We introduced a urinary tract infection (UTI) panel requiring symptom documentation and identification of special populations linked to reflex urine culturing and evaluated its impact on catheter-associated UTI (CAUTI) including during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Quasi-experimental encompassing 3 periods: pre-panel (January 2014–March 2015), post-panel (April 2015–March 2020), and post-panel COVID (April 2020–June 2022).

Tertiary care center inpatients.

Poisson regression and interrupted time series (ITS) analysis evaluated changes in catheter days (CD), urine cultures (UC), and CAUTI measured by 1,000 CD and patient days (PD). National Health Safety Network standardized infection ratio (SIR) and standardized utilization ratio (SUR) data were analyzed.

UC per 1,000 PD decreased after implementation (pre-panel 36.9 vs 16.6 post-panel vs 14.4 post-panel COVID, all P < .001). CD declined pre-panel versus post-panel (RR 0.37, P < .001) but not from post-panel to post-panel COVID (RR 0.94, P = .88). UTI panel implementation was associated with a 40% decrease in CAUTI rates per 1,000 CD (P < .001). During the COVID-19 pandemic (post-panel COVID), a nonsignificant increase of 13% (P = .61) in CAUTI was noted but remained 32% lower than pre-panel (P = .02). The slope of change using ITS changed from negative to positive but was nonsignificant (P = .26). CAUTI rates per 1,000 PD demonstrated greater reductions (pre- vs post-panel (RR 0.37; 95% CI, 0.29–0.47) and pre- vs post-panel COVID (RR 0.35; 95% CI, 0.26–0.46)). SIRs were unavailable before 2016, but median SIRs post-panel compared to post-panel COVID were similar (1.05 vs 1.56, respectively, P = .067).

Implementation of the UTI panel was associated with a reduction in both UC and CAUTI with the impact maintained despite the COVID-19 pandemic.

Bathing intensive care unit (ICU) patients with chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) decreases healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). The optimal method of CHG bathing remains undefined.

Prospective crossover study comparing CHG daily bathing with 2% CHG-impregnated cloths versus 4% CHG solution. In phase 1, from January 2020 through March 2020, 1 ICU utilized 2% cloths, while the other ICU utilized 4% solution. After an interruption caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, in phase 2, from July 2020 through September 2020, the unit CHG bathing assignments were reversed. Swabs were performed 3 times weekly from patients’ arms and legs to measure skin microbial colonization and CHG concentration. Other outcomes included HAIs, adverse reactions, and skin tolerability.

411 assessments occurred after baths with 2% cloth, and 425 assessments occurred after baths with 4% solution. Average microbial colonization was 691 (interquartile range 0, 30) colony-forming units per square centimeter (CFU/cm2) for patients bathed with 2% cloths, 1,627 (0, 265) CFUs/cm2 for 4% solution, and 8,519 (10, 1130) CFUs/cm2 for patients who did not have a CHG bath (P < .001). Average CHG skin concentration (parts per million) was 1300.4 (100, 2000) for 2% cloths, 307.2 (30, 200) for 4% solution, and 32.8 (0, 20) for patients without a recorded CHG bath. Both CHG bathing methods were well tolerated. Although underpowered, no difference in HAI was noted between groups.

Either CHG bathing method resulted in a significant decrease in microbial skin colonization with a greater CHG concentration and fewer organisms associated with 2% CHG cloths.

Determination of whether vascular catheter disinfecting antiseptic-containing caps alone are effective at decreasing microbial colonization of connectors compared to antiseptic-containing caps plus a 5-second alcohol manual disinfection.

The study was conducted in a 718-bed, tertiary-care, academic hospital.

A convenience sample of adult patients across intensive care units and acute care wards with peripheral and central venous catheters covered with antiseptic-containing caps.

Quality improvement study completed over 5 days. The standard-of-care group consisted of catheter connectors with antiseptic-containing caps cleaned with a 5-second alcohol wipe scrub prior to culture. The comparison group consisted of catheter connectors with antiseptic-containing caps without a 5-second alcohol wipe scrub prior to culture. The connectors were pressed directly onto blood agar plates and incubated. Plates were assessed for growth after 48-72 hours.

In total, 356 catheter connectors were cultured: 165 in the standard-of-care group, 165 in the comparison group, and 26 catheters connectors without an antiseptic-containing cap, which were designated as controls. Overall, 18 catheter connectors (5.06%) yielded microbial growth. Of the 18 connectors with microbial growth, 2 (1.21%) were from the comparison group, 1 (0.61%) was from the standard-of-care group, and 15 were controls without an antiseptic-containing cap.

Bacterial colonization rates were similar between the catheter connectors cultured with antiseptic-containing caps alone and catheter connectors with antiseptic-containing caps cultured after a 5-second scrub with alcohol. This finding suggests that the use of antiseptic-containing caps precludes the need for additional disinfection.

Contaminated blood cultures result in extended hospital stays and extended durations of antibiotic therapy. Rapid molecular-based blood culture testing can speed positive culture detection and improve clinical outcomes, particularly when combined with an antimicrobial stewardship program. We investigated the impact of a multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) FilmArray Blood Culture Identification (BCID) system on clinical outcomes associated with contaminated blood cultures.

