASUREMENTS: Appropriateness of PICC use and rates of PICC-associated complications. Segmented Poisson regression was used for analyses. RESULTS: Absolute rates of inappropriate PICC use decreased substantially at the study site versus controls (91.3% to 65.3% (-26.0%) vs 72.2% to 69.6% (-2.6%); P<0.001). After adjusting for underlying trends and patient characteristics, however, a marginally significant 13.8% decrease in inappropriate PICC use occurred at the study site (incidence rate ratio 0.86 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.99; P=0.048)); no change was observed at control sites. While the incidence of all PICC complications decreased to a greater extent at the study site, the absolute difference between controls and intervention was small (33.9% to 26.7% (-7.2%) vs 22.4% to 20.8% (-1.6%); P=0.036). LIMITATIONS: Non-randomised design limits inference; the most effective component of the multimodal intervention is unknown; effects following implementation were modest. CONCLUSIONS: In a multihospital quality improvement project, implementation of MAGIC improved PICC appropriateness and reduced complications to a modest extent. Given the size and resources required for this study, future work should consider cost-to-benefit ratio of similar approaches.

The Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC): Results From a Multispecialty Panel Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

Use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) has grown substantially in recent years. Increasing use has led to the realization that PICCs are associated with important complications, including thrombosis and infection. Moreover, some PICCs may not be placed for clinically valid reasons. Defining appropriate indications for insertion, maintenance, and care of PICCs is thus important for patient safety. An international panel was convened that applied the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to develop criteria for use of PICCs. After systematic reviews of the literature, scenarios related to PICC use, care, and maintenance were developed according to patient population (for example, general hospitalized, critically ill, cancer, kidney disease), indication for insertion (infusion of peripherally compatible infusates vs. vesicants), and duration of use (≤5 days, 6 to 14 days, 15 to 30 days, or ≥31 days). Within each scenario, appropriateness of PICC use was compared with that of other venous access devices. After review of 665 scenarios, 253 (38%) were rated as appropriate, 124 (19%) as neutral/uncertain, and 288 (43%) as inappropriate. For peripherally compatible infusions, PICC use was rated as inappropriate when the proposed duration of use was 5 or fewer days. Midline catheters and ultrasonography-guided peripheral intravenous catheters were preferred to PICCs for use between 6 and 14 days. In critically ill patients, nontunneled central venous catheters were preferred over PICCs when 14 or fewer days of use were likely. In patients with cancer, PICCs were rated as appropriate for irritant or vesicant infusion, regardless of duration. The panel of experts used a validated method to develop appropriate indications for PICC use across patient populations. These criteria can be used to improve care, inform quality improvement efforts, and advance the safety of medical patients.