Search

Background: Older adults (aged ≥65) are at high risk of harm from overdiagnosis and overtreatment of urinary tract infections (UTIs) with antibiotics. Involving patients/caregivers in their antibiotic treatment decisions has potential to improve prescribing. To engage effectively, patients/caregivers must have sufficient knowledge about UTIs, asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB: bacteria in the urine without signs of UTI), and antibiotics and opportunities to share their concerns and treatment preferences with healthcare staff. Patient education is one of the core elements of antibiotic stewardship recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention but, there are few resources for patients/caregivers about UTIs and antibiotics, leaving a knowledge gap as to what effective patient/caregiver antibiotic education for UTIs looks like. We sought to better understand the perspectives of patients/caregivers at high-risk of antibiotic overuse for UTIs and create an educational leaflet on UTIs, antibiotics, and ASB. Method: Between 11/2022 and 03/2023, we conducted virtual semi-structured interviews with patients ≥65yrs who had experienced UTI and caregivers about their needs, experiences, and preferences for educational support. Interviews lasted ~1 hour. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim. NVivo software managed the data, which we analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: We conducted 9 interviews (5 patients, 4 caregivers). Interviewees expressed desire to be involved in their treatment decisions and learn more about antibiotics and alternative strategies (themes shown in Figure 1). Reported reasons for limited involvement in decisions included lacking the knowledge and confidence to ask questions, emotional factors (e.g., embarrassment/stress), deference to healthcare staff, and time constraints. Healthcare staff behaviors were described both as barriers (e.g., assertive treatment decisions) and facilitators (e.g., effective communication) of patient/caregiver engagement. Interviewees were eager for printed and digital educational support that could provide tailored content to help improve their knowledge and prepare for future conversations with healthcare staff. From this feedback we developed an educational leaflet (Figure 2). Conclusions: Involving patients/caregivers in antibiotic treatment decisions represents an opportunity to intervene before patients experience antibiotic overuse. Our findings offer important insights on patient/caregiver’ educational needs and preferences as well as perceived barriers to engaging in antibiotic treatment decisions for UTI. We used these insights to inform the development of educational materials about UTIs, ASB, and antibiotics for patients/caregivers and plan to test their use through multiple mediums with tailoring for unique patient needs, experiences, and backgrounds.

Background: Inappropriate diagnosis and treatment of urinary tract infections (UTI) contributes to antibiotic overuse. The Inappropriate Diagnosis of UTI (ID-UTI) measure—which quantifies the percentage of treated bacteriuria that is asymptomatic (ASB) using a standard definition of UTI—has been validated in acute care hospitals, but not in critical access hospitals (CAHs) where resources differ. Methods: From October 2022-July 2023, ten CAHs participated in a program to reduce ASB treatment, including education, coaching, and hospital feedback using the ID-UTI measure. Our primary aim was to assess performance characteristics of the ID-UTI standard definition and measure in CAHs (Figure 1). Non-physician abstractors from each CAH submitted clinical data (e.g., signs/symptoms) via REDCap for consecutive adult patients who were admitted or discharged from the emergency department and received antibiotics for bacteriuria. The case abstraction goal for each CAH was 5-6 cases/month. To assess feasibility, we evaluated the ability of each CAH to achieve goal case abstractions. To assess validity and reliability of the ID-UTI standard definition, two physicians reviewed 10% of submitted cases using deidentified patient notes and assessed agreement with the standard ID-UTI definition and consensus clinical opinion. Based on submitted data, we provided bi-monthly feedback reports to CAHs including the hospital-level ID-UTI measure to benchmark progress and for peer comparison. We measured monthly change in the ID-UTI measure using a mixed-effects logistic regression model (Figure 1, Figure 2). Results: Among 10 CAHs, 4 (40%) submitted >59 cases over 10 months (goal) while 3 (30%) submitted >35 cases (secondary goal). Physician reviewers assessed 9.5% (58/608) of cases. Utilizing the ID-UTI standard definition, there was high agreement (93%) in ASB vs UTI designation between each physician reviewer and the CAH’s REDCap assessment (Figure 3). Compared to clinical opinion, the ID-UTI standard definition identified 48% (16/33) of ASB cases and 100% (25/25) of UTI cases (Figure 4). Over the program, the percentage of cases treated for UTI that were ASB decreased from 28.4% (range 0-63%) to 18.6% (range, 0-33%; p=0.055) (Figure 5). Conclusions: Case abstraction with use of the ID-UTI measure was feasible and reliable to implement with modifications for CAHs. Data collection by untrained staff was as reliable as physician adjudication. Though the ID-UTI standard definition undercounted ASB cases (low sensitivity), cases reported as ASB were always ASB when adjudicated (high specificity). The program, including performance feedback using the ID-UTI measure, was associated with a trend toward lower treatment of ASB.

