6 results
Assessing the Efficacy and Unintended Consequences of Utilizing a Behavioral Approach to Reduce Inappropriate Clostridioides difficile Testing
- Lana Dbeibo, Allison Brinkman, Cole Beeler, Kristen Kelley, William Fadel, Yun Wang, William Snyderman, Nicole Hatfield, Josh Sadowski, Areeba Kara
-
- Journal:
- Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology / Volume 41 / Issue S1 / October 2020
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 02 November 2020, pp. s58-s59
- Print publication:
- October 2020
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Background: Effective strategies to improve diagnostic stewardship around C. difficile infection (CDI) remain elusive. Electronic medical record-based solutions, such as ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ stops, have been associated with reductions in testing, but may not be sustainable due to alert fatigue. Additionally, data on the potential for undertesting, missed diagnoses, and the implications regarding patient harm or clusters of transmission are limited. In this study, we assessed the efficacy of a behavioral approach to diagnostic stewardship, while monitoring for unintended consequences. Methods: This quality improvement study was conducted January 2018–May 2019; baseline period: January–April 2018, implementation period: May–December 2018, sustainment period: January 2019–May 2019. First, we conducted an internal analysis and identified 3 barriers to appropriate testing: clinician’s perceived risk of CDI, inconsistent definition of diarrhea, and lack of involvement of nurses in diagnostic stewardship. A multidisciplinary team to address these barriers was then convened. The team utilized the Bristol stool scale to improve the reliability of diarrhea description, and created a guideline-concordant testing algorithm with clinicians and nurses. The primary outcome was the number of tests ordered. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of inappropriate tests and the proportion of delayed tests. Delayed tests were defined as CDI-compatible diarrhea based on the algorithm where the test was sent >24 hours after symptom onset. Results: During the baseline period, we detected no significant change in number of tests ordered month to month, with 194.2 tests ordered per month on average. During the postimplementation period, the number of tests ordered decreased by ~4.5 each month between January 2018 and May 2019 (P < .0001). The proportion of inappropriate tests steadily decreased from 54% to 30% across the 3 study periods, and the number of delayed testing changed from 11% to 1% then increased to 20% in the sustainment period. There were no cases of toxic megacolon associated with delayed testing. Conclusions: The decision to test for CDI is complex. Interventions that address this issue as a simple ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ fail to address the root cause of CDI overdiagnosis, and they have no embedded mechanism to detect unintended consequences. Our study demonstrates that by taking a behavioral approach and addressing clinicians’ safety concerns, we were able to sustain a significant reduction in testing. We could not determine the significance of the increase in delayed testing given the low numbers; however, further studies are needed to evaluate the safety of CDI reduction strategies through diagnostic stewardship only.
Funding: None
Disclosures: None
The Impact of Changing to an Algorithm-Based Clostridioides difficile Test on the Decision to Treat Clostridioides difficile
- Lana Dbeibo, Joy Williams, Josh Sadowski, William Fadel, Vera Winn, Cole Beeler, Kristen Kelley, Douglas Houston Webb, Areeba Kara
-
- Journal:
- Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology / Volume 41 / Issue S1 / October 2020
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 02 November 2020, p. s407
- Print publication:
- October 2020
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Background: Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for the diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) detects the presence of the organism; a positive result therefore cannot differentiate between colonization and the pathogenic presence of the bacterium. This may result in overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and risking disruption of microbial flora, which may perpetuate the CDI cycle. Algorithm-based testing offers an advantage over PCR testing as it detects toxin, which allows differentiation between colonization and infection. Although previous studies have demonstrated the clinical utility of this testing algorithm in differentiating infection from colonization, it is unknown whether the test changes CDI treatment decisions. Our facility switched from PCR to an algorithm-based testing method for CDI in June 2018. Objective: In this study, we evaluated whether clinicians’ decisions to treat patients are impacted by a test result that implies colonization (GDH+/Tox−/PCR+ test), and we examined the impact of this decision on patient outcomes. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of inpatients with a positive C. diff test between June 2017 and June 2019. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients treated for CDI. We compared this outcome in 3 groups of patients: those with a positive PCR test (June 2017–June 2018), those who had a GDH+/Tox−/PCR+ or a GDH+/Tox+ test result (June 2018–June 2019). Secondary outcomes included toxic megacolon, critical care admission, and mortality in patients with GDH+/Tox−/PCR+ who were treated versus those who were untreated. Results: Of patients with a positive PCR test, 86% were treated with CDI-specific antibiotics, whereas 70.4% with GDH+/Tox+ and 29.25% with GDH+/Tox−/PCR+ result were treated (P < .0001). Mortality was not different between patients with GDH+/Tox−/PCR+ who were treated versus those who were untreated (2.7% vs 3.4%; P = .12), neither was critical care admission within 2 or 7 days of test result (2% vs 1.4%; P = .15) and (4.1% vs 5.4%, P = .39), respectively. There were no cases of toxic megacolon during the study period. Conclusions: The change to an algorithm-based C. difficile testing method had a significant impact on the clinicians’ decisions to treat patients with a positive test, as most patients with a GDH+/Tox−/PCR+ result did not receive treatment. These patients did not suffer more adverse outcomes compared to those who were treated, which has implications for testing practices. It remains to be explored whether clinicians are using clinical criteria to decide whether or not to treat patients with a positive algorithm-based test, as opposed to the more reflexive treatment of patients with a positive PCR test.
