Sanjay Saint MD, MPH

“Takers believe in a zero-sum world, and they end up creating one where bosses, colleagues and clients don’t trust them. Givers build deeper and broader relationships—people are rooting for them instead of gunning for them.”

—Adam Grant

To succeed in a hospital, leaders need a generous supply of social and political capital. House officers learn this very quickly, especially when they are relying on other members of the healthcare team to obtain tests and studies for their patients and calling for specialty consultations. To be successful and efficient, building relationships and trust is key. Such capital, unfortunately, takes time to develop. Therefore, healthcare leaders and clinicians at all levels of training need to make an everyday investment of goodwill and friendliness with those they encounter. The dividends may be slow in coming, but they are substantial and sustained. Friends give you the benefit of the doubt—and help you when you are most in need.

Having friends (or friendly colleagues) at work is beneficial both professionally and personally. The benefits of social interactions have been studied for years and even more so in recent times with the dramatic increase in the use of handheld devices. Eye contact between casual acquaintances passing each other in the hallway is replaced with eyes focused downward on smartphones. The result? We are becoming more socially isolated. Our personal solution? When we see professional colleagues (or patients and families in the hallways of our hospital), we nod in acknowledgement with appropriate eye contact and say “Good morning” or “Hello” even if we don’t know them—even if their eyes are focused on their devices as they walk past you in the hallway. You get a gold star if you remember the names of the professional colleagues you see frequently in the hallways or around the hospital.

This isn’t soft science; it’s backed by hard data. When we conduct site visits of different hospitals around the country to help them improve their care quality and performance, we informally divide hospitals into two groups: The “How ya doin’?” hospitals vs the “Rec-Ignore” hospitals (in which employees recognize a colleague in the hallway but choose to not acknowledge them). Most prefer to work at a “How ya doin’?” hospital. Being friendly has been linked to increased team spirit and morale, knowledge sharing, trust, prevention of burnout, and sense of a positive working environment. It also makes you feel better about yourself—and makes other people feel similarly as well.

We’ll share an example from a search for a new department chair. The dean went on reverse site visits to meet the two finalists in their home institutions and asked them for tours of their hospitals. Candidate A walked around and it seemed like everyone knew her. She smiled and said hello to the people she came in contact with during the tour. Not so for candidate B—just the opposite. Guess which candidate the dean hired?

Put away your phone, interact with your colleagues, and learn to make small talk, and not just with your supervisors or peers. Chitchat is an important “social lubricant,” fostering a sense of community and teamwork. It helps bring down the divides that come from organizational hierarchies. It helps endear you to your staff.

Developing a reputation as a nice person who is quick with a smile and even quicker with a “How ya doin’?” pays off in the end. This reputation also makes it easier to give bad news, something that all leaders must do at some point. So make a friend before you need one—it usually will pay dividends.

“Takers believe in a zero-sum world, and they end up creating one where bosses, colleagues and clients don’t trust them. Givers build deeper and broader relationships—people are rooting for them instead of gunning for them.”

—Adam Grant

To succeed in a hospital, leaders need a generous supply of social and political capital. House officers learn this very quickly, especially when they are relying on other members of the healthcare team to obtain tests and studies for their patients and calling for specialty consultations. To be successful and efficient, building relationships and trust is key. Such capital, unfortunately, takes time to develop. Therefore, healthcare leaders and clinicians at all levels of training need to make an everyday investment of goodwill and friendliness with those they encounter. The dividends may be slow in coming, but they are substantial and sustained. Friends give you the benefit of the doubt—and help you when you are most in need.

Having friends (or friendly colleagues) at work is beneficial both professionally and personally. The benefits of social interactions have been studied for years and even more so in recent times with the dramatic increase in the use of handheld devices. Eye contact between casual acquaintances passing each other in the hallway is replaced with eyes focused downward on smartphones. The result? We are becoming more socially isolated. Our personal solution? When we see professional colleagues (or patients and families in the hallways of our hospital), we nod in acknowledgement with appropriate eye contact and say “Good morning” or “Hello” even if we don’t know them—even if their eyes are focused on their devices as they walk past you in the hallway. You get a gold star if you remember the names of the professional colleagues you see frequently in the hallways or around the hospital.

This isn’t soft science; it’s backed by hard data. When we conduct site visits of different hospitals around the country to help them improve their care quality and performance, we informally divide hospitals into two groups: The “How ya doin’?” hospitals vs the “Rec-Ignore” hospitals (in which employees recognize a colleague in the hallway but choose to not acknowledge them). Most prefer to work at a “How ya doin’?” hospital. Being friendly has been linked to increased team spirit and morale, knowledge sharing, trust, prevention of burnout, and sense of a positive working environment. It also makes you feel better about yourself—and makes other people feel similarly as well.

We’ll share an example from a search for a new department chair. The dean went on reverse site visits to meet the two finalists in their home institutions and asked them for tours of their hospitals. Candidate A walked around and it seemed like everyone knew her. She smiled and said hello to the people she came in contact with during the tour. Not so for candidate B—just the opposite. Guess which candidate the dean hired?

Put away your phone, interact with your colleagues, and learn to make small talk, and not just with your supervisors or peers. Chitchat is an important “social lubricant,” fostering a sense of community and teamwork. It helps bring down the divides that come from organizational hierarchies. It helps endear you to your staff.

Developing a reputation as a nice person who is quick with a smile and even quicker with a “How ya doin’?” pays off in the end. This reputation also makes it easier to give bad news, something that all leaders must do at some point. So make a friend before you need one—it usually will pay dividends.

“Takers believe in a zero-sum world, and they end up creating one where bosses, colleagues and clients don’t trust them. Givers build deeper and broader relationships—people are rooting for them instead of gunning for them.”

—Adam Grant

To succeed in a hospital, leaders need a generous supply of social and political capital. House officers learn this very quickly, especially when they are relying on other members of the healthcare team to obtain tests and studies for their patients and calling for specialty consultations. To be successful and efficient, building relationships and trust is key. Such capital, unfortunately, takes time to develop. Therefore, healthcare leaders and clinicians at all levels of training need to make an everyday investment of goodwill and friendliness with those they encounter. The dividends may be slow in coming, but they are substantial and sustained. Friends give you the benefit of the doubt—and help you when you are most in need.

Having friends (or friendly colleagues) at work is beneficial both professionally and personally. The benefits of social interactions have been studied for years and even more so in recent times with the dramatic increase in the use of handheld devices. Eye contact between casual acquaintances passing each other in the hallway is replaced with eyes focused downward on smartphones. The result? We are becoming more socially isolated. Our personal solution? When we see professional colleagues (or patients and families in the hallways of our hospital), we nod in acknowledgement with appropriate eye contact and say “Good morning” or “Hello” even if we don’t know them—even if their eyes are focused on their devices as they walk past you in the hallway. You get a gold star if you remember the names of the professional colleagues you see frequently in the hallways or around the hospital.

This isn’t soft science; it’s backed by hard data. When we conduct site visits of different hospitals around the country to help them improve their care quality and performance, we informally divide hospitals into two groups: The “How ya doin’?” hospitals vs the “Rec-Ignore” hospitals (in which employees recognize a colleague in the hallway but choose to not acknowledge them). Most prefer to work at a “How ya doin’?” hospital. Being friendly has been linked to increased team spirit and morale, knowledge sharing, trust, prevention of burnout, and sense of a positive working environment. It also makes you feel better about yourself—and makes other people feel similarly as well.

We’ll share an example from a search for a new department chair. The dean went on reverse site visits to meet the two finalists in their home institutions and asked them for tours of their hospitals. Candidate A walked around and it seemed like everyone knew her. She smiled and said hello to the people she came in contact with during the tour. Not so for candidate B—just the opposite. Guess which candidate the dean hired?

Put away your phone, interact with your colleagues, and learn to make small talk, and not just with your supervisors or peers. Chitchat is an important “social lubricant,” fostering a sense of community and teamwork. It helps bring down the divides that come from organizational hierarchies. It helps endear you to your staff.

Developing a reputation as a nice person who is quick with a smile and even quicker with a “How ya doin’?” pays off in the end. This reputation also makes it easier to give bad news, something that all leaders must do at some point. So make a friend before you need one—it usually will pay dividends.

We thank Dr. Santhosh and colleagues for their letter concerning our article.¹ We agree that the diagnostic journey includes interactions both between and across teams, not just those within the patient’s team. In an article currently in press in Diagnosis, we examine how systems and cognitive factors interact during the process of diagnosis. Specifically, we reported on how communication between consultants can be both a barrier and facilitator to the diagnostic process.² We found that the frequency, quality, and pace of communication between and across inpatient teams and specialists are essential to timely diagnoses. As diagnostic errors remain a costly and morbid issue in the hospital setting, efforts to improve communication are clearly needed.³

Santhosh et al. raise an interesting point regarding cognitive load in evaluating diagnosis. Cognitive load is a multidimensional construct that represents the load that performing a specific task poses on a learner’s cognitive system.⁴ Components often used for measuring load include (a) task characteristics such as format, complexity, and time pressure; (b) subject characteristics such as expertise level, age, and spatial abilities; and (c) mental load and effort that originate from the interaction between task and subject characteristics.⁵ While there is little doubt that measuring these constructs has face value in diagnosis, we know of no instruments that are nimble, straightforward, or suitable for such measurement in the clinical setting. Furthermore, unlike handoffs (which lend themselves to structured frameworks), diagnostic evolution occurs across multiple individuals (from attendings to house staff and students), specialties (from emergency physicians to medical and surgical specialists), and over time. A unifying framework and tool to measure cognitive load across these elements would not only be novel, but a welcomed and much-needed component to facilitate diagnostic efforts. We hope that our ethnographic work will spur the development of these types of instruments and highlight opportunities for implementation. A future that both measures cognitive load and targets interventions to reduce or balance these across members of the diagnostic team would be welcomed.

Disclosures

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Funding

This project was supported by grant number P30HS024385 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The funding source played no role in study design, data acquisition, analysis or decision to report these data.

We thank Dr. Santhosh and colleagues for their letter concerning our article.¹ We agree that the diagnostic journey includes interactions both between and across teams, not just those within the patient’s team. In an article currently in press in Diagnosis, we examine how systems and cognitive factors interact during the process of diagnosis. Specifically, we reported on how communication between consultants can be both a barrier and facilitator to the diagnostic process.² We found that the frequency, quality, and pace of communication between and across inpatient teams and specialists are essential to timely diagnoses. As diagnostic errors remain a costly and morbid issue in the hospital setting, efforts to improve communication are clearly needed.³

Santhosh et al. raise an interesting point regarding cognitive load in evaluating diagnosis. Cognitive load is a multidimensional construct that represents the load that performing a specific task poses on a learner’s cognitive system.⁴ Components often used for measuring load include (a) task characteristics such as format, complexity, and time pressure; (b) subject characteristics such as expertise level, age, and spatial abilities; and (c) mental load and effort that originate from the interaction between task and subject characteristics.⁵ While there is little doubt that measuring these constructs has face value in diagnosis, we know of no instruments that are nimble, straightforward, or suitable for such measurement in the clinical setting. Furthermore, unlike handoffs (which lend themselves to structured frameworks), diagnostic evolution occurs across multiple individuals (from attendings to house staff and students), specialties (from emergency physicians to medical and surgical specialists), and over time. A unifying framework and tool to measure cognitive load across these elements would not only be novel, but a welcomed and much-needed component to facilitate diagnostic efforts. We hope that our ethnographic work will spur the development of these types of instruments and highlight opportunities for implementation. A future that both measures cognitive load and targets interventions to reduce or balance these across members of the diagnostic team would be welcomed.

Disclosures

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Funding

This project was supported by grant number P30HS024385 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The funding source played no role in study design, data acquisition, analysis or decision to report these data.

We thank Dr. Santhosh and colleagues for their letter concerning our article.¹ We agree that the diagnostic journey includes interactions both between and across teams, not just those within the patient’s team. In an article currently in press in Diagnosis, we examine how systems and cognitive factors interact during the process of diagnosis. Specifically, we reported on how communication between consultants can be both a barrier and facilitator to the diagnostic process.² We found that the frequency, quality, and pace of communication between and across inpatient teams and specialists are essential to timely diagnoses. As diagnostic errors remain a costly and morbid issue in the hospital setting, efforts to improve communication are clearly needed.³

Santhosh et al. raise an interesting point regarding cognitive load in evaluating diagnosis. Cognitive load is a multidimensional construct that represents the load that performing a specific task poses on a learner’s cognitive system.⁴ Components often used for measuring load include (a) task characteristics such as format, complexity, and time pressure; (b) subject characteristics such as expertise level, age, and spatial abilities; and (c) mental load and effort that originate from the interaction between task and subject characteristics.⁵ While there is little doubt that measuring these constructs has face value in diagnosis, we know of no instruments that are nimble, straightforward, or suitable for such measurement in the clinical setting. Furthermore, unlike handoffs (which lend themselves to structured frameworks), diagnostic evolution occurs across multiple individuals (from attendings to house staff and students), specialties (from emergency physicians to medical and surgical specialists), and over time. A unifying framework and tool to measure cognitive load across these elements would not only be novel, but a welcomed and much-needed component to facilitate diagnostic efforts. We hope that our ethnographic work will spur the development of these types of instruments and highlight opportunities for implementation. A future that both measures cognitive load and targets interventions to reduce or balance these across members of the diagnostic team would be welcomed.

Disclosures

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Funding

This project was supported by grant number P30HS024385 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The funding source played no role in study design, data acquisition, analysis or decision to report these data.

Given the limited number of geriatricians in the U.S., hospitalists commonly manage nursing home residents admitted for post-acute care.^1-4 Urinary tract infection (UTI) is one of the most common infections in nursing homes, often leading to sepsis and readmission to acute care.⁵ Inappropriate use of antibiotics to treat asymptomatic bacteriuria is both common and hazardous to nursing home residents.⁶ Up to 10% of nursing home residents will have an indwelling urinary catheter at some point during their stay.^7-9 Residents with indwelling urinary catheters are at increased risk for catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) and bacteriuria, with an estimated 50% of catheterized residents developing symptomatic CAUTI.⁵ While urinary catheter prevalence is lower in nursing homes than in the acute care setting, duration of use is often prolonged.^7,10 In a setting where utilization is low, but use is prolonged, interventions designed to reduce UTI in acutely ill patients¹¹ may not be as helpful for preventing infection in nursing home residents.

Our objective was to review the available evidence to prevent UTIs in nursing home residents to inform both bedside care and research efforts. Two types of literature review and summary were performed. First, we conducted a systematic review of individual studies reporting outcomes of UTI, CAUTI, bacteriuria, or urinary catheter use after interventions for reducing catheter use, improving insertion and maintenance of catheters, and/or general infection prevention strategies (eg, improving hand hygiene, infection surveillance, contact precautions, standardizing UTI diagnosis, and antibiotic use). Second, we performed a narrative review to generate an overview of evidence and published recommendations in both acute care and nursing home settings to prevent UTI in catheterized and non-catheterized older adults, which is provided as a comprehensive reference table for clinicians and researchers choosing and refining interventions to reduce UTIs.

The systematic review was performed according to the criteria of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis recommendations. The protocol was registered at the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, (CRD42013005787). The narrative review was performed using the articles obtained from the systematic search and a targeted literature review by topic for a comprehensive list of interventions, including other interventions summarized in published reviews and guidelines.

Eligibility Criteria Review

Study Design. To address the breadth and depth of literature available to inform interventions to prevent UTI in nursing homes, broad eligibility criteria were applied with the expectation of varied designs and outcomes. All included studies for the systematic review were published manuscripts reporting a comparison group. We included randomized controlled trials as well as nonrandomized trials (pretest/posttest, with or without concurrent or nonconcurrent controls), with any duration of postintervention follow-up. Observational and retrospective studies were excluded.

Participants. We were interested in interventions and outcomes reported for nursing homes, defined as facilities providing short-stay skilled nursing care and/or rehabilitation, as well as long-term care. We also included evidence derived from rehabilitation facilities and spinal cord injury programs focused on reducing CAUTI risk for chronically catheterized residents. We excluded long-term acute care hospitals, hospice, psychiatric/mental health facilities, pediatric, and community dwelling/outpatient settings.

Interventions. We included interventions involving urinary catheter use such as improving appropriate use, aseptic placement, maintenance care, and prompting removal of unnecessary catheters. We included infection prevention strategies with a particular interest in hand hygiene, barrier precautions, infection control strategies, infection surveillance, use of standardized infection definitions, and interventions to improve antibiotic use. We included single and multiple interventions.

Outcomes
1. Healthcare-associated urinary tract infection: UTI occurring after admission to a healthcare facility, not identified specifically as catheter-associated. We categorized UTI outcomes with as much detail as provided, such as whether the reported outcome included only noncatheter-associated UTIs, the time required after admission (eg, more than 2 days), and whether the UTIs were defined by only laboratory criteria, clinically diagnosed infections, symptomatic, or long-term care specific surveillance definitions.

2. Catheter-associated urinary tract infection: UTI occurring in patients during or immediately after use of a urinary catheter. We noted whether CAUTI was defined by laboratory criteria, clinical symptoms, provider diagnosis, or antimicrobial treatment for case identification. We were primarily interested in CAUTI developing after placing an indwelling urinary catheter, commonly known as a Foley, but also in CAUTI occurring with other catheter types such as intermittent straight catheters, external or “condom” catheters, and suprapubic catheters.

3. Bacteriuria: We included the laboratory-based definition of bacteriuria as an outcome to include studies that reduced asymptomatic bacteriuria.

4. Urinary catheter use measures: This includes measures such as urinary catheter utilization ratios (catheter-days/patient-days), prevalence of urinary catheter use, or percentage of catheters with an appropriate indication.

Study Characteristics for Inclusion. Our systematic search included published papers in the English language. We did not exclude studies based on the number of facilities included or eligible, residents/patients included (based on age, gender, catheter use or type, or antibiotic use), intervention details, study withdrawal, loss to follow-up, death, or duration of pre-intervention and postintervention phases.

Data Sources and Searches

The following data sources were searched: Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to June 22, 2015), Cochrane Library via Wiley (1960 to June 22, 2015), CINAHL (1981 to June 22, 2015), Web of Science (1926 to June 22, 2015), and Embase.com (1946 to June 22, 2015). Two major systematic search strategies were performed for this review (Figure). Systematic search 1 was designed broadly using all data sources described above to identify interventions aimed at reducing all UTI events (defined under “Outcomes” above) or urinary catheter use (all types), focusing on interventions evaluated in nursing homes. Systematic search 2 was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE to identify studies to reduce UTI events or urinary catheter use measures for patients with a history of long-term or chronic catheter use, including nursing homes and other post-acute care settings such as rehabilitation units or hospitals and spinal cord injury programs, which have large populations of patients with chronic catheter needs. To inform the completeness of the broader systematic searches, supplemental systematic search strategies were performed for specific topics including hydration (supplemental search 1), published work by nursing home researchers known to the authors (supplemental search 2), and contact precautions (supplemental search 3). Search 1 is available at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42013005787. Full search strategies for search 2 and supplemental searches are available upon request.

Study Selection

One author performed an initial screen of all records retrieved by the systematic searches by title and abstract and applied the initial exclusions (eg, non-human, no outcomes of interest), identified duplicate records, and assigned potentially relevant studies into groups such as review articles, epidemiology, interventions, and articles requiring further text review before categorization (Figure). After initial screening, Dr. Meddings reviewed the records by title/abstract. Reference lists were reviewed for potential articles for inclusion. Full-text article review informed the selection of those for dual abstraction and quality scoring performed by 2 authors, with discrepancies resolved by a third author. We requested additional information from authors from whom our search had generated only an abstract or brief report, or when additional information such as pre-intervention data was needed.^12-18

Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

Relevant data regarding study design, participants, inclusion/exclusion criteria, outcomes, and quality criteria were abstracted independently by 2 authors. Methodological quality scores were assigned using a modification of the Quality index checklist developed by Downs and Black appropriate for assessing both randomized and nonrandomized studies of healthcare interventions.¹⁹ We also reviewed study funding sources and other potential quality concerns.

Data Analysis

Due to large trial heterogeneity among these studies about interventions and outcomes reported, outcome data could not be combined into summary measures for meta-analysis to give overall estimates of treatment effects.

Systematic Search Results and Study Selection

As detailed in the study flow diagram (Figure), 5794 total records were retrieved by systematic search 1 (4697 studies), search 2 (909 studies), and supplemental searches (188 studies). Hand searching of reference lists of 41 reviews (including narrative and systematic reviews) yielded 77 additional studies for consideration. Twenty-nine records on interventions that were the focus of systematic reviews, including topics of cranberry use, catheter coatings, antimicrobial prophylaxis, washout/irrigation strategies, and sterile versus clean intermittent straight catheterization, were excluded from dual abstraction. Two records were excluded after team discussion of the dual-abstraction results, because 1 study did not meet criteria as an intervention study and 1 study’s setting was not applicable in nursing homes. A total of 20 records^15,20-38 (in which 19 studies were described) were selected for final inclusion for detailed assessment and reporting for the systematic review.

Characteristics of Included Studies

Table 1 describes the 19 intervention studies in terms of design, participants, setting, and whether the study included specific categories of interventions expected to decrease UTI or catheter use. These studies included 8 randomized controlled trials (4 with cluster-randomization at the facility or unit level), 10 pre-post nonrandomized interventions, and 1 nonrandomized intervention with concurrent controls. Twelve studies included participants with or without catheters (ie, not limited to catheterized patients only) in nursing homes.^15,20-31 Seven^32-38 studies included catheterized patients only or settings with high expected catheterization rates; settings for these studies included spinal cord units (n=3), nursing homes (n=2), rehabilitation ward (n=1) and VA hospital (n=1), including acute care, nursing home, and rehabilitation units. Total quality scores for the studies ranged from 8 to 25 (median, 15), detailed in Supplemental Table 1.

As detailed in Table 1 and Supplemental Table 2, 7 studies^{22,24,26,31,32,35,36} involved single interventions and 12 studies^{15,20,21,23,25,27-30,33,34,37,38} included multiple interventions. Interventions to impact catheter use and care were evaluated in 13 studies, including appropriateness of use,^21,25,29,30 improving catheter maintenance care,^15,20,29,30 securement,^15,29,30,32 prompting removal of unnecessary catheters,^21,25,29,30 improving incontinence care,^15,21,23,25 bladder scanners,^37,38 catheter changes,³⁵and comparing alternatives (condom catheter or intermittent straight catheter) to use of an indwelling catheter.^36,38 None focused on improving aseptic insertion. General infection control practices studied included improving hand hygiene,^{20-22,29-31,33,34} improving antibiotic use,^{15,20,21,28,34} initiation of infection control programs,^20,21,28 interventions to improve identification of UTIs/CAUTIs using infection symptom/sign criteria,^15,20,21,34 infection surveillance as an intervention,^28-30,33,34 and barrier precautions,^33,34 including preemptive precautions for catheterized patients.³⁴ Hydration was assessed in 3 studies.^24-26

Outcomes of Included Studies

Table 2 describes the studies’ outcomes reported for UTI, CAUTI, or bacteriuria.^15,20-38 The outcome definitions of UTI and CAUTI varied widely. Only 2 studies^22,39 reported UTI outcomes using definitions specific for nursing home settings such as McGeer’s criteria⁴⁰ a detailed review and comparison of published CAUTI definitions used clinically and for surveillance in nursing homes is provided in Supplemental Table 3. Two studies reported symptomatic CAUTIs per 1000 catheter-days.^32,34 Another study²² reported symptomatic CAUTIs per 1000 resident-days. Three reported symptomatic CAUTIs as counts.^35,38 Saint et al³⁶ reported CAUTIs as part of a combined outcome (ie, bacteriuria, CAUTI, or death).

The 19 studies (Table 2) reported 12 UTI outcomes,^{15,20,21,23,25-31,33} 9 CAUTI outcomes,^{15,22,32,34,35,38} 4 bacteriuria outcomes,^24,36,38 and 5 catheter use outcomes.^{21,29,30,37,38} Five studies showed CAUTI reduction^{15,22,32,34,35} (1 significantly³⁴); 9 studies showed UTI reduction^{13,18,19,21,23-25,27,28,31} (none significantly); 2 studies showed bacteriuria reduction (none significantly). One study³⁶ reported 2 composite outcomes including bacteriuria or CAUTI or death, with statistically significant improvement reported for 1 composite measure. Four studies reported catheter use, with all showing reduced catheter use in the intervention group; however, only 1 achieved statistically significant reduction.³⁷

Synthesis of Systematic Review Results

Overall, many studies reported decreases in UTI, CAUTI, and urinary catheter use measures but without statistical significance, with many studies likely underpowered for our outcomes of interest. Often, the outcomes of interest in this systematic review were not the main outcome for which the study was designed and originally powered. The interventions studied included several currently implemented as part of CAUTI bundles in the acute care setting, such as improving catheter use, and care and infection control strategies. Other included interventions target common challenges specific to the nursing home setting such as removing indwelling catheters upon admission to the nursing home from an acute-care facility^21,25 and applying interventions to address incontinence by either general strategies^{21,23,25,30,38} or the use of an incontinence specialist²³ to provide individual treatment plans. The only intervention that demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in CAUTI in chronically catheterized patients employed a comprehensive program to improve antimicrobial use, hand hygiene (including hand hygiene and gloves for catheter care), and preemptive precautions for patients with devices, along with promotion of standardized CAUTI definitions and active multidrug resistant organism surveillance.³⁴

Narrative Review Results

Table 3 includes a comprehensive list of potential interventions that have been considered for prevention of UTI or CAUTI (including those in acute care and nursing home settings), as summarized from this systematic review and prior narrative or systematic reviews.^43-115

We performed a broad systematic review of strategies to decrease UTI, CAUTI, and urinary catheter use that may be helpful in nursing homes. While many studies reported decreased UTI, CAUTI, or urinary catheter use measures, few demonstrated statistically significant reductions perhaps because many were underpowered to assess statistical significance. Pooled analyses were not feasible to provide the expected impact of these interventions in the nursing home setting.

This review confirms that bundles of interventions for prevention of CAUTI have been implemented with some evidence of success in nursing home settings, with several components in common with those implemented in the acute care setting, such as hand hygiene and strategies to reduce and improve catheter use.⁴¹ Some studies focused on issues more common in nursing homes such as chronic catheterization and incontinence. A nursing home CAUTI bundle should be designed with the resources and challenges present in the nursing home environment in mind, and with recognition that, although the number of patients with catheters is less than in acute care, there will be more patients with chronic catheterization needs and incontinence.

Although catheter utilization in nursing homes is low, further reductions in catheter days and CAUTIs can be achieved. Catheter removal reminders and stop orders have demonstrated a greater than 50% reduction in CAUTIs in acute care settings;¹¹ an example of a stop-order intervention in nursing homes is trial removal of indwelling catheters present at facility admission without clear urologic need present at the time of admission.²⁵ Nursing home interventions to avoid catheter placement should include incontinence programs, discussion of alternatives to indwelling urinary catheters with patients, families, and frontline personnel, and urinary retention protocols. Programs to reduce CAUTI should include education to improve aseptic insertion, and to maintain awareness and proper care of catheters in place by regular assessment of catheter necessity, securement, hand hygiene, and preemptive barrier precautions for catheterized patients. Interventions that focus on improving appropriate use of urine tests and antibiotics to treat UTIs can also significantly affect the rates of reported symptomatic CAUTIs, with the potential to decrease unnecessary antibiotic use.^20,21

The main limitation of this review is that many studies provided little information about their intervention and definition of outcomes. The strength of this review is the detailed and broad search strategy applied with generous inclusion of interventions and outcomes to highlight the available evidence and details of interventions that have been studied and implemented.

This review synthesizes the current state of evidence and proposes strategies to reduce UTIs in nursing homes. Interventions that motivate catheter avoidance and catheter removal to prevent CAUTI in acute care¹¹ and nursing home settings are supported by the strongest available evidence, although the strength of that evidence is less in the nursing home setting. Limitations notwithstanding, interventions such as incontinence care planning and hydration programs can reduce UTI in this population and is important for overall wellbeing.

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the guidance that Vineet Chopra MD, MSc, provided regarding options for methodological quality assessment tools, and the assistance of Mary Rogers PhD, MS, in interpreting the published Downs and Black Quality Index items, which informed our modification of this tool for application in this study. The authors appreciate, also, the feedback provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Content and Materials Development Committee for the AHRQ Safety Program for Long-Term Care: Preventing CAUTI and other Healthcare-associated Infections.

Disclosures

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) contract #HHSA290201000025I provided funding for this study, which was developed in response to AHRQ Task Order #8 for ACTION II RFTO 26 CUSP for CAUTI in LTC. AHRQ developed the details of the task and provided comments on a draft report, which informed the report submitted to AHRQ in December 2013, used to inform the interventions for a national collaborative (http://www.hret.org/quality/projects/long-term-care-cauti.shtml). Dr. Meddings’s effort on this project was funded by concurrent effort from her AHRQ (K08 HS19767). Dr. Saint’s and Dr. Krein’s effort on this project was funded by concurrent effort from the Veterans Affairs National Center for Patient Safety, Ann Arbor Patient Safety Center of Inquiry. Dr. Meddings’s other research is funded by AHRQ (2R01HS018334-04), the NIH-LRP program, the VA National Center for Patient Safety, and the VA Ann Arbor Patient Safety Center of Inquiry. Dr. Krein’s other research is funded by a VA Health Services Research and Development Award (RCS 11-222). Dr. Mody’s other research is funded by VA Healthcare System Geriatric Research Clinical Care Center (GRECC), NIA-Pepper Center, NIA (R01AG032298, R01AG041780, K24AG050685-01). Dr. Saint has received fees for serving on advisory boards for Doximity and Jvion. All other authors report no financial conflicts of interest. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the sponsor, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, or the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. These analyses were presented in part as a poster presentation at the ID Week Annual Meeting on October 10, 2014 in Philadelphia, PA.

Given the limited number of geriatricians in the U.S., hospitalists commonly manage nursing home residents admitted for post-acute care.^1-4 Urinary tract infection (UTI) is one of the most common infections in nursing homes, often leading to sepsis and readmission to acute care.⁵ Inappropriate use of antibiotics to treat asymptomatic bacteriuria is both common and hazardous to nursing home residents.⁶ Up to 10% of nursing home residents will have an indwelling urinary catheter at some point during their stay.^7-9 Residents with indwelling urinary catheters are at increased risk for catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) and bacteriuria, with an estimated 50% of catheterized residents developing symptomatic CAUTI.⁵ While urinary catheter prevalence is lower in nursing homes than in the acute care setting, duration of use is often prolonged.^7,10 In a setting where utilization is low, but use is prolonged, interventions designed to reduce UTI in acutely ill patients¹¹ may not be as helpful for preventing infection in nursing home residents.

Our objective was to review the available evidence to prevent UTIs in nursing home residents to inform both bedside care and research efforts. Two types of literature review and summary were performed. First, we conducted a systematic review of individual studies reporting outcomes of UTI, CAUTI, bacteriuria, or urinary catheter use after interventions for reducing catheter use, improving insertion and maintenance of catheters, and/or general infection prevention strategies (eg, improving hand hygiene, infection surveillance, contact precautions, standardizing UTI diagnosis, and antibiotic use). Second, we performed a narrative review to generate an overview of evidence and published recommendations in both acute care and nursing home settings to prevent UTI in catheterized and non-catheterized older adults, which is provided as a comprehensive reference table for clinicians and researchers choosing and refining interventions to reduce UTIs.

The systematic review was performed according to the criteria of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis recommendations. The protocol was registered at the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, (CRD42013005787). The narrative review was performed using the articles obtained from the systematic search and a targeted literature review by topic for a comprehensive list of interventions, including other interventions summarized in published reviews and guidelines.

Eligibility Criteria Review

Study Design. To address the breadth and depth of literature available to inform interventions to prevent UTI in nursing homes, broad eligibility criteria were applied with the expectation of varied designs and outcomes. All included studies for the systematic review were published manuscripts reporting a comparison group. We included randomized controlled trials as well as nonrandomized trials (pretest/posttest, with or without concurrent or nonconcurrent controls), with any duration of postintervention follow-up. Observational and retrospective studies were excluded.

Participants. We were interested in interventions and outcomes reported for nursing homes, defined as facilities providing short-stay skilled nursing care and/or rehabilitation, as well as long-term care. We also included evidence derived from rehabilitation facilities and spinal cord injury programs focused on reducing CAUTI risk for chronically catheterized residents. We excluded long-term acute care hospitals, hospice, psychiatric/mental health facilities, pediatric, and community dwelling/outpatient settings.

Interventions. We included interventions involving urinary catheter use such as improving appropriate use, aseptic placement, maintenance care, and prompting removal of unnecessary catheters. We included infection prevention strategies with a particular interest in hand hygiene, barrier precautions, infection control strategies, infection surveillance, use of standardized infection definitions, and interventions to improve antibiotic use. We included single and multiple interventions.

Outcomes
1. Healthcare-associated urinary tract infection: UTI occurring after admission to a healthcare facility, not identified specifically as catheter-associated. We categorized UTI outcomes with as much detail as provided, such as whether the reported outcome included only noncatheter-associated UTIs, the time required after admission (eg, more than 2 days), and whether the UTIs were defined by only laboratory criteria, clinically diagnosed infections, symptomatic, or long-term care specific surveillance definitions.

2. Catheter-associated urinary tract infection: UTI occurring in patients during or immediately after use of a urinary catheter. We noted whether CAUTI was defined by laboratory criteria, clinical symptoms, provider diagnosis, or antimicrobial treatment for case identification. We were primarily interested in CAUTI developing after placing an indwelling urinary catheter, commonly known as a Foley, but also in CAUTI occurring with other catheter types such as intermittent straight catheters, external or “condom” catheters, and suprapubic catheters.

3. Bacteriuria: We included the laboratory-based definition of bacteriuria as an outcome to include studies that reduced asymptomatic bacteriuria.

4. Urinary catheter use measures: This includes measures such as urinary catheter utilization ratios (catheter-days/patient-days), prevalence of urinary catheter use, or percentage of catheters with an appropriate indication.

Study Characteristics for Inclusion. Our systematic search included published papers in the English language. We did not exclude studies based on the number of facilities included or eligible, residents/patients included (based on age, gender, catheter use or type, or antibiotic use), intervention details, study withdrawal, loss to follow-up, death, or duration of pre-intervention and postintervention phases.

Data Sources and Searches

The following data sources were searched: Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to June 22, 2015), Cochrane Library via Wiley (1960 to June 22, 2015), CINAHL (1981 to June 22, 2015), Web of Science (1926 to June 22, 2015), and Embase.com (1946 to June 22, 2015). Two major systematic search strategies were performed for this review (Figure). Systematic search 1 was designed broadly using all data sources described above to identify interventions aimed at reducing all UTI events (defined under “Outcomes” above) or urinary catheter use (all types), focusing on interventions evaluated in nursing homes. Systematic search 2 was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE to identify studies to reduce UTI events or urinary catheter use measures for patients with a history of long-term or chronic catheter use, including nursing homes and other post-acute care settings such as rehabilitation units or hospitals and spinal cord injury programs, which have large populations of patients with chronic catheter needs. To inform the completeness of the broader systematic searches, supplemental systematic search strategies were performed for specific topics including hydration (supplemental search 1), published work by nursing home researchers known to the authors (supplemental search 2), and contact precautions (supplemental search 3). Search 1 is available at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42013005787. Full search strategies for search 2 and supplemental searches are available upon request.

Study Selection

One author performed an initial screen of all records retrieved by the systematic searches by title and abstract and applied the initial exclusions (eg, non-human, no outcomes of interest), identified duplicate records, and assigned potentially relevant studies into groups such as review articles, epidemiology, interventions, and articles requiring further text review before categorization (Figure). After initial screening, Dr. Meddings reviewed the records by title/abstract. Reference lists were reviewed for potential articles for inclusion. Full-text article review informed the selection of those for dual abstraction and quality scoring performed by 2 authors, with discrepancies resolved by a third author. We requested additional information from authors from whom our search had generated only an abstract or brief report, or when additional information such as pre-intervention data was needed.^12-18

Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

Relevant data regarding study design, participants, inclusion/exclusion criteria, outcomes, and quality criteria were abstracted independently by 2 authors. Methodological quality scores were assigned using a modification of the Quality index checklist developed by Downs and Black appropriate for assessing both randomized and nonrandomized studies of healthcare interventions.¹⁹ We also reviewed study funding sources and other potential quality concerns.

Data Analysis

Due to large trial heterogeneity among these studies about interventions and outcomes reported, outcome data could not be combined into summary measures for meta-analysis to give overall estimates of treatment effects.

Systematic Search Results and Study Selection

As detailed in the study flow diagram (Figure), 5794 total records were retrieved by systematic search 1 (4697 studies), search 2 (909 studies), and supplemental searches (188 studies). Hand searching of reference lists of 41 reviews (including narrative and systematic reviews) yielded 77 additional studies for consideration. Twenty-nine records on interventions that were the focus of systematic reviews, including topics of cranberry use, catheter coatings, antimicrobial prophylaxis, washout/irrigation strategies, and sterile versus clean intermittent straight catheterization, were excluded from dual abstraction. Two records were excluded after team discussion of the dual-abstraction results, because 1 study did not meet criteria as an intervention study and 1 study’s setting was not applicable in nursing homes. A total of 20 records^15,20-38 (in which 19 studies were described) were selected for final inclusion for detailed assessment and reporting for the systematic review.

Characteristics of Included Studies

Table 1 describes the 19 intervention studies in terms of design, participants, setting, and whether the study included specific categories of interventions expected to decrease UTI or catheter use. These studies included 8 randomized controlled trials (4 with cluster-randomization at the facility or unit level), 10 pre-post nonrandomized interventions, and 1 nonrandomized intervention with concurrent controls. