User login
Future Hospitalist: Top 10 tips for carrying out a successful quality improvement project
Editor’s Note: This column is a quarterly feature written by members of the Physicians in Training Committee. It aims to encourage and educate students, residents, and early career hospitalists.
One of the biggest challenges early career hospitalists, residents and medical students face in launching their first quality improvement (QI) project is knowing how and where to get started. QI can be highly rewarding, but it can also take valuable time and resources without guarantees of sustainable improvement. In this article, we outline 10 key factors to consider when starting a new project.
1. Frame your project so that it aligns with your hospital’s current goals
Choose a project with your hospital’s goals in mind. Securing resources such as health IT, financial, or staffing support will prove difficult unless you get buy-in from hospital leadership. If your project does not directly address hospital goals, frame the purpose to demonstrate that it still fits with leadership priorities. For example, though improving handoffs from daytime to nighttime providers may not be a specific goal, leadership should appreciate that this project is expected to improve patient safety.
2. Be SMART about goals
Many QI projects fail because the scope of the initial project is too large, unrealistic, or vague. Creating a clear and focused aim statement and keeping it “SMART” (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timely) will bring structure to the project.1 “We will reduce Congestive Heart Failure readmissions on 5 medicine units at our hospital by 2.5% in 6 months” is an example of a SMART aim statement. 
3. Involve the right people from the start
QI project disasters often start with the wrong team. Select members based on who is needed and not who is available. It is critical to include representatives or “champions” from each area that will be affected. People will buy into a new methodology much more quickly if they were engaged in its development or know that respected members in their area were involved.
4. Use a simple, systematic approach to guide improvement work
Various QI models exist and each offers a systematic approach for assessing and improving care services. The Model for Improvement developed by the Associates in Process Improvement2 is a simple and powerful framework for quality improvement that asks three questions: (1) What are we trying to accomplish? (2) How will we know a change is an improvement? (3) What changes can we make that will result in improvement? The model incorporates Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles to test changes on a small scale.
5. Good projects start with good background data
6. Choose interventions that are high impact, low effort
People will more easily change if the change itself is easy. So consider the question “does this intervention add significant work?” The best interventions change a process without causing undue burden to the clinicians and staff involved.
7. If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it
After implementation, collect enough data to know whether the changes made improved the process. Study outcome, process, and balancing measures. If possible, use data already being collected by your institution. While it is critical to have quantitative measures, qualitative data such as surveys and observations can also enrich understanding.
Example: Increasing early discharges in medical unit.
Outcome measure – This is the desired outcome that the project aims to improve. This may be the percentage of discharges before noon (DBN) or the average discharge time.
Process measure – This is a measure of a specific change made to improve the outcome metric. The discharge orders may need to be placed earlier in the electronic medical record to improve DBN. This average discharge order time is an example of a process measure.
Balance measure – This metric evaluates whether the intended outcome is leading to unintended consequences. For example, tracking the readmission rate is an important balance measure to assess whether improved DBN is associated with rushed discharges and possible unsafe transitions.
8. Communicate project goals and progress
9. Manage resistance to change
“People responsible for planning and implementing change often forget that while the first task of change management is to understand the destination and how to get there, the first task of transition management is to convince people to leave home.” – William Bridges
Inertia is powerful. We may consider our continuous performance improvement initiative as “the next big thing” but others may not share this enthusiasm. We therefore need to build a compelling reason for others to become engaged and accept major changes to work flow. Different strategies may be needed depending on your audience. Though for some, data and a rational analysis will be persuasive, for others the emotional argument will be the most motivating. Share personal anecdotes and use patient stories. In addition, let providers know “what’s in it for them.” Some may have a personal interest in your project or may need QI experience for career advancement; others might be motivated by the possibilities for scholarship arising from this work.
10. Make the work count twice
Consider QI as a scholarly initiative from the start to bring rigor to the project at all phases. Describe the project in an abstract or manuscript once improvements have been made. Publication is a great way to boost team morale and help make a business case for future improvement work. The Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) guidelines provide an excellent framework for designing and writing up an improvement project.4 The guidelines focus on why the project was started, what was done, what was found, and what the findings mean.
Driving change is challenging, and it is tempting to jump ahead to “fixing the problem.” But implementing a successful QI project requires intelligent direction, strategic planning, and skillful execution. It is our hope that following the above tips will help you develop the best possible ideas and approach implementation in a systematic way, ultimately leading to meaningful change.
Dr. Reyna is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine and unit medical director at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City. She is a Certified Clinical Microsystems Coach. Dr. Burger is associate professor and associate program director, internal medicine residency, at Mount Sinai Beth Israel. He is on the faculty for the SGIM Annual Meeting Precourse on QI and is head of the high value care committee at the department of medicine at Mount Sinai Beth Israel. Dr. Cho is assistant professor and director of quality and safety in the division of hospital medicine at Mount Sinai. He is a senior fellow at the Lown Institute.
References
1. MacLeod L. Making SMART goals smarter. Physician Exec. 2012 Mar-Apr;38(2):68-70, 72.
2. Langley GL, Moen R, Nolan KM, Nolan TW, Norman CL, Provost LP. The Improvement Guide: A Practical Approach to Enhancing Organizational Performance (2nd edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 2009.
3. Nelson EC, Batalden PB, Godfrey MM. Quality By Design: A Clinical Microsystems Approach. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass; 2007.
4. Ogrinc G, Davies L, Goodman D et.al. SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015 Sep 14.
Editor’s Note: This column is a quarterly feature written by members of the Physicians in Training Committee. It aims to encourage and educate students, residents, and early career hospitalists.
One of the biggest challenges early career hospitalists, residents and medical students face in launching their first quality improvement (QI) project is knowing how and where to get started. QI can be highly rewarding, but it can also take valuable time and resources without guarantees of sustainable improvement. In this article, we outline 10 key factors to consider when starting a new project.
1. Frame your project so that it aligns with your hospital’s current goals
Choose a project with your hospital’s goals in mind. Securing resources such as health IT, financial, or staffing support will prove difficult unless you get buy-in from hospital leadership. If your project does not directly address hospital goals, frame the purpose to demonstrate that it still fits with leadership priorities. For example, though improving handoffs from daytime to nighttime providers may not be a specific goal, leadership should appreciate that this project is expected to improve patient safety.
2. Be SMART about goals
Many QI projects fail because the scope of the initial project is too large, unrealistic, or vague. Creating a clear and focused aim statement and keeping it “SMART” (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timely) will bring structure to the project.1 “We will reduce Congestive Heart Failure readmissions on 5 medicine units at our hospital by 2.5% in 6 months” is an example of a SMART aim statement.
3. Involve the right people from the start
QI project disasters often start with the wrong team. Select members based on who is needed and not who is available. It is critical to include representatives or “champions” from each area that will be affected. People will buy into a new methodology much more quickly if they were engaged in its development or know that respected members in their area were involved.
4. Use a simple, systematic approach to guide improvement work
Various QI models exist and each offers a systematic approach for assessing and improving care services. The Model for Improvement developed by the Associates in Process Improvement2 is a simple and powerful framework for quality improvement that asks three questions: (1) What are we trying to accomplish? (2) How will we know a change is an improvement? (3) What changes can we make that will result in improvement? The model incorporates Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles to test changes on a small scale.
5. Good projects start with good background data
6. Choose interventions that are high impact, low effort
People will more easily change if the change itself is easy. So consider the question “does this intervention add significant work?” The best interventions change a process without causing undue burden to the clinicians and staff involved.
7. If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it
After implementation, collect enough data to know whether the changes made improved the process. Study outcome, process, and balancing measures. If possible, use data already being collected by your institution. While it is critical to have quantitative measures, qualitative data such as surveys and observations can also enrich understanding.
Example: Increasing early discharges in medical unit.
Outcome measure – This is the desired outcome that the project aims to improve. This may be the percentage of discharges before noon (DBN) or the average discharge time.
