To identify Choosing Wisely items for the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation.

The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) elicited potential items from a hospital epidemiology listserv, SHEA committee members, and a SHEA–Infectious Diseases Society of America compendium with SHEA Research Network members ranking items by Delphi method voting. The SHEA Guidelines Committee reviewed the top 10 items for appropriateness for Choosing Wisely. Five final recommendations were approved via individual member vote by committees and the SHEA Board.

Ninety-six items were proposed by 87 listserv members and 99 SHEA committee members. Top 40 items were ranked by 24 committee members and 64 of 226 SHEA Research Network members. The 5 final recommendations follow: 1. Don’t continue antibiotics beyond 72 hours in hospitalized patients unless patient has clear evidence of infection. 2. Avoid invasive devices (including central venous catheters, endotracheal tubes, and urinary catheters)and, if required, use no longer than necessary. They pose a major risk for infections. 3. Don’t perform urinalysis, urine culture, blood culture, or Clostridium difficile testing unless patients have signs or symptoms of infection. Tests can be falsely positive leading to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. 4. Do not use antibiotics in patients with recent C. difficile without convincing evidence of need. Antibiotics pose a high risk of C. difficile recurrence. 5. Don’t continue surgical prophylactic antibiotics after the patient has left the operating room. Five runner-up recommendations are included.

These 5 SHEA Choosing Wisely and 5 runner-up items limit medical overuse.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:755–760

To determine whether use of contact precautions on hospital ward patients is associated with patient adverse events

Individually matched prospective cohort study

The University of Maryland Medical Center, a tertiary care hospital in Baltimore, Maryland

A total of 296 medical or surgical inpatients admitted to non–intensive care unit hospital wards were enrolled at admission from January to November 2010. Patients on contact precautions were individually matched by hospital unit after an initial 3-day length of stay to patients not on contact precautions. Adverse events were detected by physician chart review and categorized as noninfectious, preventable and severe noninfectious, and infectious adverse events during the patient’s stay using the standardized Institute for Healthcare Improvement’s Global Trigger Tool.

The cohort of 148 patients on contact precautions at admission was matched with a cohort of 148 patients not on contact precautions. Of the total 296 subjects, 104 (35.1%) experienced at least 1 adverse event during their hospital stay. Contact precautions were associated with fewer noninfectious adverse events (rate ratio [RtR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51–0.95; P=.02) and although not statistically significant, with fewer severe adverse events (RtR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.46–1.03; P=.07). Preventable adverse events did not significantly differ between patients on contact precautions and patients not on contact precautions (RtR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.59–1.24; P=.41).

Hospital ward patients on contact precautions were less likely to experience noninfectious adverse events during their hospital stay than patients not on contact precautions.

Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2015;36(11):1268–1274

Hospital Ebola preparation is underway in the United States and other countries; however, the best approach and resources involved are unknown.

To examine costs and challenges associated with hospital Ebola preparation by means of a survey of Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) members.

Electronic survey of infection prevention experts.

A total of 257 members completed the survey (221 US, 36 international) representing institutions in 41 US states, the District of Columbia, and 18 countries. The 221 US respondents represented 158 (43.1%) of 367 major medical centers that have SHEA members and included 21 (60%) of 35 institutions recently defined by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as Ebola virus disease treatment centers. From October 13 through October 19, 2014, Ebola consumed 80% of hospital epidemiology time and only 30% of routine infection prevention activities were completed. Routine care was delayed in 27% of hospitals evaluating patients for Ebola.

Convenience sample of SHEA members with a moderate response rate.

Hospital Ebola preparations required extraordinary resources, which were diverted from routine infection prevention activities. Patients being evaluated for Ebola faced delays and potential limitations in management of other diseases that are more common in travelers returning from West Africa.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015;00(0): 1–5

Contact precautions decrease healthcare worker-patient contact and may impact patient satisfaction. To determine the association between contact precautions and patient satisfaction, we used a standardized interview for perceived issues with care.

Prospective cohort study of inpatients, evaluated at admission and on hospital days 3, 7, and 14 (until discharged). At each point, patients underwent a standardized interview to identify perceived problems with care. After discharge, the standardized interview and Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey were administered by telephone. Responses were recorded, transcribed, and coded by 2 physician reviewers.

A total of 528 medical or surgical patients not admitted to the intensive care unit.

A total of 528 patients were included in the primary analysis, of whom 104 (20%) perceived some issue with their care. On multivariable logistic regression, contact precautions were independently associated with a greater number of perceived concerns with care (odds ratio, 2.05 [95% confidence interval, 1.31–3.21]; P<.01), including poor coordination of care (P = .02) and a lack of respect for patient needs and preferences (P = .001). Eighty-eight patients were included in the secondary analysis of HCAHPS. Patients under contact precautions did not have different HCAHPS scores than those not under contact precautions (odds ratio, 1.79 [95% confidence interval, 0.64–5.00]; P = .27).

Patients under contact precautions were more likely to perceive problems with their care, especially poor coordination of care and a lack of respect for patient preferences.