Critical illness is associated with multiple undesired impacts, including residual psychological distress, frequently associated with recollections of critical illness. Dignity-related distress is highly prevalent among the one-fifth of critically ill patients who are alert. The distress may be associated with unpleasant recollections of care. We examined whether patients at risk for dignity-related distress had recall of their reported distress approximately 1 week after assessment and whether this recall differed from another high-risk group, specifically patients undergoing dialysis for end-stage renal disease.

The prospective cohort study included patients with critical illness and patients with end-stage renal disease enrolled from intensive care units (ICUs) and dialysis units at 1 academic center. Distress was assessed using the Patient Dignity Inventory (PDI). Participants received in-patient or telephonic follow-up 7–10 days after the initial interaction. Follow-up encounters focused on recollection of key aspects of the interpersonal interaction as well as the content of the PDI.

A total of 32 critically ill patients participated in initial assessment and follow-up. In total, 26 dialysis patients participated in both phases. The groups’ demographics differed. Fifty percent (n = 16) of critically ill patients and 58% (n = 15) of dialysis patients reported a mean score per item of >1.6, corresponding with severe distress on the PDI. Among the ICU patients, the 95% upper 2-sided confidence interval for the median level of recall was commensurate with the participant having had no recall of the initial interview beyond remembering that there was an interview. The end-stage renal disease group did not demonstrate significantly better recall.

Dignity-related distress is high in both critically ill patients and those with end-stage renal disease; however, recollection of assessment is poor in both groups. Any intervention designed to mitigate dignity-related distress will need either to be immediately deployable or not to be reliant upon recollection for impact.

To evaluate (1) the framework of the 12 Steps to Prevent Antimicrobial Resistance Among Hospitalized Adults that is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Campaign to Prevent Antimicrobial Resistance in Healthcare Settings, with regard to steps addressing antimicrobial use; and (2) methods of feedback to clinicians regarding antimicrobial use after postprescription review.

Prospective intervention to identify and modify inappropriate antimicrobial therapy.

A 1,000-bed, tertiary care teaching hospital.

Inpatients in selected medicine and surgery units receiving broad-spectrum antimicrobials for 48-72 hours.

We created a computer-based clinical-event detection system that automatically identified inpatients taking broad-spectrum and “reserve” antimicrobials for 48-72 hours. Although prior approval was required for initial administration of broad-spectrum and reserve antimicrobials, once approval was obtained, therapy with the antimicrobials could be continued indefinitely at the discretion of the treating clinician. Therapy that was ongoing at 48-72 hours was reviewed by an infectious diseases pharmacist or physician, and when indicated feedback was provided to clinicians to modify or discontinue therapy. Feedback was provided via a direct telephone call, a note on the front of the medical record, or text message sent to the clinician's pager. The acceptance rate of feedback was recorded and recommendations were categorized according to the 12 steps recommended by the CDC.

Interventions were recommended for 334 (30%) of 1,104 courses of antimicrobial therapy reviewed. A total of 87% of interventions fit into one of the CDC's 12 steps of prevention: 39% into step 3 (“target the pathogen”), 1% into step 4 (“access experts”), 3% into steps 7 and 8 (“treat infection, not colonization or contamination”), 18% into step 9 (“say ‘no’ to vancomycin”), and 26% into step 10 (“stop treatment when no infection”). The rate of compliance with recommendations to improve antimicrobial use was 72%. No differences in compliance were seen with the different methods of feedback.

Nearly one-third of antimicrobial courses did not follow the CDC's recommended 12 steps for prevention of antimicrobial resistance. Clinicians demonstrated high compliance with following suggestions made after postprescription review, suggesting that it is a useful approach to decreasing and improving antimicrobial use among inpatients.