Inpatient opioid withdrawal: a qualitative study of the patient perspective.

Opioid withdrawal is common among hospitalized patients. Those with substance use disorders exhibit higher rates of patient-directed discharge. The literature lacks information regarding the patient perspective on opioid withdrawal in the hospital setting. In this study, we aimed to capture the patient-reported experience of opioid withdrawal during hospitalization and its impact on the desire to continue treatment for opioid use disorder after discharge. We performed a single-center qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews of hospitalized patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) experiencing opioid withdrawal. Investigators conducted in-person interviews utilizing a combination of open-ended and dichotomous questions. Interview transcripts were then analyzed with open coding for emergent themes. Nineteen interviews were performed. All participants were linked to either buprenorphine (79%) or methadone (21%) at discharge. Eight of nineteen patients (42%) reported a patient-directed discharge during prior hospitalizations. Themes identified from the interviews included: (1) opioid withdrawal was well-managed in the hospital; (2) patients appreciated receiving medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) for withdrawal symptoms; (3) patients valued and felt cared for by healthcare providers; and (4) most patients had plans to follow-up for opioid use disorder treatment after hospitalization. In this population with historically high rates of patient-directed discharge, patients reported having a positive experience with opioid withdrawal management during hospitalization. Amongst our hospitalized patients, we observed several different individualized MOUD induction strategies. All participants were offered MOUD at discharge and most planned to follow-up for further treatment.

Drivers of inappropriate use of antimicrobials in South Asia: A systematic review of qualitative literature.

Antimicrobial resistance is a global public health crisis. Effective antimicrobial stewardship requires an understanding of the factors and context that contribute to inappropriate use of antimicrobials. The goal of this qualitative systematic review was to synthesize themes across levels of the social ecological framework that drive inappropriate use of antimicrobials in South Asia. In September 2023, we conducted a systematic search using the electronic databases PubMed and Embase. Search terms, identified a priori, were related to research methods, topic, and geographic location. We identified 165 articles from the initial search and 8 upon reference review (n = 173); after removing duplicates and preprints (n = 12) and excluding those that did not meet eligibility criteria (n = 115), 46 articles were included in the review. We assessed methodological quality using the qualitative Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist. The studies represented 6 countries in South Asia, and included data from patients, health care providers, community members, and policy makers. For each manuscript, we wrote a summary memo to extract the factors that impede antimicrobial stewardship. We coded memos using NVivo software; codes were organized by levels of the social ecological framework. Barriers were identified at multiple levels including the patient (self-treatment with antimicrobials; perceived value of antimicrobials), the provider (antimicrobials as a universal therapy; gaps in knowledge and skills; financial or reputational incentives), the clinical setting (lack of resources; poor regulation of the facility), the community (access to formal health care; informal drug vendors; social norms), and policy (absence of a regulatory framework; poor implementation of existing policies). This study is the first to succinctly identify a range of norms, behaviors, and policy contexts driving inappropriate use of antimicrobials in South Asia, emphasizing the importance of working across multiple sectors to design and implement approaches specific to the region.

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

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

Inappropriate Diagnosis of Pneumonia Among Hospitalized Adults.

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

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.

Proposing the "Continuum of UTI" for a Nuanced Approach to Diagnosis and Management of Urinary Tract Infections.

PURPOSE: Patients with suspected UTIs are categorized into 3 clinical phenotypes based on current guidelines: no UTI, asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB), or UTI. However, all patients may not fit neatly into these groups. Our objective was to characterize clinical presentations of patients who receive urine tests using the "continuum of UTI" approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of a random sample of adult noncatheterized inpatient and emergency department encounters with paired urinalysis and urine cultures from 5 hospitals in 3 states between January 01, 2017, and December 31, 2019. Trained abstractors collected clinical (eg, symptom) and demographic data. A focus group discussion with multidisciplinary experts was conducted to define the continuum of UTI, a 5-level classification scheme that includes 2 new categories: lower urinary tract symptoms/other urologic symptoms and bacteriuria of unclear significance. The newly defined continuum of UTI categories were compared to the current UTI classification scheme. RESULTS: Of 220,531 encounters, 3392 randomly selected encounters were reviewed. Based on the current classification scheme, 32.1% (n = 704) had ASB and 53% (n = 1614) did not have a UTI. When applying the continuum of UTI categories, 68% of patients (n = 478) with ASB were reclassified as bacteriuria of unclear significance and 29% of patients (n = 467) with "no UTI" were reclassified to lower urinary tract symptoms/other urologic symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest the need to reframe our conceptual model of UTI vs ASB to reflect the full spectrum of clinical presentations, acknowledge the diagnostic uncertainty faced by frontline clinicians, and promote a nuanced approach to diagnosis and management of UTIs.

Clinicians' interpretation of thresholds in hospital antibiograms for gram-negative rod infections: A survey and contingent valuation study of hospitalists.