Funding: None
Disclosures: None
Utilizing a real-time discussion approach to improve the appropriateness of Clostridioides difficile testing and the potential unintended consequences of this strategy
- Lana Dbeibo, Allison Brinkman, Cole Beeler, William Fadel, William Snyderman, Nicole Hatfield, Joshua Sadowski, Yun Wang, Kristen Kelley, Douglas Webb, Jose Azar, Areeba Kara
-
- Journal:
- Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology / Volume 41 / Issue 10 / October 2020
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 29 June 2020, pp. 1215-1218
- Print publication:
- October 2020
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
We report electronic medical record interventions to reduce Clostridioides difficile testing risk ‘alert fatigue.’ We used a behavioral approach to diagnostic stewardship and observed a decrease in the number of tests ordered of ~4.5 per month (P < .0001). Although the number of inappropriate tests decreased during the study period, delayed testing increased.
Achieving Clostridioides difficile infection Health and Human Services 2020 goals: Using agile implementation to bring evidence to the bedside
- Lana Dbeibo, Kristen Kelley, Cole Beeler, Areeba Kara, Patrick Monahan, Anthony J. Perkins, Yun Wang, Allison Brinkman, William Snyderman, Nicole Hatfield, Justin Wrin, Joan Miller, Douglas Webb, Jose Azar
-
- Journal:
- Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology / Volume 41 / Issue 2 / February 2020
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 05 December 2019, pp. 237-239
- Print publication:
- February 2020
-
- Article
- Export citation
3038 Examining the association between inpatient opioid prescribing and patient satisfaction.
- Olena Mazurenko, Justin Blackburn, Matthew Bair, Areeba Kara, Christopher A. Harle
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 3 / Issue s1 / March 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 26 March 2019, pp. 121-122
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Research overview: Providing patient-centered care is increasingly a top priority in the U.S. healthcare system.1,2 Hospitals are required to publicly report patient-centered assessments, including results from the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) patient satisfaction surveys.3 Furthermore, clinician and hospital reimbursements are partially determined by performance on patient satisfaction measures.3 Consequently, hospitals and clinicians may be incentivized to improve patient satisfaction scores over other important outcomes.4 Paradoxically then, the pursuit of patient-centered care may lead clinicians to fulfill patient requests for unnecessary and potentially harmful treatments.5 Opioid prescribing during hospitalizations may be particularly affected by clinicians’ seeking to optimize patient satisfaction scores.6,7 Satisfaction with pain care is an important predictor of overall patient satisfaction in the HCAHPS surveys,8,9 and clinicians report increased pressure to fulfill patient requests for immediate pain-relief.10,11 Therefore, clinicians may prescribe opioids to avoid receiving lower patient satisfaction scores.12,13 Furthermore, clinicians lack clear guidance on opioid prescribing for some populations, including non-surgical inpatients, who represent almost half of all hospitalizations.14 To reduce clinicians’ incentive to prescribe opioids as a means of achieving patient satisfaction, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) temporarily removed questions related to patient satisfaction with pain care from the clinician and hospital reimbursement formulas beginning in 2018.15 Importantly, prior research16-20 has not rigorously tested the hypothesis implied by the CMS policy change: that certain opioid prescribing practices in inpatient pain care are associated with higher patient satisfaction. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between the receipt/dose of opioids during non-surgical hospitalizations and patient satisfaction measured by the HCAHPS survey. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Methods/Study Population: We conducted a pooled cross-sectional study of adults (18 and older) with non-surgical hospitalizations within the 11-hospital healthcare system in a Midwestern state from 2011-2016. Data were extracted from electronic health records and linked to HCAHPS patient satisfaction surveys. We estimated the propensity score for receipt of any opioids during hospitalization and separately the receipt of high dose opioids (≥100 morphine milligram equivalent [MME]) based on patient, encounter, and facility characteristics for all hospitalizations with complete data. We used nearest neighbor matching to construct two matched samples to minimize selection bias and confounding by indication. We used a standardized difference threshold of < 0.1 as an indication of the balance between matched groups. Outcomes were compared with a test on the equality of proportions using large-sample statistics. All analysis was performed in STATA 14.0 analytical software. Main outcomes: We analyzed four dependent variables. Two pain-specific patient satisfaction variables were derived from the responses to the following survey questions: 1) “During this hospital stay, how often your pain was well controlled? (pain control)” and 2) “During this hospital stay, how often did the hospital staff do everything they could to help you with your pain? (pain help)”, with 4-point Likert scale responses ranging from “Never” to “Always.” We also used two global satisfaction measures derived from the responses to the following survey questions: 1) “Using any number from 0 to 10, where 0 is the worst hospital possible and 10 is the best hospital possible, what number would you use to rate this hospital during your stay (overall patient satisfaction)?” and 2) “Would you recommend this hospital to your friends and family (willingness to recommend a hospital)? (4-point scale of “Definitely Yes” to “Definitely No”). Because the responses are not normally distributed, and the response options are truncated, we dichotomized each of these questions following previously published approaches8 and CMS methodology3 (e.g. “always” vs. all other responses or “9 or 10 rating” vs. all others). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Results: Among 17,691 patients who reported that they needed pain medications during hospitalization in their HCAHPS survey, 43.7% (n=7,735) received opioids. Among the matched sample (n=8,848), 55% were female, 90% were white, 9% were black, 74% were emergency admissions, 29% had a circulatory diagnosis, 92% were discharged home, and the average pain score ranged from 0.2 to 7.1 during the hospital stay. Compared to matched patients hospitalized but did not receiving opioids, those who received opioids did not significantly differ in their rating of pain help (75% of patients without opioids rated that they always received help for their pain versus 75% of patients with opioids; p=.78), pain control (55% of patients without opioids reported that their pain was well controlled versus 54% on opioids; p=.93), willingness to recommend the hospital (69% of patients without opioids reported that they would definitely recommend a hospital versus 71% with opioids; p=.16) and overall rating of their care (47% of patients without opioids rated their hospitalization as 10 versus 46% on opioids; p=.22). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Discussion: We found no evidence that receipt of opioids is associated with patient satisfaction, including at doses. To our knowledge, this is the first study that used propensity score matching to examine the association between inpatient opioid prescribing practices and patient satisfaction. Furthermore, our sample is unique in the inclusion of patients hospitalized for non-surgical indicators over a five year period in the multi-hospital healthcare system in a Midwestern state. Our findings add to the existing literature which has shown contradictory associations between opioid prescribing and patient satisfaction.16-22 Specifically, few studies that looked at surgical inpatients showed a lack of association between patient satisfaction16,18 and opioid prescribing, whereas others showed that receipt of opioids was associated with lower patient satisfaction.17-20 Our findings may imply that satisfaction with pain care may be achieved without administering opioids to non-surgical inpatients. Alternatively, satisfaction with pain care may not be influenced by opioid prescribing for non-surgical inpatients. Future research should further examine the association between opioid prescribing and patient satisfaction among non-surgical inpatients on a national scale to get a better understanding of the relationship between certain pain care practices and patient satisfaction.
2183 Balancing patient-centeredness and patient safety in the hospitals: The case of pain care and patient satisfaction
- Olena Mazurenko, Basia Andraka-Christou, Matthew Bair, Areeba Kara, Christopher A. Harle
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 2 / Issue S1 / June 2018
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 21 November 2018, p. 79
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: This study seeks to understand the relationship between opioid prescribing and patient satisfaction among non-surgical, hospitalized patients. As part of this study, we qualitatively examined challenges in delivering safe and patient-centered care through voices of physicians’, and nurses.’ METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We collected data through in-person interviews using semi-structured guides tailored to the informant roles. Study participants came from 1 healthcare system located in a mid-Western state. Each interview lasted 30–45 minutes, was audio-recorded with consent, and transcribed for analysis. Two researchers each coded 17 transcripts for discussions around patient-centeredness (including patient satisfaction, patient experiences), and patient safety for hospitalized patients experiencing pain. Analysis followed a general inductive approach, where researchers identified themes related to the research questions using an open coding technique. They discussed and reached consensus on all codes, and extracted several preliminary themes. The analysis was supported by NVivo software. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The following themes emerged: (1) complex decision-making process to prescribe opioids for hospitalized patients; (2) the role of objective findings in prescribing decisions; (3) bargaining process in prescribing opioids; (4) balancing patient-centeredness and patient safety for selected populations; (5) opioids are the predominant medications for pain care. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Clinicians’ decision to prescribe opioids for nonsurgical hospitalized patients is based on multiple factors, including patient’s condition, patient’s preference for pain medications, or standard hospital’s pain care regimen. Interventions that improve clinicians’ ability to prescribe opioids may be needed to improve delivery of patient-centered and safe pain care.