Process measure – This is a measure of a specific change made to improve the outcome metric. The discharge orders may need to be placed earlier in the electronic medical record to improve DBN. This average discharge order time is an example of a process measure.
Balance measure – This metric evaluates whether the intended outcome is leading to unintended consequences. For example, tracking the readmission rate is an important balance measure to assess whether improved DBN is associated with rushed discharges and possible unsafe transitions.
8. Communicate project goals and progress
9. Manage resistance to change
“People responsible for planning and implementing change often forget that while the first task of change management is to understand the destination and how to get there, the first task of transition management is to convince people to leave home.” – William Bridges
Inertia is powerful. We may consider our continuous performance improvement initiative as “the next big thing” but others may not share this enthusiasm. We therefore need to build a compelling reason for others to become engaged and accept major changes to work flow. Different strategies may be needed depending on your audience. Though for some, data and a rational analysis will be persuasive, for others the emotional argument will be the most motivating. Share personal anecdotes and use patient stories. In addition, let providers know “what’s in it for them.” Some may have a personal interest in your project or may need QI experience for career advancement; others might be motivated by the possibilities for scholarship arising from this work.
10. Make the work count twice
Consider QI as a scholarly initiative from the start to bring rigor to the project at all phases. Describe the project in an abstract or manuscript once improvements have been made. Publication is a great way to boost team morale and help make a business case for future improvement work. The Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) guidelines provide an excellent framework for designing and writing up an improvement project.4 The guidelines focus on why the project was started, what was done, what was found, and what the findings mean.
Driving change is challenging, and it is tempting to jump ahead to “fixing the problem.” But implementing a successful QI project requires intelligent direction, strategic planning, and skillful execution. It is our hope that following the above tips will help you develop the best possible ideas and approach implementation in a systematic way, ultimately leading to meaningful change.
Dr. Reyna is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine and unit medical director at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City. She is a Certified Clinical Microsystems Coach. Dr. Burger is associate professor and associate program director, internal medicine residency, at Mount Sinai Beth Israel. He is on the faculty for the SGIM Annual Meeting Precourse on QI and is head of the high value care committee at the department of medicine at Mount Sinai Beth Israel. Dr. Cho is assistant professor and director of quality and safety in the division of hospital medicine at Mount Sinai. He is a senior fellow at the Lown Institute.
References
1. MacLeod L. Making SMART goals smarter. Physician Exec. 2012 Mar-Apr;38(2):68-70, 72.
2. Langley GL, Moen R, Nolan KM, Nolan TW, Norman CL, Provost LP. The Improvement Guide: A Practical Approach to Enhancing Organizational Performance (2nd edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 2009.
3. Nelson EC, Batalden PB, Godfrey MM. Quality By Design: A Clinical Microsystems Approach. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass; 2007.
4. Ogrinc G, Davies L, Goodman D et.al. SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015 Sep 14.
Editor’s Note: This column is a quarterly feature written by members of the Physicians in Training Committee. It aims to encourage and educate students, residents, and early career hospitalists.
One of the biggest challenges early career hospitalists, residents and medical students face in launching their first quality improvement (QI) project is knowing how and where to get started. QI can be highly rewarding, but it can also take valuable time and resources without guarantees of sustainable improvement. In this article, we outline 10 key factors to consider when starting a new project.
1. Frame your project so that it aligns with your hospital’s current goals
Choose a project with your hospital’s goals in mind. Securing resources such as health IT, financial, or staffing support will prove difficult unless you get buy-in from hospital leadership. If your project does not directly address hospital goals, frame the purpose to demonstrate that it still fits with leadership priorities. For example, though improving handoffs from daytime to nighttime providers may not be a specific goal, leadership should appreciate that this project is expected to improve patient safety.
2. Be SMART about goals
Many QI projects fail because the scope of the initial project is too large, unrealistic, or vague. Creating a clear and focused aim statement and keeping it “SMART” (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timely) will bring structure to the project.1 “We will reduce Congestive Heart Failure readmissions on 5 medicine units at our hospital by 2.5% in 6 months” is an example of a SMART aim statement.
3. Involve the right people from the start
QI project disasters often start with the wrong team. Select members based on who is needed and not who is available. It is critical to include representatives or “champions” from each area that will be affected. People will buy into a new methodology much more quickly if they were engaged in its development or know that respected members in their area were involved.
4. Use a simple, systematic approach to guide improvement work
Various QI models exist and each offers a systematic approach for assessing and improving care services. The Model for Improvement developed by the Associates in Process Improvement2 is a simple and powerful framework for quality improvement that asks three questions: (1) What are we trying to accomplish? (2) How will we know a change is an improvement? (3) What changes can we make that will result in improvement? The model incorporates Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles to test changes on a small scale.
5. Good projects start with good background data
6. Choose interventions that are high impact, low effort
People will more easily change if the change itself is easy. So consider the question “does this intervention add significant work?” The best interventions change a process without causing undue burden to the clinicians and staff involved.
7. If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it
After implementation, collect enough data to know whether the changes made improved the process. Study outcome, process, and balancing measures. If possible, use data already being collected by your institution. While it is critical to have quantitative measures, qualitative data such as surveys and observations can also enrich understanding.
Example: Increasing early discharges in medical unit.
Outcome measure – This is the desired outcome that the project aims to improve. This may be the percentage of discharges before noon (DBN) or the average discharge time.
Process measure – This is a measure of a specific change made to improve the outcome metric. The discharge orders may need to be placed earlier in the electronic medical record to improve DBN. This average discharge order time is an example of a process measure.
Balance measure – This metric evaluates whether the intended outcome is leading to unintended consequences. For example, tracking the readmission rate is an important balance measure to assess whether improved DBN is associated with rushed discharges and possible unsafe transitions.
8. Communicate project goals and progress
9. Manage resistance to change
“People responsible for planning and implementing change often forget that while the first task of change management is to understand the destination and how to get there, the first task of transition management is to convince people to leave home.” – William Bridges
Inertia is powerful. We may consider our continuous performance improvement initiative as “the next big thing” but others may not share this enthusiasm. We therefore need to build a compelling reason for others to become engaged and accept major changes to work flow. Different strategies may be needed depending on your audience. Though for some, data and a rational analysis will be persuasive, for others the emotional argument will be the most motivating. Share personal anecdotes and use patient stories. In addition, let providers know “what’s in it for them.” Some may have a personal interest in your project or may need QI experience for career advancement; others might be motivated by the possibilities for scholarship arising from this work.
10. Make the work count twice
Consider QI as a scholarly initiative from the start to bring rigor to the project at all phases. Describe the project in an abstract or manuscript once improvements have been made. Publication is a great way to boost team morale and help make a business case for future improvement work. The Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) guidelines provide an excellent framework for designing and writing up an improvement project.4 The guidelines focus on why the project was started, what was done, what was found, and what the findings mean.
Driving change is challenging, and it is tempting to jump ahead to “fixing the problem.” But implementing a successful QI project requires intelligent direction, strategic planning, and skillful execution. It is our hope that following the above tips will help you develop the best possible ideas and approach implementation in a systematic way, ultimately leading to meaningful change.
Dr. Reyna is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine and unit medical director at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City. She is a Certified Clinical Microsystems Coach. Dr. Burger is associate professor and associate program director, internal medicine residency, at Mount Sinai Beth Israel. He is on the faculty for the SGIM Annual Meeting Precourse on QI and is head of the high value care committee at the department of medicine at Mount Sinai Beth Israel. Dr. Cho is assistant professor and director of quality and safety in the division of hospital medicine at Mount Sinai. He is a senior fellow at the Lown Institute.
References
1. MacLeod L. Making SMART goals smarter. Physician Exec. 2012 Mar-Apr;38(2):68-70, 72.
2. Langley GL, Moen R, Nolan KM, Nolan TW, Norman CL, Provost LP. The Improvement Guide: A Practical Approach to Enhancing Organizational Performance (2nd edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 2009.
3. Nelson EC, Batalden PB, Godfrey MM. Quality By Design: A Clinical Microsystems Approach. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass; 2007.