Clinical guidelines suggest that hospital antibiograms are a key component when deciding empiric therapy, but little is known about how often clinicians use antibiograms and how they influence clinicians' empiric therapy decisions. We surveyed hospitalists at seven healthcare systems in the United States on their reported practices related to antibiograms and their hypothetical prescribing for four clinical scenarios associated with gram-negative rod pathogens. Each was given a randomly assigned antibiogram susceptibility percentage, and we used contingent valuation analysis to assess whether the antibiogram susceptibility percentage was associated with prescribing practices. Of the 193 survey responders, only 52 (26.9%) respondents reported using antibiograms more than monthly. Across all four clinical scenarios, there was no evidence that antibiogram susceptibility levels influenced antibiotic prescribing practices. With limited utilization and no evidence that they influenced practice, antibiograms may have a limited role in hospitalist care delivery for common gram-negative rod infections.

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.

Drivers of inappropriate use of antimicrobials in South Asia: A systematic review of qualitative literature.

Antimicrobial resistance is a global public health crisis. Effective antimicrobial stewardship requires an understanding of the factors and context that contribute to inappropriate use of antimicrobials. The goal of this qualitative systematic review was to synthesize themes across levels of the social ecological framework that drive inappropriate use of antimicrobials in South Asia. In September 2023, we conducted a systematic search using the electronic databases PubMed and Embase. Search terms, identified a priori, were related to research methods, topic, and geographic location. We identified 165 articles from the initial search and 8 upon reference review (n=173); after removing duplicates and preprints (n=12) and excluding those that did not meet eligibility criteria (n=115), 46 articles were included in the review. We assessed methodological quality using the qualitative Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist. The studies represented 6 countries in South Asia, and included data from patients, health care providers, community members, and policy makers. For each manuscript, we wrote a summary memo to extract the factors that impede antimicrobial stewardship. We coded memos using NVivo software; codes were organized by levels of the social ecological framework. Barriers were identified at multiple levels including the patient (self-treatment with antimicrobials; perceived value of antimicrobials), the provider (antimicrobials as a universal therapy; gaps in knowledge and skills; financial or reputational incentives), the clinical setting (lack of resources; poor regulation of the facility), the community (access to formal health care; informal drug vendors; social norms), and policy (absence of a regulatory framework; poor implementation of existing policies). The findings highlight the importance of working across multiple sectors to design and implement approaches to antimicrobial stewardship in South Asia.

Development of Inpatient Stewardship Metrics: Is It Time for Public Reporting?

Given the complexity and nuance needed to make antimicrobial prescribing decisions, metrics aiming to assess these decisions can be complex in method, require resource investment for measurement, and demand thoughtfulness in how to use data for program implementation and messaging to key partners. Antimicrobial stewardship programs today use several metrics of antimicrobial use in parallel with other clinical data for a multitude of purposes and audiences. Here, we discuss goals for inpatient stewardship metrics, current metrics used by stewardship programs locally and nationally, and future directions for antimicrobial use metric development.

Improving antimicrobial use through better diagnosis: The relationship between diagnostic stewardship and antimicrobial stewardship.

Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) exist to optimize antibiotic use, reduce selection for antimicrobial-resistant microorganisms, and improve patient outcomes. Rapid and accurate diagnosis is essential to optimal antibiotic use. Because diagnostic testing plays a significant role in diagnosing patients, it has one of the strongest influences on clinician antibiotic prescribing behaviors. Diagnostic stewardship, consequently, has emerged to improve clinician diagnostic testing and test result interpretation. Antimicrobial stewardship and diagnostic stewardship share common goals and are synergistic when used together. Although ASP requires a relationship with clinicians and focuses on person-to-person communication, diagnostic stewardship centers on a relationship with the laboratory and hardwiring testing changes into laboratory processes and the electronic health record. Here, we discuss how diagnostic stewardship can optimize the "Four Moments of Antibiotic Decision Making" created by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and work synergistically with ASPs.

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.

COVID-19-Related Publications by Hospitalists in the United States.

Objective To determine the degree to which hospitalists published academic manuscripts related to COVID-19 during the first year of the pandemic. Patients and methods The study was a cross-sectional analysis of the author's specialty, defined by byline or professional online biography, from articles related to COVID-19 published between March 1, 2020, and February 28, 2021. It included the top four internal medicine journals by impact factor: New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine, and Annals of Internal Medicine. Participants were all United States (US)-based physician authors contributing to COVID-19 publications. Our primary outcome was the percentage of US-based physician authors of COVID-19 articles who were hospitalists. Subgroup analyses characterized author specialty by authorship position (first, middle, last) and article type (research vs. non-research). Results Between March 1, 2020, and February 28, 2021, the top four US-based medical journals published 870 articles related to COVID-19 of which 712 articles with 1940 US-based physician authors were included. Hospitalists accounted for 4.2% (82) of authorship positions including 4.7% (49/1038) of authorship positions in research articles and 3.7% (33/902) of authorship positions in non-research articles. First, middle, and last authorship positions were held by hospitalists at 3.7% (18/485), 4.4% (45/1034), and 4.5% (19/421) of the time, respectively. Conclusions Despite caring for a large number of patients with COVID-19, hospitalists were rarely involved in disseminating COVID-19 knowledge. Limited authorship by hospitalists could constrain the dissemination of inpatient medicine knowledge, impact patient outcomes, and affect the academic promotion of early-career hospitalists.

Optimizing reflex urine cultures: Using a population-specific approach to diagnostic stewardship.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians and laboratories routinely use urinalysis (UA) parameters to determine whether antimicrobial treatment and/or urine cultures are needed. Yet the performance of individual UA parameters and common thresholds for action are not well defined and may vary across different patient populations. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we included all encounters with UAs ordered 24 hours prior to a urine culture between 2015 and 2020 at 3 North Carolina hospitals. We evaluated the performance of relevant UA parameters as potential outcome predictors, including sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV). We also combined 18 different UA criteria and used receiver operating curves to identify the 5 best-performing models for predicting significant bacteriuria (≥100,000 colony-forming units of bacteria/mL). RESULTS: In 221,933 encounters during the 6-year study period, no single UA parameter had both high sensitivity and high specificity in predicting bacteriuria. Absence of leukocyte esterase and pyuria had a high NPV for significant bacteriuria. Combined UA parameters did not perform better than pyuria alone with regard to NPV. The high NPV ≥0.90 of pyuria was maintained among most patient subgroups except females aged ≥65 years and patients with indwelling catheters. CONCLUSION: When used as a part of a diagnostic workup, UA parameters should be leveraged for their NPV instead of sensitivity. Because many laboratories and hospitals use reflex urine culture algorithms, their workflow should include clinical decision support and or education to target symptomatic patients and focus on populations where absence of pyuria has high NPV.

Gender differences in COVID-19-related manuscript authorship by hospitalists during the pandemic: A bibliometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hospital medicine (HM) has a well-described gender disparity related to academic work and promotion. During the COVID-19 pandemic, female authorship across medicine fell further behind historical averages. OBJECTIVE: Examine how COVID-19 affected the publication gender gap for hospitalists. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: Bibliometric analysis to determine gender and specialty of US-based physician first and last authors of COVID-19 articles published March 1, 2020 to February 28, 2021 in the four highest impact general medical journals and two highest impact HM-specific journals. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: We characterized the percentage of all physician authors that were women, the percentage of physician authors that were hospitalists, and the percentage of HM authors that were women. We compared author gender between general medical and HM-specific journals. RESULTS: During the study period, 853 manuscripts with US-based first or last authors were published in eligible journals. Included manuscripts contained 1124 US-based physician first or last author credits, of which 34.2% (384) were women and 8.8% (99) were hospitalists. Among hospitalist author credits, 43.4% (n = 43/99) were occupied by women. The relative gender equity for hospitalist authors was driven by the two HM journals where, compared to the four general medical journals, hospitalist authors (54.1% [33/61] vs. 26.3% [10/38] women, respectively, p = .002) and hospitalist last authors (51.9% [14/27] vs. 20% [4/20], p = .03) were more likely to be women. CONCLUSIONS: Across COVID-19-related manuscripts, disparities by gender were driven by the high-impact general medical journals. HM-specific journals had more equitable inclusion of women authors, demonstrating the potential impact of proactive editorial policies on diversity.

Pharmacist gender and physician acceptance of antibiotic stewardship recommendations: An analysis of the reducing overuse of antibiotics at discharge home intervention.

OBJECTIVE: To assess association of pharmacist gender with acceptance of antibiotic stewardship recommendations. DESIGN: A retrospective evaluation of the Reducing Overuse of Antibiotics at Discharge (ROAD) Home intervention. SETTING: The study was conducted from May to October 2019 in a single academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: The study included patients receiving antibiotics on a hospitalist service who were nearing discharge. METHODS: During the intervention, clinical pharmacists (none who had specialist postgraduate infectious disease residency training) reviewed patients on antibiotics and led an antibiotic timeout (ie, structured conversation) prior to discharge to improve discharge antibiotic prescribing. We assessed the association of pharmacist gender with acceptance of timeout recommendations by hospitalists using logistic regression controlling for patient characteristics. RESULTS: Over 6 months, pharmacists conducted 295 timeouts: 158 timeouts (53.6%) were conducted by 12 women, 137 (46.4%) were conducted by 8 men. Pharmacists recommended an antibiotic change in 82 timeouts (27.8%), of which 51 (62.2%) were accepted. Compared to male pharmacists, female pharmacists were less likely to recommend a discharge antibiotic change: 30 (19.0%) of 158 versus 52 (38.0%) of 137 (P < .001). Female pharmacists were also less likely to have a recommendation accepted: 10 (33.3%) of 30 versus 41 (8.8%) of 52 (P < .001). Thus, timeouts conducted by female versus male pharmacists were less likely to result in an antibiotic change: 10 (6.3%) of 158 versus 41 (29.9%) of 137 (P < .001). After adjustments, pharmacist gender remained significantly associated with whether recommended changes were accepted (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.10; 95%confidence interval [CI], 0.03-0.36 for female versus male pharmacists). CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic stewardship recommendations made by female clinical pharmacists were less likely to be accepted by hospitalists. Gender bias may play a role in the acceptance of clinical pharmacist recommendations, which could affect patient care and outcomes.

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.