Search

Rationale: Little is known about the safety of infusing vasopressors through a midline catheter. Objectives: To evaluate safety outcomes after vasopressor administration through a midline. Methods: We conducted a cohort study of adults admitted to 39 hospitals in Michigan (December 2017-March 2022) who received vasopressors while either a midline or peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) was in place. Patients receiving vasopressors through a midline were compared with those receiving vasopressors through a PICC and, separately, to those with midlines in place but who received vasopressors through a different catheter. We used descriptive statistics to characterize and compare cohort characteristics. Multivariable mixed effects logistic regression models were fit to determine the association between vasopressor administration through a midline with outcomes, primarily catheter-related complications (bloodstream infection, superficial thrombophlebitis, exit site infection, or catheter occlusion). Results: Our cohort included 287 patients with midlines through which vasopressors were administered, 1,660 with PICCs through which vasopressors were administered, and 884 patients with midlines who received vasopressors through a separate catheter. Age (median [interquartile range]: 68.7 [58.6-75.7], 66.6 [57.1-75.0], and 67.6 [58.7-75.8] yr) and gender (percentage female: 50.5%, 47.3%, and 43.8%) were similar in all groups. The frequency of catheter-related complications was lower in patients with midlines used for vasopressors than PICCs used for vasopressors (5.2% vs. 13.4%; P, 0.001) but similar to midlines with vasopressor administration through a different device (5.2% vs. 6.3%; P = 0.49). After adjustment, administration of vasopressors through a midline was not associated with catheterrelated complications compared with PICCs with vasopressors (adjusted odds ratios [aOR], 0.65 [95% confidence interval, 0.31-1.33]; P = 0.23) or midlines with vasopressors elsewhere (aOR, 0.85 [0.46-1.58]; P = 0.59). Midlines used for vasopressors were associated with greater risk of systemic thromboembolism (vs. PICCs with vasopressors: aOR, 2.69 [1.31-5.49]; P = 0.008; vs. midlines with vasopressors elsewhere: aOR, 2.42 [1.29-4.54]; P = 0.008) but not thromboses restricted to the ipsilateral upper extremity (vs. PICCs with vasopressors: aOR, 2.35 [0.83-6.63]; P = 0.10; model did not converge for vs. midlines with vasopressors elsewhere). Conclusions: We found no significant association of vasopressor administration through a midline with catheterrelated complications. However, we identified increased odds of systemic (but not ipsilateral upper extremity) venous thromboembolism warranting further evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are prevalent devices for medium-to-long-term intravenous therapy but are often associated with morbid and potentially lethal complications. This multi-center study sought to identify barriers and facilitators of implementing evidence-based appropriateness criteria to improve PICC safety and patient outcomes in a pay-for-performance model. Participating hospitals received an online toolkit with five recommendations: establishing a vascular access committee; implementing a clinical decision tool for PICC appropriateness; avoiding short-term PICC use (≤5 days); increasing use of single-lumen PICCs; and avoiding PICC placement in patients with chronic kidney disease. Longitudinal online surveys conducted biannually October 2014–November 2018 tracked implementation efforts. A total of 306 unique surveys from 34 hospitals were completed. The proportion of hospitals with a dedicated committee overseeing PICC appropriateness increased from 53% to 97%. Overall, 94% of hospitals implemented an initiative to reduce short-term and multi-lumen PICC use, and 91% integrated kidney function into PICC placement decisions. Barriers to implementation included: achieving agreement from diverse disciplines, competing hospital priorities, and delays in modifying electronic systems to enable appropriate PICC ordering. Provision of quarterly benchmarking reports, a decision algorithm, access to an online toolkit, and presence of local champion support were cited as crucial in improving practice. Structured quality improvement efforts including a multidisciplinary vascular access committee, clear targets, local champions, and support from an online education toolkit have led to sustained PICC appropriateness and improved patient safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-19 outcomes exist, but whether in-hospital care explains this difference is not known. We sought to determine racial and ethnic differences in demographics, comorbidities, in-hospital treatments, and in-hospital outcomes of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods and findings: This was a cohort study using MiCOVID-19, a multi-center, retrospective, collaborative quality improvement registry, which included data on patients hospitalized with COVID-19 across 38 hospitals in the State of Michigan. 2,639 adult patients with COVID-19 hospitalized at a site participating in the MiCOVID-19 Registry were randomly selected. Outcomes included in-hospital mortality, age at death, intensive care unit admission, and need for invasive mechanical ventilation by race and ethnicity. Baseline comorbidities differed by race and ethnicity. In addition, Black patients had higher lactate dehydrogenase, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, creatine phosphokinase, and ferritin levels. Black patients were less likely to receive dexamethasone and remdesivir compared with White patients (4.2% vs 14.3% and 2.2% vs. 11.8%, p < 0.001 for each). Black (18.7%) and White (19.6%) patients experienced greater mortality compared with Asian (13.0%) and Latino (5.9%) patients (p < 0.01). The mean age at death was significantly lower by 8 years for Black patients (69.4 ± 13.3 years) compared with White (77.9 ± 12.6), Asian (77.6 ± 6.6), and Latino patients (77.4 ± 15.5) (p < 0.001). Conclusions: COVID-19 mortality appears to be driven by both pre-hospitalization clinical and social factors and potentially in-hospital care. Policies aimed at population health and equitable application of evidence-based medical therapy are needed to alleviate the burden of COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The risk of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-related complications in patients hospitalized with solid tumors remains unclear. Existing studies are limited by single-center, outpatient designs and include heterogenous patients.Methods: A retrospective cohort study was designed and included adult patients with solid organ cancers who were admitted to a general medicine ward or intensive care unit and received a PICC. Data were collected from November 2013 to December 2019 at 50 Michigan hospitals. Major complications were defined as central line-associated bloodstream infection, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and catheter occlusion. Hospital variation in PICC use and outcomes was examined.Results: Data included 3235 hospitalized patients with solid tumors who had PICCs placed for 51,047 catheter days. Most catheters were double-lumen devices (57.0%). Notably, 17.5% of patients had another central venous catheter at the time of PICC insertion. The most common indications for PICC use were antibiotics (34.5%) and difficult access or blood draws (21.6%); chemotherapy was the primary indication in only 15.7% of patients. A major PICC-related complication occurred in 491 patients (15.2%); catheter occlusion was the most prevalent complication (n = 322; 10.0%) followed by deep vein thrombosis (n = 116; 3.6%), central line-associated bloodstream infection (n = 82; 2.5%), and pulmonary embolism (n = 20; 0.6%). Significant variation in indications for PICC use, device characteristics, and frequency of major complications across hospitals was observed (p < .001).Conclusions: PICCs were associated with significant complications in hospitalized patients who had solid malignancies and were often used for reasons other than chemotherapy. Policies and guidance for the appropriate use of PICCs in oncologic patients appear necessary.Lay Summary: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are devices placed in peripheral veins to deliver medication to large veins near the heart. PICCs are used frequently in oncology. The objective of this report was to describe PICC-associated complications in hospitalized patients with solid tumors. This study was performed across 50 Michigan hospitals and included 3235 patients with solid tumor cancers and who had a PICC. Overall, 15.2% of patients experienced a complication, including central line-associated bloodstream infections, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or catheter occlusion. Complication rates varied across hospitals. PICCs are associated with substantial complications in hospitalized patients with solid tumors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Urinary tract infection (UTI) and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) are the most common infections treated in hospitals. UTI and CAP are also commonly overdiagnosed, resulting in unnecessary antibiotic use and diagnostic delays. While much is known individually about overdiagnosis of UTI and CAP, it is not known whether hospitals with higher overdiagnosis of one also have higher overdiagnosis of the other. Correlation of overdiagnosis of these two conditions may indicate underlying hospital-level contributors, which in turn may represent targets for intervention. To evaluate the association of overdiagnosis of UTI and CAP, we first determined the proportion of hospitalised patients treated for CAP or UTI at 46 hospitals in Michigan who were overdiagnosed according to national guideline definitions. Then, we used Pearson's correlation coefficient to compare hospital proportions of overdiagnosis of CAP and UTI. Finally, we assessed for 'diagnostic momentum' (ie, accepting a previous diagnosis without sufficient scepticism) by determining how often overdiagnosed patients remained on antibiotics on day 3 of hospitalisation. We included 14 085 patients treated for CAP (11.4% were overdiagnosed) and 10 398 patients treated for UTI (27.8% were overdiagnosed) across 46 hospitals. Within hospitals, the proportion of patients overdiagnosed with UTI was moderately correlated with the proportion of patients overdiagnosed with CAP (r=0.53, p<0.001). Over 80% (81.8% (n=952/1164) of UTI; 89.9% (n=796/885) of CAP) of overdiagnosed patients started on antibiotics by an emergency medicine clinician remained on antibiotics on day 3 of hospitalisation. In conclusion, we found overdiagnosis of UTI and CAP to be correlated at the hospital level. Reducing overdiagnosis of these two common infections may benefit from systematic interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patient outcomes in COVID-19 vary from asymptomatic infection to death. Using data from 38 hospitals in Michigan, the social vulnerability index, a composite measure of social disadvantage, was used to compare the outcomes of COVID-19 in patients living in low-vulnerability ZIP codes to those of patients living in high-vulnerability ZIP codes. Outcomes examined included acute organ dysfunction, organ failure, invasive mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit stay, mortality, and discharge disposition. Visual Abstract. Neighborhood-Level Factors and COVID-19 Hospitalization.: Patient outcomes in COVID-19 vary from asymptomatic infection to death. Using data from 38 hospitals in Michigan, the social vulnerability index, a composite measure of social disadvantage, was used to compare the outcomes of COVID-19 in patients living in low-vulnerability ZIP codes to those of patients living in high-vulnerability ZIP codes. Outcomes examined included acute organ dysfunction, organ failure, invasive mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit stay, mortality, and discharge disposition. Background: Although disparities in COVID-19 outcomes have been observed, factors contributing to these differences are not well understood. Objective: To determine whether COVID-19 hospitalization outcomes are related to neighborhood-level social vulnerability, independent of patient-level clinical factors. Design: Pooled cross-sectional study of prospectively collected data. Setting: 38 Michigan hospitals. Patients: Adults older than 18 years hospitalized for COVID-19 in a participating site between March and December 2020. Measurements: COVID-19 outcomes included acute organ dysfunction, organ failure, invasive mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit stay, death, and discharge disposition. Social vulnerability was measured by the social vulnerability index (SVI), a composite measure of social disadvantage. Results: Compared with patients in low-vulnerability ZIP codes, those living in high-vulnerability ZIP codes were more frequently treated in the intensive care unit (29.0% vs. 24.5%); more frequently received mechanical ventilation (19.3% vs. 14.2%); and experienced higher rates of organ dysfunction (51.9% vs. 48.6%), organ failure (54.7% vs. 51.6%), and in-hospital death (19.4% vs. 16.7%). In mixed-effects regression analyses accounting for age, sex, and comorbid conditions, an increase in a patient's neighborhood SVI by 0.25 (1 quartile) was associated with greater likelihood of mechanical ventilation (increase of 2.1 percentage points), acute organ dysfunction (increase of 2.8 percentage points), and acute organ failure (increase of 2.8 percentage points) but was not associated with intensive care unit stay, mortality, or discharge disposition. Limitation: Observational data focused on hospitalizations in a single state. Conclusion: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 from socially vulnerable neighborhoods presented with greater illness severity and required more intensive treatment, but once hospitalized they did not experience differences in hospital mortality or discharge disposition. Policies that target socially vulnerable neighborhoods and access to COVID-19 care may help ameliorate health disparities. Primary Funding Source: Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) and Blue Care Network as part of the BCBSM Value Partnerships Program, the Michigan Public Health Institute, and the Michigan Department of Health & Human Services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC) provides evidence-based criteria for peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) use. Whether implementing MAGIC improves PICC appropriateness and reduces complications is unknown. Methods A quasiexperimental study design to implement MAGIC in 52 Michigan hospitals was used. Data were collected from medical records by trained abstractors. Hospital performance on three appropriateness criteria was measured: short-term PICC use (≤5 days), use of multilumen PICCs and PICC placement in patients with chronic kidney disease. PICC appropriateness and device complications preintervention (January 2013 to December 2016) versus postintervention (January 2017 to January 2020) were compared. Change-point analysis was used to evaluate the effect of the intervention on device appropriateness. Logistic regression and Poisson models were fit to assess the association between appropriateness and complications (composite of catheter occlusion, venous thromboembolism (VTE) and central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI)). Results Among 38 592 PICCs, median catheter dwell ranged from 8 to 56 days. During the preintervention period, the mean frequency of appropriate PICC use was 31.9% and the mean frequency of complications was 14.7%. Following the intervention, PICC appropriateness increased to 49.0% (absolute difference 17.1%, p<0.001) while complications decreased to 10.7% (absolute difference 4.0%, p=0.001). Compared with patients with inappropriate PICC placement, appropriate PICC use was associated with a significantly lower odds of complications (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.34), including decreases in occlusion (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.29), CLABSI (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.81) and VTE (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.47, all p<0.01). Patients with appropriate PICC placement had lower rate of complications than those with inappropriate PICC use (incidence rate ratio 0.987, 95% CI 0.98 to 0.99, p<0.001). Conclusions Implementation of MAGIC in Michigan hospitals was associated with improved PICC appropriateness and fewer complications. These findings have important quality, safety and policy implications for hospitals, patients and payors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The impact of healthcare personnel hand contamination in multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) transmission is important and well studied; however, the role of patient hand contamination needs to be characterized further. Methods Patients from 2 hospitals in southeast Michigan were recruited within 24 hours of arrival to their room and followed prospectively using microbial surveillance of nares, dominant hand, and 6 high-touch environmental surfaces. Sampling was performed on admission, days 3 and 7, and weekly until discharge. Paired samples of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolated from the patients' hand and room surfaces were evaluated for relatedness using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec , and Panton-Valentine leukocidin typing. Results A total of 399 patients (mean age, 60.8 years; 49% male) were enrolled and followed for 710 visits. Fourteen percent (n = 56/399) of patients were colonized with an MDRO at baseline; 10% (40/399) had an MDRO on their hands. Twenty-nine percent of rooms harbored an MDRO. Six percent (14/225 patients with at least 2 visits) newly acquired an MDRO on their hands during their stay. New MDRO acquisition in patients occurred at a rate of 24.6/1000 patient-days, and in rooms at a rate of 58.6/1000 patient-days. Typing demonstrated a high correlation between MRSA on patient hands and room surfaces. Conclusions Our data suggest that patient hand contamination with MDROs is common and correlates with contamination on high-touch room surfaces. Patient hand hygiene protocols should be considered to reduce transmission of pathogens and healthcare-associated infections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Fluoroquinolones increase the risk of Clostridioides difficile infection and antibiotic resistance. Hospitals often use pre-prescription approval or prospective audit and feedback to target fluoroquinolone prescribing. Whether these strategies impact aggregate fluoroquinolone use is unknown. Methods This study is a 48-hospital, retrospective cohort of general-care, medical patients hospitalized with pneumonia or positive urine culture between December 2015–September 2017. Hospitals were surveyed on their use of pre-prescription approval and/or prospective audit and feedback to target fluoroquinolone prescribing during hospitalization (fluoroquinolone stewardship). After controlling for hospital clustering and patient factors, aggregate (inpatient and post-discharge) fluoroquinolone (ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin) exposure was compared between hospitals with and without fluoroquinolone stewardship. Results There were 11 748 patients (6820 pneumonia; 4928 positive urine culture) included at 48 hospitals. All hospitals responded to the survey: 29.2% (14/48) reported using pre-prescription approval and/or prospective audit and feedback to target fluoroquinolone prescribing. After adjustment, fluoroquinolone stewardship was associated with fewer patients receiving a fluoroquinolone (37.1% vs 48.2%; P =.01) and fewer fluoroquinolone treatment days per 1000 patients (2282 vs 3096 days/1000 patients; P =.01), driven by lower inpatient prescribing. However, most (66.6%) fluoroquinolone treatment days occurred after discharge, and hospitals with fluoroquinolone stewardship had twice as many new fluoroquinolone starts after discharge as hospitals without (15.6% vs 8.4%; P =.003). Conclusions Hospital-based stewardship interventions targeting fluoroquinolone prescribing were associated with less fluoroquinolone prescribing during hospitalization, but not at discharge. To limit aggregate fluoroquinolone exposure, stewardship programs should target both inpatient and discharge prescribing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Randomized trials demonstrate no benefit from antibiotic treatment exceeding the shortest effective duration.Objective: To examine predictors and outcomes associated with excess duration of antibiotic treatment.Design: Retrospective cohort study.Setting: 43 hospitals in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium.Patients: 6481 general care medical patients with pneumonia.Measurements: The primary outcome was the rate of excess antibiotic treatment duration (excess days per 30-day period). Excess days were calculated by subtracting each patient's shortest effective (expected) treatment duration (based on time to clinical stability, pathogen, and pneumonia classification [community-acquired vs. health care-associated]) from the actual duration. Negative binomial generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were used to calculate rate ratios to assess predictors of 30-day rates of excess duration. Patient outcomes, assessed at 30 days via the medical record and telephone calls, were evaluated using logit GEEs that adjusted for patient characteristics and probability of treatment.Results: Two thirds (67.8% [4391 of 6481]) of patients received excess antibiotic therapy. Antibiotics prescribed at discharge accounted for 93.2% of excess duration. Patients who had respiratory cultures or nonculture diagnostic testing, had a longer stay, received a high-risk antibiotic in the prior 90 days, had community-acquired pneumonia, or did not have a total antibiotic treatment duration documented at discharge were more likely to receive excess treatment. Excess treatment was not associated with lower rates of any adverse outcomes, including death, readmission, emergency department visit, or Clostridioides difficile infection. Each excess day of treatment was associated with a 5% increase in the odds of antibiotic-associated adverse events reported by patients after discharge.Limitation: Retrospective design; not all patients could be contacted to report 30-day outcomes.Conclusion: Patients hospitalized with pneumonia often receive excess antibiotic therapy. Excess antibiotic treatment was associated with patient-reported adverse events. Future interventions should focus on whether reducing excess treatment and improving documentation at discharge improves outcomes.Primary Funding Source: Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) and Blue Care Network as part of the BCBSM Value Partnerships program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Existing guidelines, including Choosing Wisely recommendations, endorse avoiding placement of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).Objective: To describe the frequency of and characteristics associated with PICC use in hospitalized patients with stage 3b or greater CKD (glomerular filtration rate [GFR] <45 mL/min/1.73 m2).Design: Prospective cohort study.Setting: 52 hospitals participating in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium.Participants: Hospitalized medical patients who received a PICC between November 2013 and September 2016.Measurements: Percentage of patients receiving PICCs who had CKD, frequency of PICC-related complications, and variation in the proportion of PICCs placed in patients with CKD.Results: Of 20 545 patients who had PICCs placed, 4743 (23.1% [95% CI, 20.9% to 25.3%]) had an estimated GFR (eGFR) less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 and 699 (3.4%) were receiving hemodialysis. In the intensive care unit (ICU), 30.9% (CI, 29.7% to 32.2%) of patients receiving PICCs had an eGFR less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m2; the corresponding percentage in wards was 19.3% (CI, 18.8% to 19.9%). Among patients with an eGFR less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m2, multilumen PICCs were placed more frequently than single-lumen PICCs. In wards, PICC-related complications occurred in 15.3% of patients with an eGFR less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 and in 15.2% of those with an eGFR of 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 or higher. The corresponding percentages in ICU settings were 22.4% and 23.9%. In patients with an eGFR less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m2, PICC placement varied widely across hospitals (interquartile range, 23.7% to 37.8% in ICUs and 12.8% to 23.7% in wards).Limitation: Nephrologist approval for placement could not be determined, and 2.7% of eGFR values were unknown and excluded.Conclusion: In this sample of hospitalized patients who received PICCs, placement in those with CKD was common and not concordant with clinical guidelines.Primary Funding Source: Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Most patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) can be safely treated with 5 days of antibiotics, but many are not. We determined whether a hospitalist-collaborative can reduce excess antibiotic duration in patients with CAP through partnership with antibiotic stewardship teams (AST), data feedback, pay-for-performance, and sharing best practices. Methods From April 2017 to October 2018, abstractors collected data (medical record, phone calls 30-days post-discharge) on adult, non-ICU patients hospitalized with CAP at 43 hospitals in Michigan. We used a guideline-based algorithm1 to determine appropriate antibiotic duration based on patient factors (e.g. clinical stability). All hospitals received a) quarterly reports on appropriate 5-day treatment rates (2016—current), b) best practice recommendations (2017—current) including toolkit and webinar (3/2018), and c) pay-for-performance based on 5-day CAP metric (2018—current). Generalized linear mixed models were used to evaluate change over time in a) proportion of patients with CAP eligible for 5-day treatment who received 5 ± 1 days and, after adjusting for patient factors and weighting by inverse probability of treatment, b) patient outcomes 30-days post-discharge. Results Of 6,229 patients hospitalized with CAP, 4,769 (76.6%) were eligible for 5-days of antibiotic treatment; 283 (5.9%) were excluded due to inability to determine antibiotic duration. Between April 2017 and October 2018, the proportion of patients eligible for a 5-day duration of antibiotic treatment who received 5 ± 1 days increased from 19.8% (181/914) to 30.9% (207/670; P = 0.01), a relative improvement of 56.1% (Figure 1). During this time period, there were no changes in 30-day post-discharge death, readmission, emergency room visit, Clostridioides difficile infection, or provider-documented antibiotic-associated adverse-events (Table 1). However, there was a decrease (3.3% to 1.7%, P = 0.03 for change over time; relative reduction: 48.5%) in patient-reported antibiotic-associated adverse events (Figure 2). Conclusion A hospitalist collaborative partnering with AST can safely reduce excess antibiotic duration and antibiotic-associated adverse-events in hospitalized patients with CAP. Disclosures All Authors: No reported Disclosures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To examine racial and ethnic disparities in clinical, financial, and mental health outcomes within a diverse sample of hospitalized COVID-19–positive patients in the 60 days postdischarge. A cross-sectional study. A total of 2217 adult patients who were hospitalized with a COVID-19–positive diagnosis as evidenced by test (reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction), a discharge diagnosis of COVID-19 (ICD-10 code U07.1), or strong documented clinical suspicion of COVID-19 but no testing completed or recorded owing to logistical constraints (n=24). Patient records were abstracted for the Mi-COVID19 data registry, including the hospital and insurer data of patients discharged from one of 38 participating hospitals in Michigan between March 16, 2020, and July 1, 2020. Registry data also included patient responses to a brief telephone survey on postdischarge employment, mental and emotional health, persistence of COVID-19–related symptoms, and medical follow-up. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data; analysis of variance and Pearson chi-squared test were used to evaluate racial and ethnic variances among patient outcomes and survey responses. Black patients experienced the lowest physician follow-up postdischarge (n = 65, 60.2%) and the longest delays in returning to work (average 35.5 days). More than half of hospital readmissions within the 60 days following discharge were among nonwhite patients (n = 144, 55%). The majority of postdischarge deaths were among white patients (n = 153, 21.5%), most of whom were discharged on palliative care (n = 103). Less than a quarter of patients discharged back to assisted living, skilled nursing facilities, or subacute rehabilitation facilities remained at those locations in the 60 days following discharge (n = 48). Increased attention to postdischarge care coordination is critical to reducing negative health outcomes following a COVID-19–related hospitalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To describe MiPATH (the Michigan Plan for Appropriate Tailored Healthcare in pregnancy) panel process and key recommendations for prenatal care delivery.Methods: We conducted an appropriateness study using the RAND Corporation and University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method, a modified e-Delphi process, to develop MiPATH recommendations using sequential steps: 1) definition and scope of key terms, 2) literature review and data synthesis, 3) case scenario development, 4) panel selection and scenario revisions, and 5) two rounds of panel appropriateness ratings with deliberation. Recommendations were developed for average-risk pregnant individuals (eg, individuals not requiring care by maternal-fetal medicine specialists). Because prenatal services (eg, laboratory tests, vaccinations) have robust evidence, panelists considered only how services are delivered (eg, visit frequency, telemedicine).Results: The appropriateness of key aspects of prenatal care delivery across individuals with and without common medical and pregnancy complications, as well as social and structural determinants of health, was determined by the panel. Panelists agreed that a risk assessment for medical, social, and structural determinants of health should be completed as soon as individuals present for care. Additionally, the panel provided recommendations for: 1) prenatal visit schedules (care initiation, visit timing and frequency, routine pregnancy assessments), 2) integration of telemedicine (virtual visits and home devices), and 3) care individualization. Panelists recognized significant gaps in existing evidence and the need for policy changes to support equitable care with changing practices.Conclusion: The MiPATH recommendations offer more flexible prenatal care delivery for average-risk individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Peripherally inserted central catheter tip placement at the cavoatrial junction is associated with reduced catheter-related deep vein thrombosis. Electrocardiographic tip confirmation purportedly improves accuracy of tip placement, but whether this approach can reduce deep vein thrombosis is unknown.Methods: Prospectively collected data from patients that received peripherally inserted central catheters at 52 Michigan hospitals were analyzed. The method used to confirm tip confirmation at insertion and deep vein thrombosis outcomes were extracted from medical records. Multivariate models (accounting for the clustered nature of the data) were fitted to assess the association between peripherally inserted central catheter-related deep vein thrombosis and method of tip confirmation (electrocardiographic vs radiographic imaging).Results: A total of 42,687 peripherally inserted central catheters (21,098 radiology vs 21,589 electrocardiographic) were included. Patients receiving electrocardiographic-confirmed peripherally inserted central catheters had fewer comorbidities compared with those that underwent placement via radiology. Overall, deep vein thrombosis occurred in 594 (1.3%) of all peripherally inserted central catheters. Larger catheter size (odds radio [OR] 1.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.90 per unit increase in gauge), history of deep vein thrombosis, and cancer were associated with increased risk of deep vein thrombosis (OR 2.00; 95% CI, 1.65-2.43 and OR 1.62; 95% CI, 1.16-2.26, respectively) using logistic regression. Following adjustment, electrocardiographic guidance was associated with a significant reduction in peripherally inserted central catheter-related deep vein thrombosis compared with radiographic imaging (OR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58-0.93; P = .0098).Conclusion: The use of electrocardiography to confirm peripherally inserted central catheter tip placement at the cavoatrial junction was associated with significantly fewer deep vein thrombosis events than radiographic imaging. Use of this approach for peripherally inserted central catheter insertion may help improve patient safety, particularly in high-risk patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients hospitalized for acute medical illness are at increased risk for venous thromboembolism. Although risk assessment is recommended and several at-admission risk assessment models have been developed, these have not been adequately derived or externally validated. Therefore, an optimal approach to evaluate venous thromboembolism risk in medical patients is not known.Methods: We conducted an external validation study of existing venous thromboembolism risk assessment models using data collected on 63,548 hospitalized medical patients as part of the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety (HMS) Consortium. For each patient, cumulative venous thromboembolism risk scores and risk categories were calculated. Cox regression models were used to quantify the association between venous thromboembolism events and assigned risk categories. Model discrimination was assessed using Harrell's C-index.Results: Venous thromboembolism incidence in hospitalized medical patients is low (1%). Although existing risk assessment models demonstrate good calibration (hazard ratios for "at-risk" range 2.97-3.59), model discrimination is generally poor for all risk assessment models (C-index range 0.58-0.64).Conclusions: The performance of several existing risk assessment models for predicting venous thromboembolism among acutely ill, hospitalized medical patients at admission is limited. Given the low venous thromboembolism incidence in this nonsurgical patient population, careful consideration of how best to utilize existing venous thromboembolism risk assessment models is necessary, and further development and validation of novel venous thromboembolism risk assessment models for this patient population may be warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVs) are the most frequently used invasive device in hospitalized patients. These devices are not benign and are associated with complications. However, clinician awareness of them is variable and poorly understood., Methods: We conducted a prospective, multicenter, observational point prevalence study to assess awareness of PIV presence among clinicians caring for hospitalized patients in 4 hospitals between May 2018 and February 2019 located in Michigan, USA. We first assessed patients for the presence of a PIV then interviewed their providers. Differences in awareness by provider type were assessed via χ² tests; P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Analyses were performed on Stata MP v16., Results: A total of 1,385 patients and 4,003 providers were interviewed. Nurses had the greatest awareness of overall PIV presence, 98.6%, while attendings were correct 88.1% of the time. Nurses were more likely to correctly assess PIV presence and exact location than physicians (67.7% vs <30% for all others). Awareness of PIV presence did not significantly vary in patients on contact precautions or those receiving infusions., Conclusions: Given the ubiquity of PIVs and known complications, methods to increase awareness to ensure appropriate care and removal are necessary., (Copyright © 2024 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Little is known about incidence of, risk factors for, and harms associated with inappropriate diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP)., Objective: To characterize inappropriate diagnosis of CAP in hospitalized patients., Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study, including medical record review and patient telephone calls, took place across 48 Michigan hospitals. Trained abstractors retrospectively assessed hospitalized patients treated for CAP between July 1, 2017, and March 31, 2020. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were adults admitted to general care with a discharge diagnostic code of pneumonia who received antibiotics on day 1 or 2 of hospitalization. Data were analyzed from February to December 2023., Main Outcomes and Measures: Inappropriate diagnosis of CAP was defined using a National Quality Forum-endorsed metric as CAP-directed antibiotic therapy in patients with fewer than 2 signs or symptoms of CAP or negative chest imaging. Risk factors for inappropriate diagnosis were assessed and, for those inappropriately diagnosed, 30-day composite outcomes (mortality, readmission, emergency department visit, Clostridioides difficile infection, and antibiotic-associated adverse events) were documented and stratified by full course (>3 days) vs brief (≤3 days) antibiotic treatment using generalized estimating equation models adjusting for confounders and propensity for treatment., Results: Of the 17 290 hospitalized patients treated for CAP, 2079 (12.0%) met criteria for inappropriate diagnosis (median [IQR] age, 71.8 [60.1-82.8] years; 1045 [50.3%] female), of whom 1821 (87.6%) received full antibiotic courses. Compared with patients with CAP, patients inappropriately diagnosed were older (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.11 per decade) and more likely to have dementia (AOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.55-2.08) or altered mental status on presentation (AOR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.39-2.19). Among those inappropriately diagnosed, 30-day composite outcomes for full vs brief treatment did not differ (25.8% vs 25.6%; AOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79-1.23). Full vs brief duration of antibiotic treatment among patients was associated with antibiotic-associated adverse events (31 of 1821 [2.1%] vs 1 of 258 [0.4%]; P = .03)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, inappropriate diagnosis of CAP among hospitalized adults was common, particularly among older adults, those with dementia, and those presenting with altered mental status. Full-course antibiotic treatment of those inappropriately diagnosed with CAP may be harmful.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is an important complication of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To date, few studies have described vascular access device use and VTE risk in this cohort. To examine the use of vascular access devices and incidence of VTE in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. We performed a retrospective, multi-center cohort study of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who received a midline catheter, peripherally inserted central catheter (PICCs), tunneled or non-tunneled central venous catheter (CVC), hemodialysis (HD) catheter or a port during hospitalization. Mixed-effects multivariable logit models adjusting for VTE risk factors in the Caprini risk score were fit to understand the incremental risk of VTE in patients with vascular access devices vs. those that did not receive devices. Management of VTE was determined by examining anticoagulant use pre- vs. post-thrombosis. Results were expressed using odds ratios (ORs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). A total of 1228 hospitalized COVID-19 patients in 40 hospitals, of which 261 (21.3%) received at least one vascular access device of interest, were included. The prevalence of acute, non-tunneled CVCs was 42.2%, acute HD catheters 18.4%, midline catheters 15.6%, PICCs 15.6%, tunneled CVCs 6.8%, and implanted ports 1.4%. The prevalence of VTE was 6.0% in the study cohort, and 10.0% among patients with vascular access devices. After adjusting for known VTE risk factors, patients that had a vascular access device placed were observed to have a four-fold greater odds of VTE than those that did not (OR 4.17, 95% CI 2.33-7.46). Patients who received multiple different catheters experienced more VTE events compared with patients that received only one type (21.5% vs. 6.1%, p < .001). Among the 26 patients with VTE, only 8 (30.8%) survived to discharge and among these, only 5 were discharged on therapeutic doses of anticoagulation. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 that receive vascular access devices experienced higher rates of VTE than those that do not. Future studies to evaluate the nexus between COVID-19, vascular device use, and thrombosis appear are warranted., (© 2021. This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Objective: To perform a literature review of key aspects of prenatal care delivery to inform new guidelines., Data Sources: A comprehensive review of Ovid MEDLINE, Elsevier's Scopus, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov., Methods of Study Selection: We included studies addressing components of prenatal care delivery (visit frequency, routine pregnancy assessments, and telemedicine) that assessed maternal and neonatal health outcomes, patient experience, or care utilization in pregnant individuals with and without medical conditions. Quality was assessed using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology approach. Articles were independently reviewed by at least two members of the study team for inclusion and data abstraction., Tabulation, Integration, and Results: Of the 4,105 published abstracts identified, 53 studies met inclusion criteria, totaling 140,150 participants. There were no differences in maternal and neonatal outcomes among patients without medical conditions with reduced visit frequency schedules. For patients at risk of preterm birth, increased visit frequency with enhanced prenatal services was inconsistently associated with improved outcomes. Home monitoring of blood pressure and weight was feasible, but home monitoring of fetal heart tones and fundal height were not assessed. More frequent weight measurement did not lower rates of excessive weight gain. Home monitoring of blood pressure for individuals with medical conditions was feasible, accurate, and associated with lower clinic utilization. There were no differences in health outcomes for patients without medical conditions who received telemedicine visits for routine prenatal care, and patients had decreased care utilization. Telemedicine was a successful strategy for consultations among individuals with medical conditions; resulted in improved outcomes for patients with depression, diabetes, and hypertension; and had inconsistent results for patients with obesity and those at risk of preterm birth., Conclusion: Existing evidence for many components of prenatal care delivery, including visit frequency, routine pregnancy assessments, and telemedicine, is limited., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To describe patient characteristics, symptoms, patterns of care and outcomes for patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in Michigan., Design: Multicentre retrospective cohort study., Setting: 32 acute care hospitals in the state of Michigan., Participants: Patients discharged (16 March-11 May 2020) with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were identified. Trained abstractors collected demographic information on all patients and detailed clinical data on a subset of COVID-19-positive patients., Primary Outcome Measurements: Patient characteristics, treatment and outcomes including cardiopulmonary resuscitation, mortality and venous thromboembolism within and across hospitals., Results: Demographic-only data from 1593 COVID-19-positive and 1259 persons under investigation discharges were collected. Among 1024 cases with detailed data, the median age was 63 years; median body mass index was 30.6; and 51.4% were black. Cough, fever and shortness of breath were the top symptoms. 37.2% reported a known COVID-19 contact; 7.0% were healthcare workers; and 16.1% presented from congregated living facilities.During hospitalisation, 232 (22.7%) patients were treated in an intensive care unit (ICU); 558 (54.9%) in a 'cohorted' unit; 161 (15.7%) received mechanical ventilation; and 90 (8.8%) received high-flow nasal cannula. ICU patients more often received hydroxychloroquine (66% vs 46%), corticosteroids (34% vs 18%) and antibiotic therapy (92% vs 71%) than general ward patients (p<0.05 for all). Overall, 219 (21.4%) patients died, with in-hospital mortality ranging from 7.9% to 45.7% across hospitals. 73% received at least one COVID-19-specific treatment, ranging from 32% to 96% across sites.Across 14 hospitals, the proportion of patients admitted directly to an ICU ranged from 0% to 43.8%; mechanical ventilation on admission from 0% to 12.8%; mortality from 7.9% to 45.7%. Use of at least one COVID-19-specific therapy varied from 32% to 96.3% across sites., Conclusions: During the early days of the Michigan outbreak of COVID-19, patient characteristics, treatment and outcomes varied widely within and across hospitals., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Antibacterials may be initiated out of concern for bacterial coinfection in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We determined prevalence and predictors of empiric antibacterial therapy and community-onset bacterial coinfections in hospitalized patients with COVID-19., Methods: A randomly sampled cohort of 1705 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in 38 Michigan hospitals between 3/13/2020 and 6/18/2020. Data were collected on early (within 2 days of hospitalization) empiric antibacterial therapy and community-onset bacterial coinfections (positive microbiologic test ≤3 days). Poisson generalized estimating equation models were used to assess predictors., Results: Of 1705 patients with COVID-19, 56.6% were prescribed early empiric antibacterial therapy; 3.5% (59/1705) had a confirmed community-onset bacterial infection. Across hospitals, early empiric antibacterial use varied from 27% to 84%. Patients were more likely to receive early empiric antibacterial therapy if they were older (adjusted rate ratio [ARR]: 1.04 [1.00-1.08] per 10 years); had a lower body mass index (ARR: 0.99 [0.99-1.00] per kg/m2), more severe illness (eg, severe sepsis; ARR: 1.16 [1.07-1.27]), a lobar infiltrate (ARR: 1.21 [1.04-1.42]); or were admitted to a for-profit hospital (ARR: 1.30 [1.15-1.47]). Over time, COVID-19 test turnaround time (returned ≤1 day in March [54.2%, 461/850] vs April [85.2%, 628/737], P < .001) and empiric antibacterial use (ARR: 0.71 [0.63-0.81] April vs March) decreased., Conclusions: The prevalence of confirmed community-onset bacterial coinfections was low. Despite this, half of patients received early empiric antibacterial therapy. Antibacterial use varied widely by hospital. Reducing COVID-19 test turnaround time and supporting stewardship could improve antibacterial use., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Objective: To identify factors influencing cardiologists' and hospitalists' decisions regarding palliative care referral among hospitalised patients with advanced heart failure., Design: An exploratory, randomised vignette-based survey., Setting: Cardiology and hospitalist divisions at three Michigan State institutions and the Society of Hospital Medicine's Michigan Chapter., Participants: 145 hospitalists and 64 cardiologists., Outcome Measures: Primary outcomes included participants' reports of their likelihood of referring a standardised patient with an acute heart failure exacerbation with multiple prior hospital admissions and acute renal failure to palliative care (scale of 0%-100%) after the initial stem and after being cued with three randomised vignette modifiers, including the presence versus the absence of continuity with an outpatient cardiologist; the presence versus the absence of documented advance care planning; and the patient voicing that he is accepting of his severe illness versus wanting everything done. Adjusted generalised linear models and predictive margins were used to evaluate the impact of each randomised modifier on referral decisions. An interaction term evaluated the effect of provider specialty on outcomes. Secondary outcomes included participants' reports of their general practices around palliative care delivery to hospitalised patients with heart failure., Results: Response rate was 31.3%. Predictive margins from generalised linear models demonstrated a statistically significantly higher likelihood of referral to inpatient palliative care if the patient lacked an outpatient cardiologist (mean difference: 6.3% (95% CI 1.8% to 10.8%)); had prior advance care planning documentation (mean difference: 9.7% (95% CI 4.4% to 15.0%)); and was accepting of illness severity (mean difference: 29.6% (95% CI 24.8% to 34.4%)). No interaction effect was noted based on provider specialty. Most hospitalists and cardiologists were unaware of palliative care guidelines for patients with heart failure (74.3% vs 70.3%, p=0.71)., Conclusions: A number of patient and provider factors influence palliative care referral decisions in hospitalised patients with advanced heart failure., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Importance: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are frequently used to deliver intravenous antimicrobial therapy. However, inappropriate PICC use may lead to patient harm., Objective: To evaluate whether infectious disease physician approval prior to PICC placement for intravenous antimicrobials is associated with more appropriate device use and fewer complications., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study of 21 653 PICCs placed for a primary indication of intravenous antimicrobial therapy between January 1, 2015, and July 26, 2019, was conducted in 42 hospitals participating in a quality collaborative across Michigan among hospitalized medical patients., Main Outcomes and Measures: Appropriateness of PICCs was defined according to the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters as a composite measure of (1) single-lumen catheter use, (2) avoiding use of PICCs for 5 days or less, and (3) avoiding use of PICCs for patients with chronic kidney disease (defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate <45 mL/min/1.73 m2). Complications related to PICCs included catheter occlusion, deep vein thrombosis, and central line-associated bloodstream infection. The association between infectious disease physician approval, device appropriateness, and catheter complications was assessed using multivariable models, adjusted for patient comorbidities and hospital clustering. Results were expressed as odds ratios with 95% CIs., Results: A total of 21 653 PICCs were placed for intravenous antimicrobials (11 960 PICCs were placed in men [55.2%]; median age, 64.5 years [interquartile range, 53.4-75.4 years]); 10 238 PICCs (47.3%) were approved by an infectious disease physician prior to placement. Compared with PICCs with no documented approval, PICCs with approval by an infectious disease physician were more likely to be appropriately used (72.7% [7446 of 10 238] appropriate with approval vs 45.4% [5180 of 11 415] appropriate without approval; odds ratio, 3.53; 95% CI, 3.29-3.79; P < .001). Furthermore, approval was associated with lower odds of a PICC-related complication (6.5% [665 of 10 238] with approval vs 11.3% [1292 of 11 415] without approval; odds ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.50-0.61)., Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study suggests that, when PICCs were placed for intravenous antimicrobial therapy, infectious disease physician approval of PICC insertion was associated with more appropriate device use and fewer complications. Policies aimed at ensuring infectious disease physician approval prior to PICC placement for antimicrobials may improve patient safety.

Objectives: Vascular access device decision-making for pediatric patients remains a complex, highly variable process. To date, evidence-based criteria to inform these choices do not exist. The objective of the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters in pediatrics (miniMAGIC) was to provide guidance on device selection, device characteristics, and insertion technique for clinicians, balancing and contextualizing evidence with current practice through a multidisciplinary panel of experts., Methods: The RAND Corporation and University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Method was used to develop miniMAGIC, which included the following sequential phases: definition of scope and key terms, information synthesis and literature review, expert multidisciplinary panel selection and engagement, case scenario development, and appropriateness ratings by an expert panel via 2 rounds., Results: The appropriateness of the selection, characteristics, and insertion technique of intravenous catheters commonly used in pediatric health care across age populations (neonates, infants, children, and adolescents), settings, diagnoses, clinical indications, insertion locations, and vessel visualization devices and techniques was defined. Core concepts including vessel preservation, insertion and postinsertion harm minimization (eg, infection, thrombosis), undisrupted treatment provision, and inclusion of patient preferences were emphasized., Conclusions: In this study, we provide evidence-based criteria for intravenous catheter selection (from umbilical catheters to totally implanted venous devices) in pediatric patients across a range of clinical indications. miniMAGIC also highlights core vascular access practices in need of collaborative research and innovation., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Dr Ullman reports investigator-initiated research grants and speaker fees provided to Griffith University from vascular access product manufacturers (3M Medical, AngioDynamics, Becton Dickinson, Cardinal Health) unrelated to the current project. Dr Bernstein reports grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the US Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr Doellman reports honoraria from Genentech and Lineus Medical and consulting with Teleflex Medical unrelated to this project. Dr Gore reports honoraria for invited talks in patient safety and patient advocacy. Ms Kleidon reports investigator-initiated research grants and speaker fees provided to Griffith University from 3M Medical, AngioDynamics, Baxter, BD-Bard, Centurion, Cook Medical, Medical Specialties Australia, and Vygon (unrelated to the current project). Dr Wolf reports participation in research sponsored by Astellas Inc, Cempra Pharmaceuticals Inc, and Merck Inc and in-kind research support from Karius Inc and Carefusion Inc. Ms Pitts reports employment by B. Braun Medical and St Joseph’s Children’s Hospital, Tampa, Florida, previous employment and stockholder status with AngioDynamics, and board membership of Navi Medical Technologies. Dr Cooke reports investigator-initiated research grants and speaker fees provided to Griffith University by vascular access product manufacturers (Baxter, Becton Dickinson, Entrotech Life Sciences) unrelated to this project. Dr Rickard reports investigator-initiated research grants and speaker fees provided to Griffith University from vascular access product manufacturers (3M, AngioDynamics, Baxter, B. Braun Medical, BD-Bard; Medtronic, ResQDevices, Smiths Medical) unrelated to this project. Dr Chopra reports grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and American Hospital Association, book royalties from Oxford University Press for The Saint-Chopra Guide to Inpatient Medicine, and honoraria for invited external talks as a visiting professor; the other authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Background: While midline vascular catheters are gaining popularity in clinical practice, patterns of use and outcomes related to these devices are not well known., Methods: Trained abstractors collected data from medical records of hospitalised patients who received midline catheters in 12 hospitals. Device characteristics, patterns of use and outcomes were assessed at device removal or at 30 days. Rates of major (upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis [DVT], bloodstream infection [BSI] and catheter occlusion) and minor complications were assessed. χ 2 tests were used to examine differences in rates of complication by number of lumens, reasons for catheter removal l, and hospital-level differences in rates of midline use., Results: Complete data on 1161 midlines representing 5%-72% of all midlines placed in participating hospitals between 1 January 2017 and 1 March 2018 were available. Most (70.8%) midlines were placed in general ward settings for difficult intravenous access (61.4%). The median dwell time of midlines across hospitals was 6 days; almost half (49%) were removed within 5 days of insertion. A major or minor complication occurred in 10.3% of midlines, with minor complications such as dislodgement, leaking and infiltration accounting for 71% of all adverse events. While rates of major complications including occlusion, upper-extremity DVT and BSI were low (2.2%, 1.4% and 0.3%, respectively), they were just as likely to lead to midline removal as minor complications (53.8% vs 52.5%, p=0.90). Across hospitals, absolute volume of midlines placed varied from 100 to 1837 devices, with corresponding utilisation rates of 0.97%-12.92% (p<0.001)., Conclusion: Midline use and outcomes vary widely across hospitals. Although rates of major complications are low, device removal as a result of adverse events is common., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Although important in clinical care, reports of inappropriate peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) use are growing., Objective: To test whether implementation of the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC) can improve PICC use and patient outcomes., Design: Quasi-experimental, interrupted time series design at one study site with nine contemporaneous external controls., Setting: Ten hospitals participating in a state-wide quality collaborative from 1 August 2014 to 31 July 2016., Patients: 963 hospitalised patients who received a PICC at the study site vs 6613 patients at nine control sites., Intervention: A multimodal intervention (tool, training, electronic changes, education) derived from MAGIC., Measurements: Appropriateness of PICC use and rates of PICC-associated complications. Segmented Poisson regression was used for analyses., Results: Absolute rates of inappropriate PICC use decreased substantially at the study site versus controls (91.3% to 65.3% (-26.0%) vs 72.2% to 69.6% (-2.6%); P<0.001). After adjusting for underlying trends and patient characteristics, however, a marginally significant 13.8% decrease in inappropriate PICC use occurred at the study site (incidence rate ratio 0.86 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.99; P=0.048)); no change was observed at control sites. While the incidence of all PICC complications decreased to a greater extent at the study site, the absolute difference between controls and intervention was small (33.9% to 26.7% (-7.2%) vs 22.4% to 20.8% (-1.6%); P=0.036)., Limitations: Non-randomised design limits inference; the most effective component of the multimodal intervention is unknown; effects following implementation were modest., Conclusions: In a multihospital quality improvement project, implementation of MAGIC improved PICC appropriateness and reduced complications to a modest extent. Given the size and resources required for this study, future work should consider cost-to-benefit ratio of similar approaches., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SF discloses royalties from Wiley Publishing; honoraria for various talks at hospitals as a visiting professor; grants from CDC Foundation, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan; and expert witness testimony. All other authors disclose no conflicts., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: The guidelines for peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) recommend avoiding insertion if the anticipated duration of use is =5 days. However, short-term PICC use is common in hospitals. We sought to identify patient, provider, and device characteristics and the clinical outcomes associated with short-term PICCs., Methods: Between January 2014 and June 2016, trained abstractors at 52 Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety (HMS) Consortium sites collected data from medical records of adults that received PICCs during hospitalization. Patients were prospectively followed until PICC removal, death, or 70 days after insertion. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit to identify factors associated with short-term PICCs, defined as dwell time of =5 days. Complications associated with short-term use, including major (eg, venous thromboembolism [VTE] or central lineassociated bloodstream infection [CLABSI]) or minor (eg, catheter occlusion, tip migration) events were assessed., Results: Of the 15,397 PICCs placed, 3902 (25.3%) had a dwell time of =5 days. Most (95.5%) short-term PICCs were removed during hospitalization. Compared to PICCs placed for >5 days, variables associated with short-term PICCs included difficult venous access (odds ratio [OR], 1.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.40-1.69), multilumen devices (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.39-1.69), and teaching hospitals (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.04-1.52). Among those with short-term PICCs, 374 (9.6%) experienced a complication, including 99 (2.5%) experiencing VTE and 17 (0.4%) experiencing CLABSI events. The most common minor complications were catheter occlusion (4%) and tip migration (2.2%)., Conclusion: Short-term use of PICCs is common and associated with patient, provider, and device factors. As PICC placement, even for brief periods, is associated with complications, efforts targeted at factors underlying such use appear necessary., (© 2018 Society of Hospital Medicine)

Patients admitted to acute care frequently require intravenous access to effectively deliver medications and prescribed treatment. For patients with difficult intravenous access, those requiring multiple attempts, those who are obese, or have diabetes or other chronic conditions, determining the vascular access device (VAD) with the lowest risk that best meets the needs of the treatment plan can be confusing. Selection of a VAD should be based on specific indications for that device. In the clinical setting, requests for central venous access devices are frequently precipitated simply by failure to establish peripheral access. Selection of the most appropriate VAD is necessary to avoid the potentially serious complications of infection and/or thrombosis. An international panel of experts convened to establish a guide for indications and appropriate usage for VADs. This publication summarises the work and recommendations of the panel for the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC).

Importance: Hospitalization for acute medical illness is associated with increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Although efforts designed to increase use of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis are intended to reduce hospital-associated VTE, whether higher rates of prophylaxis reduce VTE in medical patients is unknown., Objective: To examine the association between pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis rates and hospital-associated VTE., Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective, multicenter cohort study conducted at 35 Michigan hospitals participating in a statewide quality collaborative from January 1, 2011, through September 13, 2012. Trained medical record abstractors at each hospital collected data from 31 260 general medical patients. Use of VTE prophylaxis on admission, VTE risk factors, and VTE events 90 days after hospital admission were recorded using a combination of medical record review and telephone follow-up. Hospitals were grouped into tertiles of performance based on rate of pharmacologic prophylaxis use on admission for at-risk patients., Main Outcomes and Measures: Association between hospital performance and time to development of VTE within 90 days of hospital admission., Results: A total of 14 563 of 20 794 patients (70.0%) eligible for pharmacologic prophylaxis received prophylaxis on admission. The rates of pharmacologic prophylaxis use at hospitals in the high-, moderate-, and low-performance tertiles were 85.8%, 72.6%, and 55.5%, respectively. A total of 226 VTE events occurred during 1 765 449 days of patient follow-up. Compared with patients at hospitals in the highest-performance tertile, the hazard of VTE in patients at hospitals in moderate-performance (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.74-1.62) and low-performance (hazard ratio, 0.96, 95% CI, 0.63-1.45) tertiles did not differ after adjusting for potential confounders. Results remained robust when examining mechanical prophylaxis, prophylaxis use throughout the hospitalization, and subsequent inpatient stays after discharge from the index hospitalization., Conclusions and Relevance: The occurrence of 90-day VTE in medical patients after hospitalization is low. Patients who receive care at hospitals that have lower rates of pharmacologic prophylaxis do not have higher adjusted hazards of VTE, even after accounting for individual receipt of pharmacologic prophylaxis. Efforts to increase rates of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients may not substantively reduce this adverse outcome.

Background: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are commonly inserted during hospitalization for a variety of clinical indications., Objective: To understand hospitalist experience, practice, knowledge, and opinions as they relate to PICCs., Design and Setting: Web-based survey of hospitalists in 5 healthcare systems (representing a total of 10 hospitals) across Michigan., Results: The overall response rate was 63% (227 hospitalists received invitations; 144 responded). Compared with central venous catheters, hospitalists felt that PICCs were safer to insert (81%) and preferred by patients (74%). Although 84% of respondents reported that placing a PICC solely to obtain venous access was appropriate, 47% also indicated that 10%-25% of PICCs inserted in their hospitals might represent inappropriate placement. Hospitalist knowledge regarding PICC-related venous thromboembolism was poor, with only 4% recognizing that PICC-tip verification was performed principally to prevent thrombosis. Furthermore, several potential practice-related concerns were identified: one-third of hospitalists indicated that they never examine PICCs for externally evident problems, such as exit-site infection; 48% responded that once inserted, they did not remove PICCs until a patient was ready for discharge; and 51% admitted that, at least once, they had "forgotten" that their patient had a PICC., Conclusions: Hospitalist experiences, practice, opinions, and knowledge related to PICCs appear to be variable. Because PICC use is growing and is often associated with complications, examining the impact of such variation is necessary. Hospitals and health systems should consider developing and implementing mechanisms to monitor PICC use and adverse events., (Copyright © 2013 Society of Hospital Medicine.)