To assess the impact of a newly developed Central-Line Insertion Site Assessment (CLISA) score on the incidence of local inflammation or infection for CLABSI prevention.

A pre- and postintervention, quasi-experimental quality improvement study.

Adult inpatients with central venous catheters (CVCs) hospitalized in an intensive care unit or oncology ward at a large academic medical center.

We evaluated CLISA score impact on insertion site inflammation and infection (CLISA score of 2 or 3) incidence in the baseline period (June 2014–January 2015) and the intervention period (April 2015–October 2017) using interrupted times series and generalized linear mixed-effects multivariable analyses. These were run separately for days-to-line removal from identification of a CLISA score of 2 or 3. CLISA score interrater reliability and photo quiz results were evaluated.

Among 6,957 CVCs assessed 40,846 times, percentage of lines with CLISA score of 2 or 3 in the baseline and intervention periods decreased by 78.2% (from 22.0% to 4.7%), with a significant immediate decrease in the time-series analysis (P < .001). According to the multivariable regression, the intervention was associated with lower percentage of lines with a CLISA score of 2 or 3, after adjusting for age, gender, CVC body location, and hospital unit (odds ratio, 0.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.06–0.34; P < .001). According to the multivariate regression, days to removal of lines with CLISA score of 2 or 3 was 3.19 days faster after the intervention (P < .001). Also, line dwell time decreased 37.1% from a mean of 14 days (standard deviation [SD], 10.6) to 8.8 days (SD, 9.0) (P < .001). Device utilization ratios decreased 9% from 0.64 (SD, 0.08) to 0.58 (SD, 0.06) (P = .039).

The CLISA score creates a common language for assessing line infection risk and successfully promotes high compliance with best practices in timely line removal.

One in four patients with schizophrenia responds poorly to antipsychotic medication, continuing to hear persecutory auditory hallucinations. Patients who are able to sustain a dialogue with their persecutor feel much more in control.

To develop a computerised system that enables the patient to create an avatar of their persecutor. To encourage them to engage in a dialogue with the avatar, which the therapist is able to control so that the avatar progressively yields control to the patient.

Avatar therapy was evaluated by a randomised, single blind, partial crossover trial comparing the novel therapy with treatment as usual (TAU). We used three main outcome measures: (a) the Psychotic Symptom Rating Scale (PSYRATS), hallucinations section; (b) the Omnipotence and Malevolence subscales of the Revised Beliefs About Voices Questionnaire (BAVQ-R); and (c) the Calgary Depression Scale (CDS).

The control group showed no change over time in their scores on the three assessments, whereasthe novel therapy group showed mean reductions in the total PSYRATS score (auditory hallucinations) of 8.75 (P = 0.003) and in the BAVQ-R combined score of omnipotence and malevolence of the voices of 5.88 (P = 0.004). There was no significant reduction in the CDS total score for depression. For the crossover control group, comparison of the period of TAU withthe period ofavatar therapy confirmed the findings of the previous analysis. The effect size of the therapy was 0.8.

Avatar therapy represents a promising treatment for medication-resistant auditory hallucinations. Replication with a larger sample is required before roll-out to clinical settings.