4. Ogrinc G, Davies L, Goodman D et.al. SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015 Sep 14.
Postoperative Clostridium Difficile Infection Associated with Number of Antibiotics, Surgical Procedure Complexity
Clinical question: What are the factors that increase risk of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in postoperative patients?
Background: CDI has become an important infectious etiology for morbidity, lengthy and costly hospital admissions, and mortality. This study focused on the risks for postoperative patients to be infected with C. diff. Awareness of the risk factors for CDI allows for processes to be implemented that can decrease the rate of infection.
Study design: Retrospective, observational study.
Setting: Multiple Veterans Health Administration surgery programs.
Synopsis: The study investigated 468,386 surgical procedures in 134 surgical programs in 12 subspecialties over a four-year period. Overall, the postoperative CDI rate was 0.4% per year. Rates were higher in emergency or complex procedures, older patients, patients with longer preoperative hospital stays, and those who received three or more classes of antibiotics. CDI in postoperative patients was associated with five times higher risk of mortality, a 12 times higher risk of morbidity, and longer hospital stays (17.9 versus 3.6 days) compared with those without CDI. Further studies with a larger population size will confirm the findings of this study.
The study was conducted on middle-aged to elderly male veterans, and it can only be assumed that these results will translate to other populations. Nevertheless, CDI can lead to significant morbidity and mortality, and the study reinforces the importance of infection control and prevention to reduce CDI incidence and disease severity.
Bottom line: Postoperative CDI is significantly associated with the number of postoperative antibiotics, surgical procedure complexity, preoperative length of stay, and patient comorbidities.
Citation: Li X, Wilson M, Nylander W, Smith T, Lynn M, Gunnar W. Analysis of morbidity and mortality outcomes in postoperative Clostridium difficile infection in the Veterans Health Administration. JAMA Surg. 2015;25:1-9.
Clinical question: What are the factors that increase risk of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in postoperative patients?
Background: CDI has become an important infectious etiology for morbidity, lengthy and costly hospital admissions, and mortality. This study focused on the risks for postoperative patients to be infected with C. diff. Awareness of the risk factors for CDI allows for processes to be implemented that can decrease the rate of infection.
Study design: Retrospective, observational study.
Setting: Multiple Veterans Health Administration surgery programs.
Synopsis: The study investigated 468,386 surgical procedures in 134 surgical programs in 12 subspecialties over a four-year period. Overall, the postoperative CDI rate was 0.4% per year. Rates were higher in emergency or complex procedures, older patients, patients with longer preoperative hospital stays, and those who received three or more classes of antibiotics. CDI in postoperative patients was associated with five times higher risk of mortality, a 12 times higher risk of morbidity, and longer hospital stays (17.9 versus 3.6 days) compared with those without CDI. Further studies with a larger population size will confirm the findings of this study.
The study was conducted on middle-aged to elderly male veterans, and it can only be assumed that these results will translate to other populations. Nevertheless, CDI can lead to significant morbidity and mortality, and the study reinforces the importance of infection control and prevention to reduce CDI incidence and disease severity.
Bottom line: Postoperative CDI is significantly associated with the number of postoperative antibiotics, surgical procedure complexity, preoperative length of stay, and patient comorbidities.
Citation: Li X, Wilson M, Nylander W, Smith T, Lynn M, Gunnar W. Analysis of morbidity and mortality outcomes in postoperative Clostridium difficile infection in the Veterans Health Administration. JAMA Surg. 2015;25:1-9.
Clinical question: What are the factors that increase risk of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in postoperative patients?
Background: CDI has become an important infectious etiology for morbidity, lengthy and costly hospital admissions, and mortality. This study focused on the risks for postoperative patients to be infected with C. diff. Awareness of the risk factors for CDI allows for processes to be implemented that can decrease the rate of infection.
Study design: Retrospective, observational study.
Setting: Multiple Veterans Health Administration surgery programs.
Synopsis: The study investigated 468,386 surgical procedures in 134 surgical programs in 12 subspecialties over a four-year period. Overall, the postoperative CDI rate was 0.4% per year. Rates were higher in emergency or complex procedures, older patients, patients with longer preoperative hospital stays, and those who received three or more classes of antibiotics. CDI in postoperative patients was associated with five times higher risk of mortality, a 12 times higher risk of morbidity, and longer hospital stays (17.9 versus 3.6 days) compared with those without CDI. Further studies with a larger population size will confirm the findings of this study.
The study was conducted on middle-aged to elderly male veterans, and it can only be assumed that these results will translate to other populations. Nevertheless, CDI can lead to significant morbidity and mortality, and the study reinforces the importance of infection control and prevention to reduce CDI incidence and disease severity.
Bottom line: Postoperative CDI is significantly associated with the number of postoperative antibiotics, surgical procedure complexity, preoperative length of stay, and patient comorbidities.
Citation: Li X, Wilson M, Nylander W, Smith T, Lynn M, Gunnar W. Analysis of morbidity and mortality outcomes in postoperative Clostridium difficile infection in the Veterans Health Administration. JAMA Surg. 2015;25:1-9.
Most Postoperative Readmissions Due to Patient Factors
Clinical question: What is the etiology of 30-day readmissions in postoperative patients?
Background: As the focus of healthcare changes to a quality-focused model, readmissions impact physicians, reimbursements, and patients. Understanding the cause of readmissions becomes essential to preventing them. The etiology of 30-day readmissions in postoperative patients has not specifically been studied.
Study design: Retrospective analysis.
Setting: Academic tertiary-care center.
Synopsis: Using administrative claims data, an analysis of 22,559 patients who underwent a major surgical procedure between 2009 and 2013 was performed. A total of 56 surgeons within eight surgical subspecialties were analyzed, showing that variation in 30-day readmissions was largely due to patient-specific factors (82.8%) while only a minority were attributable to surgical subspecialty (14.5%) and individual surgeon levels (2.8%). Factors associated with readmission included race/ethnicity, comorbidities, postoperative complications, and extended length of stay.
Further studies within this area will need to be conducted focusing on one specific subspecialty and one surgeon to exclude confounding factors. Additional meta-analysis can then compare these individual studies. A larger population and multiple care centers will also further validate the findings. Understanding the cause of the readmissions in postoperative patients can prevent further readmissions, improve quality of care, and decrease healthcare costs. If patient factors are identified as a major cause for readmissions in postoperative patients, changes in preoperative management may need to be made.
Bottom line: Postoperative readmissions are more dependent on patient factors than surgeon- or surgical subspecialty-specific factors.
Citation: Gani F, Lucas DJ, Kim Y, Schneider EB, Pawlik TM. Understanding variation in 30-day surgical readmission in the era of accountable care: effect of the patient, surgeon, and surgical subspecialties. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(11):1042-1049.
Clinical question: What is the etiology of 30-day readmissions in postoperative patients?
Background: As the focus of healthcare changes to a quality-focused model, readmissions impact physicians, reimbursements, and patients. Understanding the cause of readmissions becomes essential to preventing them. The etiology of 30-day readmissions in postoperative patients has not specifically been studied.
Study design: Retrospective analysis.
Setting: Academic tertiary-care center.
Synopsis: Using administrative claims data, an analysis of 22,559 patients who underwent a major surgical procedure between 2009 and 2013 was performed. A total of 56 surgeons within eight surgical subspecialties were analyzed, showing that variation in 30-day readmissions was largely due to patient-specific factors (82.8%) while only a minority were attributable to surgical subspecialty (14.5%) and individual surgeon levels (2.8%). Factors associated with readmission included race/ethnicity, comorbidities, postoperative complications, and extended length of stay.
Further studies within this area will need to be conducted focusing on one specific subspecialty and one surgeon to exclude confounding factors. Additional meta-analysis can then compare these individual studies. A larger population and multiple care centers will also further validate the findings. Understanding the cause of the readmissions in postoperative patients can prevent further readmissions, improve quality of care, and decrease healthcare costs. If patient factors are identified as a major cause for readmissions in postoperative patients, changes in preoperative management may need to be made.