We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving secondary data analysis at a single institution. In this before-and-after study, patients with contaminated blood cultures in the period before PCR BCID was implemented (ie, the pre-PCR period; n = 305) were compared to patients with contaminated blood cultures during the period after PCR BCID was implemented (ie, the post-PCR implementation period; n = 464). The primary exposure was PCR status and the main outcomes of the study were length of hospital stay and days of antibiotic therapy.

We did not detect a significant difference in adjusted mean length of hospital stay before (10.8 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.8–11.9) and after (11.2 days; 95% CI, 10.2–12.3) the implementation of the rapid BCID panel in patients with contaminated blood cultures (P = .413). Likewise, adjusted mean days of antibiotic therapy between patients in pre-PCR group (5.1 days; 95% CI, 4.5–5.7) did not significantly differ from patients in post-PCR group (5.3 days; 95% CI, 4.8–5.9; P = .543).

The introduction of a rapid PCR-based blood culture identification system did not improve clinical outcomes, such as length of hospital stay and duration of antibiotic therapy, in patients with contaminated blood cultures.

Contaminated blood cultures result in extended hospital stays and unnecessary antibiotic therapy. Patient-specific factors associated with blood culture contamination remain largely unexplored. Identifying patients at higher risk of blood culture contamination could alert healthcare providers to take extra precautionary measures to limit contamination in these patients, and thereby prevent associated adverse outcomes. We sought to identify patient-related factors that contribute to blood culture contamination in hospitalized patients.

We conducted a secondary data analysis of a retrospective cohort study at an academic medical center.

Study participants included 19,255 adult patients who had blood culture(s) performed during a hospital admission between June 2014 and December 2016.

Data were analyzed to evaluate risk factors for blood culture contamination using logistic regression.

Among adult patients, we identified 464 contaminated episodes and 11,010 negative blood-culture episodes. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20–2.34) and stay in an intensive care unit (ICU) during an admission (AOR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.14–1.74) were associated with blood culture contamination. Other risk factors included race, body mass index, and admission from the emergency department. Subgroup analyses of patients admitted from the emergency department showed similar results.

We identified patient-specific factors that increase the odds of false-positive blood cultures. By introducing mitigation strategies to limit contamination in patients with these risk factors, it may be possible to reduce the adverse clinical impact of blood culture contamination.

To assess the clinical impact of contaminated blood cultures in hospitalized patients during a period when rapid diagnostic testing using a FilmArray Blood Culture Identification (BCID) panel was in use.

Retrospective cohort study.

Single academic medical center.

Patients who had blood culture(s) performed during an admission between June 2014 and December 2016.

Length of hospital stay and days of antibiotic therapy were assessed in relation to blood-culture contamination using generalized linear models with univariable and multivariable analyses.

Among 11,474 patients who had blood cultures performed, the adjusted mean length of hospital stay for patients with contaminated blood-culture episodes (N = 464) was 12.3 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.4–13.2) compared to 11.5 days (95% CI, 11.0–11.9) for patients (N = 11,010) with negative blood-culture episodes (P = .032). The adjusted mean durations of antibiotic therapy for patients with contaminated and negative blood-culture episodes were 6.0 days (95% CI, 5.3–6.7) and 5.2 days (95% CI, 4.9–5.4), respectively (P = .011).

Despite the use of molecular-based, rapid blood-culture identification, contamination of blood cultures continues to result in prolonged hospital stay and unnecessary antibiotic therapy in hospitalized patients.

Antibiotic time-outs (ATOs) have been advocated to improve antibiotic use without dedicated stewardship resources, but their utility is poorly defined. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of an ATO led by a team-based pharmacist.

Cluster randomized controlled trial.

Six medicine teams at an academic medical facility.

Inpatients who received antibiotics and were cared for by a medicine team.

In phase A (2 months) pharmacist-led ATOs were implemented on 3 medicine teams (ATO-A) while 3 teams maintained usual care (UC-A). In phase B (2 months), ATOs were continued in the ATO group (ATO-B) and ATOs were initiated in the UC group (UC ATO-B). We targeted 2 ATO points: early (<72 hours after antibiotics were initiated) and late (after the early period but ≤5 days after antibiotic initiation).

In total, 290 ATOs were documented (181 early, 87 late, and 22 subsequent) among 538 admissions. The most common ATO recommendations were narrow therapy (148 of 290), no change (124 of 290), and change to oral (30 of 290). ATO initiation was lower in the UC ATO-B group than in either ATO group (21.8% UC ATO-B vs 69.2% ATO-A and -B). Overall antibiotic use was not different between the groups (P = .51), although intravenous (IV) levofloxacin use decreased in the UC group after ATO implementation (49 DOT/1,000 PD vs 20 DOT/1,000 PD; P = .022). The ratio of oral (PO) to intravenous (IV) DOT was lower in the UC group than in any of the ATO groups (P = .032). We detected no differences in mortality, length of stay, readmission, C. difficile infection, or antibiotic adverse events.

Implementation of a pharmacist-led ATO was feasible and well accepted but did not change overall antibiotic use. An ATO may promote increased use of oral antibiotics, but more effective strategies for self-stewardship are needed.