Background: Historically, diagnosis of urinary tract infections (UTIs) has been divided into 3 categories based on symptoms and urine culture results: not UTI, asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB), or UTI. However, some populations (eg, older adults, catheterized patients) may not present with signs or symptoms referrable to the urinary tract or have chronic lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), making the diagnosis of UTI challenging. We sought to understand the clinical presentation of patients who receive urine tests in a cohort of diverse hospitals. Methods: This retrospective descriptive cohort study included all adult noncatheterized inpatient and ED encounters with paired urinalysis and urine cultures (24 hours apart) from 5 community and academic hospitals in 3 states (NC, VA, GA) between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019. Trained abstractors collected clinical and demographic data using a 60-question REDCap survey. The study group met with multidisciplinary experts (ID, geriatrics, urology) to define the “continuum of UTI” (Table 1), which includes 2 new categories: (1) LUTS to capture patients with chronic lower urinary tract symptoms and (2) bacteriuria of unclear significance (BUS) to capture patients who do not clinically meet criteria for ASB or UTI (eg, older adults who present with delirium and bacteriuria). The newly defined categories were compared to current guideline-based categories. We further compared ASB, BUS, and UTI categories using a lower bacterial threshold of 1,000 colony-forming units. Results: In total, 220,531 encounters met study criteria. After using a random number generator and removing duplicates, 3,392 encounters were included. Based on current IDSA guidelines, the prevalence of ASB was 32.1% (n = 975), and prevalence of patients with “not UTI” was 1,614 (53%). Applying the expert panel’s new “continuum of UTI” definitions, the prevalence of “not UTI” patients decreased to 1,147 (37.7%), due to reassignment of 467 patients (15.3%)to LUTS. The prevalence of ASB decreased by 24% due to reassignment to BUS. Lowering the bacterial threshold had a slight impact on the number of definitive UTIs (14.9 vs 15.9%) (Table 1). Conclusions: Our rigorous review of laboratory and symptom data from a diverse population dataset revealed that diagnostic uncertainty exists when assessing patients with suspicion for UTI. We propose moving away from dichotomous approach of ASB versus UTI and using the “continuum of UTI” for stewardship conversations. This approach will allow us to develop nuanced deprescribing interventions for patients with LUTS or BUS (eg, watchful waiting, shorter course therapy) that account for the unique characteristics of these populations.

Background: Inappropriate broad-spectrum antibiotic use targeting methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa can result in increased adverse events, antibiotic resistance, and Clostridioides difficile infection. In 2019, revised ATS/IDSA community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) guidelines removed healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP) as a clinical entity and modified patient factors warranting empiric broad-spectrum antibiotic (BSA) use. As a result, most patients hospitalized with CAP should receive empiric antibiotics targeting standard CAP pathogens. Based on revised guidelines, we evaluated predictors and outcomes associated with inappropriate BSA use among hospitalized patients with CAP. Methods: Between November 2019 and July 2022, trained abstractors collected data on non-ICU adult medical patients admitted with CAP at 67 Michigan hospitals who received either an inappropriate empiric BSA on hospital day 1 or 2 or a standard CAP regimen. Inappropriate empiric BSA use was defined as use of an anti-MRSA or anti-pseudomonal antibiotic in a patient eligible for standard CAP coverage per IDSA guidelines. Patients with immune compromise, moderate or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pulmonary complication, or guideline-concordant treatment with BSA were excluded. Data collected included comorbidities, antibiotic use and hospitalizations in the preceding 90 days, cultures in the preceding year, signs or symptoms of pneumonia, hospital characteristics, and 30-day postdischarge patient outcomes. Data were collected through chart review and patient phone calls. Predictors of inappropriate empiric BSA were evaluated using logistic general estimating equation (GEE) models, accounting for hospital-level clustering. We assessed the effect of inappropriate empiric BSA (vs standard CAP therapy) on 30-day patient outcomes using logistic GEE models controlling for predictors associated with the outcome and probability of treatment. Results: Of 8,286 included patients with CAP, 2,215 (26.7%) were empirically treated with inappropriate BSA. The median BSA treatment was 3 days (IQR, 2.5). After adjustments, factors associated with inappropriate empiric BSA treatment included hospitalization or treatment with high-risk antibiotics in preceding 90 days, transfer from a postacute care facility, hemodialysis, support with ≥3 L supplemental oxygen, severe sepsis, leukocytosis, and higher pneumonia severity index (Fig. 1). After adjustments, patients with inappropriate empiric BSA treatment had higher readmissions 30 days after discharge, more transfers to the intensive care unit, more antibiotic-associated adverse events, and longer hospitalizations (Fig. 2). Conclusions: Patients hospitalized with CAP often received inappropriate BSA as empiric coverage, and this inappropriate antibiotic selection was associated with worse patient outcomes. To improve patient outcomes, stewardship efforts should focus on reducing inappropriate BSA use in patients hospitalized for CAP with historic HCAP risk factors or severe CAP without other guideline-directed indications for BSA.