Bottom line: Postoperative readmissions are more dependent on patient factors than surgeon- or surgical subspecialty-specific factors.
Citation: Gani F, Lucas DJ, Kim Y, Schneider EB, Pawlik TM. Understanding variation in 30-day surgical readmission in the era of accountable care: effect of the patient, surgeon, and surgical subspecialties. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(11):1042-1049.
Clinical question: What is the etiology of 30-day readmissions in postoperative patients?
Background: As the focus of healthcare changes to a quality-focused model, readmissions impact physicians, reimbursements, and patients. Understanding the cause of readmissions becomes essential to preventing them. The etiology of 30-day readmissions in postoperative patients has not specifically been studied.
Study design: Retrospective analysis.
Setting: Academic tertiary-care center.
Synopsis: Using administrative claims data, an analysis of 22,559 patients who underwent a major surgical procedure between 2009 and 2013 was performed. A total of 56 surgeons within eight surgical subspecialties were analyzed, showing that variation in 30-day readmissions was largely due to patient-specific factors (82.8%) while only a minority were attributable to surgical subspecialty (14.5%) and individual surgeon levels (2.8%). Factors associated with readmission included race/ethnicity, comorbidities, postoperative complications, and extended length of stay.
Further studies within this area will need to be conducted focusing on one specific subspecialty and one surgeon to exclude confounding factors. Additional meta-analysis can then compare these individual studies. A larger population and multiple care centers will also further validate the findings. Understanding the cause of the readmissions in postoperative patients can prevent further readmissions, improve quality of care, and decrease healthcare costs. If patient factors are identified as a major cause for readmissions in postoperative patients, changes in preoperative management may need to be made.
Bottom line: Postoperative readmissions are more dependent on patient factors than surgeon- or surgical subspecialty-specific factors.
Citation: Gani F, Lucas DJ, Kim Y, Schneider EB, Pawlik TM. Understanding variation in 30-day surgical readmission in the era of accountable care: effect of the patient, surgeon, and surgical subspecialties. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(11):1042-1049.
Ischemic Hepatitis Associated with High Inpatient Mortality
Clinical question: What is the incidence and outcome of patients with ischemic hepatitis?
Background: Ischemic hepatitis, or shock liver, is often diagnosed in patients with massive increase in aminotransferase levels most often exceeding 1000 IU/L in the setting of hepatic hypoperfusion. The data on overall incidence and mortality of these patients are limited.
Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Setting: Variable.
Synopsis: Using a combination of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, the study included 24 papers on incidence and outcomes of ischemic hepatitis published between 1965 and 2015 with a combined total of 1,782 cases. The incidence of ischemic hepatitis varied based on patient location with incidence of 2/1000 in all inpatient admissions and 2.5/100 in ICU admissions. The majority of patients suffered from cardiac comorbidities and decompensation during their admission. Inpatient mortality with ischemic hepatitis was 49%.
Interestingly, only 52.9% of patients had an episode of documented hypotension.
Hospitalists taking care of patients with massive rise in aminotransferases should consider ischemic hepatitis higher in their differential, even in the absence of documented hypotension.
There was significant variability in study design, sample size, and inclusion criteria among the studies, which reduces generalizability of this systematic review.
Bottom line: Ischemic hepatitis is associated with very high mortality and should be suspected in patients with high levels of alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase even in the absence of documented hypotension.
Citation: Tapper EB, Sengupta N, Bonder A. The incidence and outcomes of ischemic hepatitis: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Am J Med. 2015;128(12):1314-1321.
Short Take
Music Can Help Ease Pain and Anxiety after Surgery
A systematic review and meta-analysis showed that music reduces pain and anxiety and decreases the need for pain medication in postoperative patients regardless of type of music or at what interval of the operative period the music was initiated.
Citation: Hole J, Hirsch M, Ball E, Meads C. Music as an aid for postoperative recovery in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2015;386(10004):1659-1671
Clinical question: What is the incidence and outcome of patients with ischemic hepatitis?
Background: Ischemic hepatitis, or shock liver, is often diagnosed in patients with massive increase in aminotransferase levels most often exceeding 1000 IU/L in the setting of hepatic hypoperfusion. The data on overall incidence and mortality of these patients are limited.
Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Setting: Variable.
Synopsis: Using a combination of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, the study included 24 papers on incidence and outcomes of ischemic hepatitis published between 1965 and 2015 with a combined total of 1,782 cases. The incidence of ischemic hepatitis varied based on patient location with incidence of 2/1000 in all inpatient admissions and 2.5/100 in ICU admissions. The majority of patients suffered from cardiac comorbidities and decompensation during their admission. Inpatient mortality with ischemic hepatitis was 49%.
Interestingly, only 52.9% of patients had an episode of documented hypotension.
Hospitalists taking care of patients with massive rise in aminotransferases should consider ischemic hepatitis higher in their differential, even in the absence of documented hypotension.
There was significant variability in study design, sample size, and inclusion criteria among the studies, which reduces generalizability of this systematic review.
Bottom line: Ischemic hepatitis is associated with very high mortality and should be suspected in patients with high levels of alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase even in the absence of documented hypotension.
Citation: Tapper EB, Sengupta N, Bonder A. The incidence and outcomes of ischemic hepatitis: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Am J Med. 2015;128(12):1314-1321.
Short Take
Music Can Help Ease Pain and Anxiety after Surgery
A systematic review and meta-analysis showed that music reduces pain and anxiety and decreases the need for pain medication in postoperative patients regardless of type of music or at what interval of the operative period the music was initiated.
Citation: Hole J, Hirsch M, Ball E, Meads C. Music as an aid for postoperative recovery in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2015;386(10004):1659-1671
Clinical question: What is the incidence and outcome of patients with ischemic hepatitis?
Background: Ischemic hepatitis, or shock liver, is often diagnosed in patients with massive increase in aminotransferase levels most often exceeding 1000 IU/L in the setting of hepatic hypoperfusion. The data on overall incidence and mortality of these patients are limited.
Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Setting: Variable.
Synopsis: Using a combination of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, the study included 24 papers on incidence and outcomes of ischemic hepatitis published between 1965 and 2015 with a combined total of 1,782 cases. The incidence of ischemic hepatitis varied based on patient location with incidence of 2/1000 in all inpatient admissions and 2.5/100 in ICU admissions. The majority of patients suffered from cardiac comorbidities and decompensation during their admission. Inpatient mortality with ischemic hepatitis was 49%.
Interestingly, only 52.9% of patients had an episode of documented hypotension.
Hospitalists taking care of patients with massive rise in aminotransferases should consider ischemic hepatitis higher in their differential, even in the absence of documented hypotension.
There was significant variability in study design, sample size, and inclusion criteria among the studies, which reduces generalizability of this systematic review.
Bottom line: Ischemic hepatitis is associated with very high mortality and should be suspected in patients with high levels of alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase even in the absence of documented hypotension.
Citation: Tapper EB, Sengupta N, Bonder A. The incidence and outcomes of ischemic hepatitis: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Am J Med. 2015;128(12):1314-1321.
Short Take
Music Can Help Ease Pain and Anxiety after Surgery
A systematic review and meta-analysis showed that music reduces pain and anxiety and decreases the need for pain medication in postoperative patients regardless of type of music or at what interval of the operative period the music was initiated.
Citation: Hole J, Hirsch M, Ball E, Meads C. Music as an aid for postoperative recovery in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2015;386(10004):1659-1671
AIMS65 Score Helps Predict Inpatient Mortality in Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleed
Clinical question: Does AIMS65 risk stratification score predict inpatient mortality in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleed (UGIB)?
Background: Acute UGIB is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, which makes it crucial to identify high-risk patients early. Several prognostic algorithms such as Glasgow-Blatchford (GBS) and pre-endoscopy (pre-RS) and post-endoscopy (post-RS) Rockall scores are available to triage such patients. The goal of this study was to validate AIMS65 score as a predictor of inpatient mortality in patients with acute UGIB compared to these other prognostic scores.
Study Design: Retrospective, cohort study.
Setting: Tertiary-care center in Australia, January 2010 to June 2013.
Synopsis: Using ICD-10 diagnosis codes, investigators identified 424 patients with UGIB requiring endoscopy. All patients were risk-stratified using AIMS65, GBS, pre-RS, and post-RS. The AIMS65 score was found to be superior in predicting inpatient mortality compared to GBS and pre-RS scores and statistically superior to all other scores in predicting need for ICU admission.
In addition to being a single-center, retrospective study, other limitations include the use of ICD-10 codes to identify patients. Further prospective studies are needed to further validate the AIMS65 in acute UGIB.
Bottom line: AIMS65 is a simple and useful tool in predicting inpatient mortality in patients with acute UGIB. However, its applicability in making clinical decisions remains unclear.
Citation: Robertson M, Majumdar A, Boyapati R, et al. Risk stratification in acute upper GI bleeding: comparison of the AIMS65 score with the Glasgow-Blatchford and Rockall scoring systems [published online ahead of print October 16, 2015]. Gastrointest Endosc. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2015.10.021.
Clinical question: Does AIMS65 risk stratification score predict inpatient mortality in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleed (UGIB)?
Background: Acute UGIB is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, which makes it crucial to identify high-risk patients early. Several prognostic algorithms such as Glasgow-Blatchford (GBS) and pre-endoscopy (pre-RS) and post-endoscopy (post-RS) Rockall scores are available to triage such patients. The goal of this study was to validate AIMS65 score as a predictor of inpatient mortality in patients with acute UGIB compared to these other prognostic scores.
Study Design: Retrospective, cohort study.
Setting: Tertiary-care center in Australia, January 2010 to June 2013.
Synopsis: Using ICD-10 diagnosis codes, investigators identified 424 patients with UGIB requiring endoscopy. All patients were risk-stratified using AIMS65, GBS, pre-RS, and post-RS. The AIMS65 score was found to be superior in predicting inpatient mortality compared to GBS and pre-RS scores and statistically superior to all other scores in predicting need for ICU admission.
In addition to being a single-center, retrospective study, other limitations include the use of ICD-10 codes to identify patients. Further prospective studies are needed to further validate the AIMS65 in acute UGIB.
Bottom line: AIMS65 is a simple and useful tool in predicting inpatient mortality in patients with acute UGIB. However, its applicability in making clinical decisions remains unclear.
Citation: Robertson M, Majumdar A, Boyapati R, et al. Risk stratification in acute upper GI bleeding: comparison of the AIMS65 score with the Glasgow-Blatchford and Rockall scoring systems [published online ahead of print October 16, 2015]. Gastrointest Endosc. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2015.10.021.
Clinical question: Does AIMS65 risk stratification score predict inpatient mortality in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleed (UGIB)?
Background: Acute UGIB is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, which makes it crucial to identify high-risk patients early. Several prognostic algorithms such as Glasgow-Blatchford (GBS) and pre-endoscopy (pre-RS) and post-endoscopy (post-RS) Rockall scores are available to triage such patients. The goal of this study was to validate AIMS65 score as a predictor of inpatient mortality in patients with acute UGIB compared to these other prognostic scores.
Study Design: Retrospective, cohort study.
Setting: Tertiary-care center in Australia, January 2010 to June 2013.
Synopsis: Using ICD-10 diagnosis codes, investigators identified 424 patients with UGIB requiring endoscopy. All patients were risk-stratified using AIMS65, GBS, pre-RS, and post-RS. The AIMS65 score was found to be superior in predicting inpatient mortality compared to GBS and pre-RS scores and statistically superior to all other scores in predicting need for ICU admission.
In addition to being a single-center, retrospective study, other limitations include the use of ICD-10 codes to identify patients. Further prospective studies are needed to further validate the AIMS65 in acute UGIB.
Bottom line: AIMS65 is a simple and useful tool in predicting inpatient mortality in patients with acute UGIB. However, its applicability in making clinical decisions remains unclear.
Citation: Robertson M, Majumdar A, Boyapati R, et al. Risk stratification in acute upper GI bleeding: comparison of the AIMS65 score with the Glasgow-Blatchford and Rockall scoring systems [published online ahead of print October 16, 2015]. Gastrointest Endosc. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2015.10.021.
No Mortality Benefit to Cardiac Catheterization in Patients with Stable Ischemic Heart Disease
Clinical question: Can cardiac catheterization prolong survival in patients with stable ischemic heart disease?
Background: Previous results from the COURAGE trial found no benefit of percutaneous intervention (PCI) as compared to medical therapy on a composite endpoint of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction or in total mortality at 4.6 years follow-up. The authors now report 15-year follow-up of the same patients.
Study design: Randomized, controlled trial.
Setting: The majority of the patients were from Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers, although non-VA hospitals in the U.S. also were included.
Synopsis: Originally, 2,287 patients with stable ischemic heart disease and either an abnormal stress test or evidence of ischemia on ECG, as well at least 70% stenosis on angiography, were randomized to medical therapy or medical therapy plus PCI. Now, investigators have obtained extended follow-up information for 1,211 of the original patients (53%). They concluded that after 15 years of follow-up, there was no survival difference for the patients who initially received PCI in addition to medical management.
One limitation of the study was that it did not reflect important advances in both medical and interventional management of ischemic heart disease that have taken place since the study was conducted, which may affect patient mortality. It is also noteworthy that the investigators were unable to determine how many patients in the medical management group subsequently underwent revascularization after the study concluded and therefore may have crossed over between groups. Nevertheless, for now it appears that the major utility of PCI in stable ischemic heart disease is in symptomatic management.
Bottom Line: After 15 years of follow-up, there was still no mortality benefit to PCI as compared to optimal medical therapy for stable ischemic heart disease.
Citation: Sedlis SP, Hartigan PM, Teo KK, et al. Effect of PCI on long-term survival in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(20):1937-1946
Short Take
Cauti Infections Are Rarely Clinically Relevant and Associated with Low Complication Rate
A single-center retrospective study in the ICU setting shows that the definition of catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) is nonspecific and they’re mostly diagnosed when urine cultures are sent for workup of fever. Most of the time, there are alternative explanations for the fever.
Citation: Tedja R, Wentink J, O’Horo J, Thompson R, Sampathkumar P et al. Catheter-associated urinary tract infections in intensive care unit patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015;36(11):1330-1334.
Clinical question: Can cardiac catheterization prolong survival in patients with stable ischemic heart disease?
Background: Previous results from the COURAGE trial found no benefit of percutaneous intervention (PCI) as compared to medical therapy on a composite endpoint of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction or in total mortality at 4.6 years follow-up. The authors now report 15-year follow-up of the same patients.
Study design: Randomized, controlled trial.
Setting: The majority of the patients were from Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers, although non-VA hospitals in the U.S. also were included.
Synopsis: Originally, 2,287 patients with stable ischemic heart disease and either an abnormal stress test or evidence of ischemia on ECG, as well at least 70% stenosis on angiography, were randomized to medical therapy or medical therapy plus PCI. Now, investigators have obtained extended follow-up information for 1,211 of the original patients (53%). They concluded that after 15 years of follow-up, there was no survival difference for the patients who initially received PCI in addition to medical management.
One limitation of the study was that it did not reflect important advances in both medical and interventional management of ischemic heart disease that have taken place since the study was conducted, which may affect patient mortality. It is also noteworthy that the investigators were unable to determine how many patients in the medical management group subsequently underwent revascularization after the study concluded and therefore may have crossed over between groups. Nevertheless, for now it appears that the major utility of PCI in stable ischemic heart disease is in symptomatic management.
Bottom Line: After 15 years of follow-up, there was still no mortality benefit to PCI as compared to optimal medical therapy for stable ischemic heart disease.
Citation: Sedlis SP, Hartigan PM, Teo KK, et al. Effect of PCI on long-term survival in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(20):1937-1946
Short Take
Cauti Infections Are Rarely Clinically Relevant and Associated with Low Complication Rate
A single-center retrospective study in the ICU setting shows that the definition of catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) is nonspecific and they’re mostly diagnosed when urine cultures are sent for workup of fever. Most of the time, there are alternative explanations for the fever.
Citation: Tedja R, Wentink J, O’Horo J, Thompson R, Sampathkumar P et al. Catheter-associated urinary tract infections in intensive care unit patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015;36(11):1330-1334.
Clinical question: Can cardiac catheterization prolong survival in patients with stable ischemic heart disease?
Background: Previous results from the COURAGE trial found no benefit of percutaneous intervention (PCI) as compared to medical therapy on a composite endpoint of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction or in total mortality at 4.6 years follow-up. The authors now report 15-year follow-up of the same patients.
Study design: Randomized, controlled trial.
Setting: The majority of the patients were from Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers, although non-VA hospitals in the U.S. also were included.
Synopsis: Originally, 2,287 patients with stable ischemic heart disease and either an abnormal stress test or evidence of ischemia on ECG, as well at least 70% stenosis on angiography, were randomized to medical therapy or medical therapy plus PCI. Now, investigators have obtained extended follow-up information for 1,211 of the original patients (53%). They concluded that after 15 years of follow-up, there was no survival difference for the patients who initially received PCI in addition to medical management.
One limitation of the study was that it did not reflect important advances in both medical and interventional management of ischemic heart disease that have taken place since the study was conducted, which may affect patient mortality. It is also noteworthy that the investigators were unable to determine how many patients in the medical management group subsequently underwent revascularization after the study concluded and therefore may have crossed over between groups. Nevertheless, for now it appears that the major utility of PCI in stable ischemic heart disease is in symptomatic management.
Bottom Line: After 15 years of follow-up, there was still no mortality benefit to PCI as compared to optimal medical therapy for stable ischemic heart disease.
Citation: Sedlis SP, Hartigan PM, Teo KK, et al. Effect of PCI on long-term survival in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(20):1937-1946
Short Take
Cauti Infections Are Rarely Clinically Relevant and Associated with Low Complication Rate
A single-center retrospective study in the ICU setting shows that the definition of catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) is nonspecific and they’re mostly diagnosed when urine cultures are sent for workup of fever. Most of the time, there are alternative explanations for the fever.
Citation: Tedja R, Wentink J, O’Horo J, Thompson R, Sampathkumar P et al. Catheter-associated urinary tract infections in intensive care unit patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015;36(11):1330-1334.
Increase in Broad-Spectrum Antibiotics Disproportionate to Rate of Resistant Organisms
Clinical question: Have healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP) guidelines improved treatment accuracy?
Background: Guidelines released in 2005 call for the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics for patients presenting with pneumonia who have had recent healthcare exposure. However, there is scant evidence to support the risk factors they identify, and the guidelines are likely to increase use of broad-spectrum antibiotics.
Study design: Observational, retrospective.
Setting: VA medical centers, 2006–2010.
Synopsis: In this study, VA medical center physicians evaluated 95,511 hospitalizations for pneumonia at 128 hospitals between 2006 and 2010, the years following the 2005 guidelines. Annual analyses were performed to assess antibiotics selection as well as evidence of resistant bacteria from blood and respiratory cultures. Researchers found that while the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics increased drastically during the study period (vancomycin from 16% to 31% and piperacillin-tazobactam from 16% to 27%, P<0.001 for both), the incidence of resistant organisms either decreased or remained stable.
Additionally, physicians were no better at matching broad-spectrum antibiotics to patients infected with resistant organisms at the end of the study period than they were at the start. They conclude that more research is urgently needed to identify patients at risk for resistant organisms in order to more appropriately prescribe broad-spectrum antibiotics.
This study did not evaluate patients’ clinical outcomes, so it is unclear whether they may have benefitted clinically from the implementation of the guidelines. For now, the optimal approach to empiric therapy for HCAP remains undefined.
Bottom line: Despite a marked increase in the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics for HCAP in the years following a change in treatment guidelines, doctors showed no improvement at matching these antibiotics to patients infected with resistant organisms.
Citation: Jones BE, Jones MM, Huttner B, et al. Trends in antibiotic use and nosocomial pathogens in hospitalized veterans with pneumonia at 128 medical centers, 2006-2010. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;61(9):1403-1410.
Clinical question: Have healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP) guidelines improved treatment accuracy?
Background: Guidelines released in 2005 call for the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics for patients presenting with pneumonia who have had recent healthcare exposure. However, there is scant evidence to support the risk factors they identify, and the guidelines are likely to increase use of broad-spectrum antibiotics.
Study design: Observational, retrospective.
Setting: VA medical centers, 2006–2010.
Synopsis: In this study, VA medical center physicians evaluated 95,511 hospitalizations for pneumonia at 128 hospitals between 2006 and 2010, the years following the 2005 guidelines. Annual analyses were performed to assess antibiotics selection as well as evidence of resistant bacteria from blood and respiratory cultures. Researchers found that while the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics increased drastically during the study period (vancomycin from 16% to 31% and piperacillin-tazobactam from 16% to 27%, P<0.001 for both), the incidence of resistant organisms either decreased or remained stable.
Additionally, physicians were no better at matching broad-spectrum antibiotics to patients infected with resistant organisms at the end of the study period than they were at the start. They conclude that more research is urgently needed to identify patients at risk for resistant organisms in order to more appropriately prescribe broad-spectrum antibiotics.
This study did not evaluate patients’ clinical outcomes, so it is unclear whether they may have benefitted clinically from the implementation of the guidelines. For now, the optimal approach to empiric therapy for HCAP remains undefined.
Bottom line: Despite a marked increase in the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics for HCAP in the years following a change in treatment guidelines, doctors showed no improvement at matching these antibiotics to patients infected with resistant organisms.
Citation: Jones BE, Jones MM, Huttner B, et al. Trends in antibiotic use and nosocomial pathogens in hospitalized veterans with pneumonia at 128 medical centers, 2006-2010. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;61(9):1403-1410.
Clinical question: Have healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP) guidelines improved treatment accuracy?
Background: Guidelines released in 2005 call for the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics for patients presenting with pneumonia who have had recent healthcare exposure. However, there is scant evidence to support the risk factors they identify, and the guidelines are likely to increase use of broad-spectrum antibiotics.
Study design: Observational, retrospective.
Setting: VA medical centers, 2006–2010.
Synopsis: In this study, VA medical center physicians evaluated 95,511 hospitalizations for pneumonia at 128 hospitals between 2006 and 2010, the years following the 2005 guidelines. Annual analyses were performed to assess antibiotics selection as well as evidence of resistant bacteria from blood and respiratory cultures. Researchers found that while the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics increased drastically during the study period (vancomycin from 16% to 31% and piperacillin-tazobactam from 16% to 27%, P<0.001 for both), the incidence of resistant organisms either decreased or remained stable.
Additionally, physicians were no better at matching broad-spectrum antibiotics to patients infected with resistant organisms at the end of the study period than they were at the start. They conclude that more research is urgently needed to identify patients at risk for resistant organisms in order to more appropriately prescribe broad-spectrum antibiotics.
This study did not evaluate patients’ clinical outcomes, so it is unclear whether they may have benefitted clinically from the implementation of the guidelines. For now, the optimal approach to empiric therapy for HCAP remains undefined.
Bottom line: Despite a marked increase in the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics for HCAP in the years following a change in treatment guidelines, doctors showed no improvement at matching these antibiotics to patients infected with resistant organisms.
Citation: Jones BE, Jones MM, Huttner B, et al. Trends in antibiotic use and nosocomial pathogens in hospitalized veterans with pneumonia at 128 medical centers, 2006-2010. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;61(9):1403-1410.
Discontinuing Inhaled Corticosteroids in COPD Reduces Risk of Pneumonia
Clinical question: Is discontinuation of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) in patients with COPD associated with a decreased risk of pneumonia?
Background: ICSs are used in up to 85% of patients treated for COPD but may be associated with adverse systemic side effects including pneumonia. Trials looking at weaning patients off ICSs and replacing with long-acting bronchodilators have found few adverse outcomes; however, the benefits of discontinuation on adverse events, including pneumonia, have been unclear.
Study design: Case-control study.
Setting: Quebec health systems.
Synopsis: Using the Quebec health insurance databases, a study cohort of 103,386 patients with COPD on ICSs was created. Patients were followed for a mean of 4.9 years; 14,020 patients who were hospitalized for pneumonia or died from pneumonia outside the hospital were matched to control subjects. Discontinuation of ICSs was associated with a 37% decrease in serious pneumonia (relative risk [RR] 0.63; 95% CI, 0.60–0.66). The risk reduction occurred as early as one month after discontinuation of ICSs. Risk reduction was greater with fluticasone (RR 0.58; 95% CI, 0.54–0.61) than with budesonide (RR 0.87; 95% CI, 0.7–0.97).
Population size and follow-up may contribute to why risk reduction in pneumonia was seen in this study but not in other recent randomized trials on discontinuation of ICSs. A limitation of this study was its observational design; however, its results suggest that use of ICSs in COPD patients should be highly selective, as indiscriminate use can subject patients to elevated risk of hospitalization or death from pneumonia.
Bottom line: Discontinuation of ICSs in patients with COPD is associated with a decreased risk of contracting serious pneumonia. This reduction appears greatest with fluticasone.
Citation: Suissa S, Coulombe J, Ernst P. Discontinuation of inhaled corticosteroids in COPD and the risk reduction of pneumonia. Chest. 2015;148(5):1177-1183.
Short Take
Increase in Rates of Prescription Drug Use and Polypharmacy Seen
The percentage of Americans who reported taking prescription medications increased substantially from 1999 to 2012 (51% to 59%), as did the percentage who reported taking at least five prescription medications.
Citation: Kantor ED, Rehm CD, Haas JS, Chan AT, Giovannucci EL. Trends in prescription drug use among adults in the United States from 1999-2012. JAMA. 2015;314(17):1818-1830.
Clinical question: Is discontinuation of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) in patients with COPD associated with a decreased risk of pneumonia?
Background: ICSs are used in up to 85% of patients treated for COPD but may be associated with adverse systemic side effects including pneumonia. Trials looking at weaning patients off ICSs and replacing with long-acting bronchodilators have found few adverse outcomes; however, the benefits of discontinuation on adverse events, including pneumonia, have been unclear.
Study design: Case-control study.
Setting: Quebec health systems.
Synopsis: Using the Quebec health insurance databases, a study cohort of 103,386 patients with COPD on ICSs was created. Patients were followed for a mean of 4.9 years; 14,020 patients who were hospitalized for pneumonia or died from pneumonia outside the hospital were matched to control subjects. Discontinuation of ICSs was associated with a 37% decrease in serious pneumonia (relative risk [RR] 0.63; 95% CI, 0.60–0.66). The risk reduction occurred as early as one month after discontinuation of ICSs. Risk reduction was greater with fluticasone (RR 0.58; 95% CI, 0.54–0.61) than with budesonide (RR 0.87; 95% CI, 0.7–0.97).
Population size and follow-up may contribute to why risk reduction in pneumonia was seen in this study but not in other recent randomized trials on discontinuation of ICSs. A limitation of this study was its observational design; however, its results suggest that use of ICSs in COPD patients should be highly selective, as indiscriminate use can subject patients to elevated risk of hospitalization or death from pneumonia.
Bottom line: Discontinuation of ICSs in patients with COPD is associated with a decreased risk of contracting serious pneumonia. This reduction appears greatest with fluticasone.
Citation: Suissa S, Coulombe J, Ernst P. Discontinuation of inhaled corticosteroids in COPD and the risk reduction of pneumonia. Chest. 2015;148(5):1177-1183.
Short Take
Increase in Rates of Prescription Drug Use and Polypharmacy Seen
The percentage of Americans who reported taking prescription medications increased substantially from 1999 to 2012 (51% to 59%), as did the percentage who reported taking at least five prescription medications.
Citation: Kantor ED, Rehm CD, Haas JS, Chan AT, Giovannucci EL. Trends in prescription drug use among adults in the United States from 1999-2012. JAMA. 2015;314(17):1818-1830.
Clinical question: Is discontinuation of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) in patients with COPD associated with a decreased risk of pneumonia?
Background: ICSs are used in up to 85% of patients treated for COPD but may be associated with adverse systemic side effects including pneumonia. Trials looking at weaning patients off ICSs and replacing with long-acting bronchodilators have found few adverse outcomes; however, the benefits of discontinuation on adverse events, including pneumonia, have been unclear.
Study design: Case-control study.
Setting: Quebec health systems.
Synopsis: Using the Quebec health insurance databases, a study cohort of 103,386 patients with COPD on ICSs was created. Patients were followed for a mean of 4.9 years; 14,020 patients who were hospitalized for pneumonia or died from pneumonia outside the hospital were matched to control subjects. Discontinuation of ICSs was associated with a 37% decrease in serious pneumonia (relative risk [RR] 0.63; 95% CI, 0.60–0.66). The risk reduction occurred as early as one month after discontinuation of ICSs. Risk reduction was greater with fluticasone (RR 0.58; 95% CI, 0.54–0.61) than with budesonide (RR 0.87; 95% CI, 0.7–0.97).
Population size and follow-up may contribute to why risk reduction in pneumonia was seen in this study but not in other recent randomized trials on discontinuation of ICSs. A limitation of this study was its observational design; however, its results suggest that use of ICSs in COPD patients should be highly selective, as indiscriminate use can subject patients to elevated risk of hospitalization or death from pneumonia.
Bottom line: Discontinuation of ICSs in patients with COPD is associated with a decreased risk of contracting serious pneumonia. This reduction appears greatest with fluticasone.
Citation: Suissa S, Coulombe J, Ernst P. Discontinuation of inhaled corticosteroids in COPD and the risk reduction of pneumonia. Chest. 2015;148(5):1177-1183.
Short Take
Increase in Rates of Prescription Drug Use and Polypharmacy Seen
The percentage of Americans who reported taking prescription medications increased substantially from 1999 to 2012 (51% to 59%), as did the percentage who reported taking at least five prescription medications.
Citation: Kantor ED, Rehm CD, Haas JS, Chan AT, Giovannucci EL. Trends in prescription drug use among adults in the United States from 1999-2012. JAMA. 2015;314(17):1818-1830.
MEDS Score for Sepsis Might Best Predict ED Mortality
Clinical question: Which illness severity score best predicts outcomes in emergency department (ED) patients presenting with infection?
Background: Several scoring models have been developed to predict illness severity and mortality in patients with infection. Some scores were developed specifically for patients with sepsis and others for patients in a general critical care setting. These different scoring models have not been specifically compared and validated in the ED setting in patients with infection of various severities.
Study design: Prospective, observational study.
Setting: Adult ED in a metropolitan tertiary, university-affiliated hospital.
Synopsis: Investigators prospectively identified 8,871 adult inpatients with infection from a single-center ED. Data to calculate five prediction models were collected. The models were:
- Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis (MEDS) score;
- Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II);
- Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II);
- Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA); and
- Severe Sepsis Score (SSS).
Severity score performance was assessed for the overall cohort and for subgroups, including infection without systemic inflammatory response syndrome, sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock. The MEDS score best predicted mortality in the cohort, with an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.92. However, older scoring models such as the APACHE II and SAPS II still discriminated well, especially in patients who were admitted to the ICU. All scores tended to overestimate mortality.
Bottom line: The MEDS score may best predict illness severity in septic patients presenting to the ED, but other scoring models may be better-suited for specific patient populations.
Citation: Williams JM, Greenslade JH, Chu K, Brown AF, Lipman J. Severity scores in emergency department patients with presumed infection: a prospective validation study. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(3):539-547.
Clinical question: Which illness severity score best predicts outcomes in emergency department (ED) patients presenting with infection?
Background: Several scoring models have been developed to predict illness severity and mortality in patients with infection. Some scores were developed specifically for patients with sepsis and others for patients in a general critical care setting. These different scoring models have not been specifically compared and validated in the ED setting in patients with infection of various severities.
Study design: Prospective, observational study.
Setting: Adult ED in a metropolitan tertiary, university-affiliated hospital.
Synopsis: Investigators prospectively identified 8,871 adult inpatients with infection from a single-center ED. Data to calculate five prediction models were collected. The models were:
- Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis (MEDS) score;
- Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II);
- Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II);
- Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA); and
- Severe Sepsis Score (SSS).
Severity score performance was assessed for the overall cohort and for subgroups, including infection without systemic inflammatory response syndrome, sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock. The MEDS score best predicted mortality in the cohort, with an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.92. However, older scoring models such as the APACHE II and SAPS II still discriminated well, especially in patients who were admitted to the ICU. All scores tended to overestimate mortality.
Bottom line: The MEDS score may best predict illness severity in septic patients presenting to the ED, but other scoring models may be better-suited for specific patient populations.
Citation: Williams JM, Greenslade JH, Chu K, Brown AF, Lipman J. Severity scores in emergency department patients with presumed infection: a prospective validation study. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(3):539-547.
Clinical question: Which illness severity score best predicts outcomes in emergency department (ED) patients presenting with infection?
Background: Several scoring models have been developed to predict illness severity and mortality in patients with infection. Some scores were developed specifically for patients with sepsis and others for patients in a general critical care setting. These different scoring models have not been specifically compared and validated in the ED setting in patients with infection of various severities.
Study design: Prospective, observational study.
Setting: Adult ED in a metropolitan tertiary, university-affiliated hospital.
Synopsis: Investigators prospectively identified 8,871 adult inpatients with infection from a single-center ED. Data to calculate five prediction models were collected. The models were:
- Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis (MEDS) score;
- Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II);
- Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II);
- Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA); and
- Severe Sepsis Score (SSS).
Severity score performance was assessed for the overall cohort and for subgroups, including infection without systemic inflammatory response syndrome, sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock. The MEDS score best predicted mortality in the cohort, with an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.92. However, older scoring models such as the APACHE II and SAPS II still discriminated well, especially in patients who were admitted to the ICU. All scores tended to overestimate mortality.
Bottom line: The MEDS score may best predict illness severity in septic patients presenting to the ED, but other scoring models may be better-suited for specific patient populations.
Citation: Williams JM, Greenslade JH, Chu K, Brown AF, Lipman J. Severity scores in emergency department patients with presumed infection: a prospective validation study. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(3):539-547.
Continuous Chest Compressions Do Not Improve Outcome Compared to Chest Compressions Interrupted for Ventilation
Clinical question: In cardiopulmonary resuscitation, do continuous chest compressions improve survival or neurologic outcome compared to chest compressions interrupted for ventilation?
Background: Animal models have demonstrated that interruptions in chest compressions are associated with decreased survival and worse neurologic outcome in cardiac arrests. Observational studies in humans have suggested that for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, continuous compressions result in improved survival.
Study Design: Unblinded, randomized, cluster design with crossover.
Setting: One hundred fourteen emergency medical service (EMS) agencies across eight clinical sites in North America.
Synopsis: Patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest received either continuous chest compressions with asynchronous positive-pressure ventilations or interrupted compressions at a rate of 30 compressions to two ventilations. EMS agencies were divided into clusters and randomly assigned to deliver either resuscitation strategy. Twice per year, each cluster switched treatment strategies.
During the active enrollment phase, 12,653 patients were enrolled in the intervention arm and 11,058 were enrolled in the control arm. The primary outcome of survival to hospital discharge was comparable between the two groups, with 9.0% survival rate in the intervention group as compared to 9.7% in the control group (P=0.07). The secondary outcome of survivorship with favorable neurologic status was similar at 7.0% in the intervention group and 7.7% in the control group.
There was only a small difference in the proportion of minutes devoted to compressions between the two groups, so the similarity in outcomes may be reflective of high-quality chest compressions. Additional limitations include a lack of standardization of post-resuscitation care and a lack of measurement of oxygen or ventilation delivered.
Bottom line: For out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, continuous chest compressions with positive-pressure ventilation did not increase survival or improve neurologic outcome compared to interrupted chest compressions.
Citation: Nichol G, Lerou B, Wang H, et al. Trial of continuous or interrupted chest compressions during CPR. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(23):2203-2214.
Clinical question: In cardiopulmonary resuscitation, do continuous chest compressions improve survival or neurologic outcome compared to chest compressions interrupted for ventilation?
Background: Animal models have demonstrated that interruptions in chest compressions are associated with decreased survival and worse neurologic outcome in cardiac arrests. Observational studies in humans have suggested that for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, continuous compressions result in improved survival.
Study Design: Unblinded, randomized, cluster design with crossover.
Setting: One hundred fourteen emergency medical service (EMS) agencies across eight clinical sites in North America.
Synopsis: Patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest received either continuous chest compressions with asynchronous positive-pressure ventilations or interrupted compressions at a rate of 30 compressions to two ventilations. EMS agencies were divided into clusters and randomly assigned to deliver either resuscitation strategy. Twice per year, each cluster switched treatment strategies.
During the active enrollment phase, 12,653 patients were enrolled in the intervention arm and 11,058 were enrolled in the control arm. The primary outcome of survival to hospital discharge was comparable between the two groups, with 9.0% survival rate in the intervention group as compared to 9.7% in the control group (P=0.07). The secondary outcome of survivorship with favorable neurologic status was similar at 7.0% in the intervention group and 7.7% in the control group.
There was only a small difference in the proportion of minutes devoted to compressions between the two groups, so the similarity in outcomes may be reflective of high-quality chest compressions. Additional limitations include a lack of standardization of post-resuscitation care and a lack of measurement of oxygen or ventilation delivered.
Bottom line: For out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, continuous chest compressions with positive-pressure ventilation did not increase survival or improve neurologic outcome compared to interrupted chest compressions.
Citation: Nichol G, Lerou B, Wang H, et al. Trial of continuous or interrupted chest compressions during CPR. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(23):2203-2214.
Clinical question: In cardiopulmonary resuscitation, do continuous chest compressions improve survival or neurologic outcome compared to chest compressions interrupted for ventilation?
Background: Animal models have demonstrated that interruptions in chest compressions are associated with decreased survival and worse neurologic outcome in cardiac arrests. Observational studies in humans have suggested that for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, continuous compressions result in improved survival.
Study Design: Unblinded, randomized, cluster design with crossover.
Setting: One hundred fourteen emergency medical service (EMS) agencies across eight clinical sites in North America.
Synopsis: Patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest received either continuous chest compressions with asynchronous positive-pressure ventilations or interrupted compressions at a rate of 30 compressions to two ventilations. EMS agencies were divided into clusters and randomly assigned to deliver either resuscitation strategy. Twice per year, each cluster switched treatment strategies.
During the active enrollment phase, 12,653 patients were enrolled in the intervention arm and 11,058 were enrolled in the control arm. The primary outcome of survival to hospital discharge was comparable between the two groups, with 9.0% survival rate in the intervention group as compared to 9.7% in the control group (P=0.07). The secondary outcome of survivorship with favorable neurologic status was similar at 7.0% in the intervention group and 7.7% in the control group.
There was only a small difference in the proportion of minutes devoted to compressions between the two groups, so the similarity in outcomes may be reflective of high-quality chest compressions. Additional limitations include a lack of standardization of post-resuscitation care and a lack of measurement of oxygen or ventilation delivered.
Bottom line: For out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, continuous chest compressions with positive-pressure ventilation did not increase survival or improve neurologic outcome compared to interrupted chest compressions.
Citation: Nichol G, Lerou B, Wang H, et al. Trial of continuous or interrupted chest compressions during CPR. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(23):2203-2214.