Background: Antibiotic overuse and the resulting patient outcomes span all hospitals. However, although antibiotic stewardship can improve antibiotic use, effective stewardship programs require expertise and an infrastructure that are not present in all hospitals. Rural hospitals have less access to resources, infectious disease expertise, and participation in academic research. Thus, we compared antibiotic overuse at discharge between rural and nonrural hospitals for patients diagnosed with community-associated pneumonia (CAP) or urinary tract infection (UTI)—the 2 most common hospital infections. Methods: To determine whether antibiotic overuse at discharge was higher among rural versus nonrural hospitals, we analyzed data from a 41-hospital prospective cohort of patients treated for CAP or UTI between July 1, 2017, and July 30, 2019, in Michigan. Antibiotic overuse was defined as treatment that was unnecessary (ie, patient did not have an infection), excessive (ie, duration >4 days for CAP), or included suboptimal fluoroquinolone use (ie, safer alternative available). Overuse was determined based on patient risk factors, symptoms, allergies, diagnostic results, and time to stability. Hospital rurality was defined using the Rural–Urban Continuum Codes (RUCC) score. We defined rural as a score ≥4 and very rural as a score of 7–9. We used t tests to compare the mean percentage of patients with antibiotic overuse at discharge between nonrural and rural (and very rural) hospitals. Results: Across 41 hospitals, we included 23,449 patients with CAP or UTI. There were 5 rural (and 3 very rural) hospitals with 2,039 (and 1,082) patients. Antibiotic overuse at discharge was present in 43.1% of patient cases in nonrural hospitals, 52.5% in rural hospitals (P = .04 vs nonrural) and 58.1% in very rural hospitals (P = .007 vs nonrural). Compared to nonrural hospitals, the mean percentage of cases with antibiotic overuse at discharge in rural hospitals was 9.4% higher (15.1% higher in very rural hospitals). Results were similar in a subgroup analysis of only patients with UTI (47.0% in rural vs 37.5% in nonrural, mean difference, 9.5%; P = .03) but were not statistically significant in patients with CAP (53.8% vs 48.0%, respectively; mean difference, 5.8%; P = 0.23). Conclusions: In this retrospective study, rural hospitals—especially very rural hospitals, had higher rates of antibiotic overuse at discharge than nonrural hospitals. Our findings suggest that antibiotic stewardship interventions tailored toward the unique differences in infrastructure, resources, and needs of rural hospitals are essential to community health.

Background: IDSA guidelines recommend withholding treatment in patients with asymptomatic bacteriuria in the absence of systemic signs of infection. However, some patients with bacteriuria may not be able to express symptoms either due to presence of indwelling catheter, underlying complicated urologic anatomy, dementia, or altered mental status (AMS). Clinicians frequently treat bacteriuria in this population with antimicrobial therapy due to concern for sepsis. To determine treatment need, we aimed to review prevalence and risk factors for bacteremic urinary tract infection (UTI) in a cohort of hospitalized inpatients without definitive signs and symptoms of a UTI. Methods: This retrospective cohort study of inpatients with a positive urine culture who presented without definitive signs or symptoms of a UTI was conducted between July 1, 2017, and June 30, 2022, in 68 academic and community hospitals (Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium). Signs and symptoms were obtained from medical record review 3 days before and after urine-culture collection. Bacteremic UTI was defined as any positive blood culture growing at least 1 organism matching the urine culture. Risk factors for bacteremic UTI were assessed using multivariable logistic regression models with results expressed as odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous variables and relative risks (RRs) for continuous variables. Results: Of 11,793 patients meeting study criteria, 73.6% were female with a median age of 78.2 years. Overall, 41.8% had AMS, 33.8% had dementia, 15.6% had an indwelling urinary catheter, and 54.6% had complicated urologic history (eg, urologic surgery). Of these, 166 patients (1.4%) developed bacteremic UTI. On adjusted analysis, male sex, hypotension, heart rate >90, urinary retention, fatigue, log of serum leukocytosis [1 log increase in serum WBC = 2.718 × serum white blood cell count (WBC)], and pyuria with >25 WBC per high-powered field (WBC/hpf) on urinalysis were associated with bacteremic UTI (Table). Older age, presence of an indwelling catheter, complicated urologic history, functional decline, AMS, dementia, and change in urine were not associated with higher odds for bacteremic UTI (Table). Of patients with AMS and no definitive signs or symptoms of a UTI, only 89 (1.8%) of 4,932 developed a bacteremic UTI. Conclusions: Bacteremic UTI is relatively rare in hospitalized inpatients presenting with bacteriuria without symptoms of UTI. Predictors of bacteremic UTI included male sex, hypotension, tachycardia, urinary retention, fatigue, serum leukocytosis, and higher levels of pyuria (>25 WBC/hpf) on urinalysis. Our findings provide stewards a framework to risk stratify inpatients of older age who present with positive urine cultures but without (or are unable to express) signs or symptoms of UTI.

Background: Since 2019, community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) guidelines have recommended hospitalized patients be treated until clinical “stability and for no less than 5 days.” However, randomized trials have reported that, in patients who stabilize by hospital day 3, very short antibiotic durations (eg, 3 days) are noninferior to longer durations. How these trial results relate to real-world practice is unknown. Methods: Using a 68-hospital cohort study of hospitalized, general-care adults with CAP, we aimed to (1) quantify the percentage of patients who—according to trial criteria—qualify for a 3-day antibiotic duration, (2) quantify the percentage who actually received a 3-day duration, and (3) assess 30-day outcomes. Patients were considered to have CAP if they had a pneumonia discharge diagnosis and met clinical criteria for CAP. Patients with concomitant infections (including COVID-19), admission to intensive care, or severe immunocompromise were not included. Results: Between February 23, 2017, and August 3, 2022, 36,064 patients with CAP were included. Of those, 48.2% (9,826 of 36,064) were excluded due to a condition or organism ineligible for the 3-day treatment (Fig. 1). Of the 18,690 patients remaining, 52.6% (9,826) were unstable on day 3 and thus were ineligible for the 3-day treatment. Therefore, of all 36,064 patients, only 8,864 (24.6%) would be eligible under trial criteria for a 3-day treatment. Notably, 5,493 (55.9%) of 9,826 patients unstable on day 3 would be eligible for 5 days of treatment under national guidelines. In practice, use of 3–4-day treatment was rare, occurring in 599 (6.8%) of 8,864 patients eligible for a 3-day treatment versus 660 (6.7%) of 9,826 patients unstable on day 3 (P = .945). Use of 3–4-day treatment increased over time and comorbidities that could mimic CAP or a negative procalcitonin were more common in patients who received a 3–4-day treatment whereas specific symptoms of CAP were less common (Fig. 2). After adjustments, patients eligible for a 3-day duration who received a 3–4 day treatment versus a ≥5-day treatment had higher 30-day mortality (aOR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.32–2.64) and readmission (aOR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.17–1.56). Conclusions: Across 68 hospitals,

Background: Clinical pharmacists are a critical part of antibiotic stewardship. Stewardship often relies on relationships and persuasion, which may be affected by gender bias. Thus, we aimed to assess the association of sex with the acceptance of antibiotic stewardship recommendations. Methods: Between May and October 2019, medicine pharmacists at single hospital reviewed patients on antibiotics and–when a discharge was anticipated–led an antibiotic discussion (or “timeout”) prior to discharge. To explore differences in antibiotic timeout effectiveness by gender, we assessed the association of pharmacist sex with suggestion and acceptance of antibiotic changes using logistic regression controlling for patient characteristics. We also assessed whether hospitalist sex was associated with or moderated the effect of pharmacist sex on acceptance of timeout recommendations. Results: Between May 1, 2019, and October 31, 2019, pharmacists conducted 295 timeouts (patient characteristics in Fig. 1). Overall, 54% of timeouts were conducted by 12 female pharmacists and the remaining 46% were conducted by 8 male pharmacists. Overall, 82 (29%) of 295 timeouts resulted in a pharmacist recommending an antibiotic change, and male pharmacists were more likely to recommend a change: 52 (38%) of 137 versus 30 (19%) 158 (P Conclusions: In this discharge antibiotic intervention, timeouts conducted by women were less likely to result in an antibiotic change than those conducted by men. The difference in effectiveness resulted both from female pharmacists being less likely to recommend a change and from hospitalists being less likely to accept recommendations from a female pharmacist. These findings suggest that gender bias may play a role acceptance of antibiotic stewardship recommendations, which could affect antibiotic use, pharmacist job satisfaction, and patient outcomes.

Background: Antibiotics are frequently prescribed–and overprescribed–at hospital discharge, leading to adverse-events and patient harm. Our understanding of how to optimize prescribing at discharge is limited. Recently, we published the ROAD (Reducing Overuse of Antibiotics at Discharge) Home Framework, which identified potential strategies to improve antibiotic prescribing at discharge across 3 tiers: Tier 1–Critical infrastructure, Tier 2–Broad inpatient interventions, Tier 3–Discharge-specific strategies. Here, we used the ROAD Home Framework to assess the association of stewardship strategies with antibiotic overuse at discharge and to describe pathways toward improved discharge prescribing. Methods: In fall 2019, we surveyed 39 Michigan hospitals on their antibiotic stewardship strategies. For patients hospitalized at participating hospitals July 1, 2017, through July 30, 2019, and treated for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and urinary tract infection (UTI), we assessed the association of reported strategies with days of antibiotic overuse at discharge. Days of antibiotic overuse at discharge were defined based on national guidelines and included unnecessary therapy, excess duration, and suboptimal fluoroquinolone use. We evaluated the association of stewardship strategies with days of discharge antibiotic overuse 2 ways: (1) all stewardship strategies were assumed to have equal weight, and (2) strategies weighted using the ROAD Home Framework with tier 3 (discharge-specific) strategies had the highest weight. Results: Overall, 39 hospitals with 20,444 patients (56.5% CAP; 43.5% UTI) were included. The survey response rate was 100% (39 of 39). Hospitals reported a median of 12 (IQR, 9–14) of 33 possible stewardship strategies (Fig. 1). On bivariable analyses, review of antibiotics prior to discharge was the only strategy consistently associated with lower antibiotic overuse at discharge (aIRR, 0.543; 95% CI, 0.335–0.878). On multivariable analysis, weighting by ROAD Home tier predicted antibiotic overuse at discharge for both CAP and UTI. For diseases combined, having more weighted strategies was associated with lower antibiotic overuse at discharge (aIRR per weighted intervention, 0.957; 95% CI, 0.927–0.987). Discharge-specific stewardship strategies were associated with a 12.4% relative decrease in antibiotic overuse days at discharge. Based on these findings, 3 pathways emerged to improve antibiotic use at discharge (Fig. 2): inpatient-focused strategies, “doing it all,” and discharge-focused strategies. Conclusions: The more stewardship strategies reported, the lower a hospitals’ antibiotic overuse at discharge. However, different pathways to improve discharge antibiotic use exist. Thus, discharge stewardship strategies should be tailored. Specifically, hospitals with limited stewardship resources and infrastructure should consider implementing a discharge-specific strategy straightaway. In contrast, hospitals that already have substantial inpatient infrastructure may benefit from proactively incorporating discharge into their existing strategies.

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

: Background: Although certification by an accredited agency is often a practice prerequisite in health care, it is not required of vascular access specialists who insert peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). Whether certification is associated with differences in practice among inserters is unknown., Purpose: The purpose of this study was to gather information regarding whether certified and noncertified PICC inserters differ with respect to their practices and views about PICC use., Methods: We conducted a national survey of vascular access specialists, identifying certified PICC inserters as those who had received board certification from the Association for Vascular Access, the Infusion Nurses Society, or both. The 76-item survey asked about PICC policies and procedures at respondents' facilities, use of insertion technologies, device management, management of complications, perceptions about PICC use, and relationships with other health care providers. Additional data about respondents, including years in practice and primary practice settings, were also gathered. Bivariable comparisons were made using χ tests; two-sided α with P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant., Results: Of the 1,450 respondents in the final sample, 1,007 (69%) said they were certified inserters and 443 (31%) said they were not. Significantly higher percentages of certified than noncertified inserters reported having practiced for five or more years (78% versus 54%) and having placed 1,000 or more PICCs (58% versus 32%). Significantly more certified than noncertified inserters also reported being the vascular access lead for their facility (56% versus 44%). Reported practice patterns for insertion, care, and management of PICCs varied based on certification status. Some evidence-based practices (such as the use of ultrasound to measure catheter-to-vein ratios) were more often reported by certified inserters, while others (such as the use of maximal sterile barriers during PICC insertion) were not. Asked about their perceptions of PICC use at their institution, certified inserters reported higher percentages of inappropriate insertion and removal than noncertified inserters., Conclusion: Certified PICC inserters appear to be a distinct group of vascular access specialists. A better understanding of how and why practices differ between certified and noncertified inserters is necessary to ensuring safer, high-quality patient care.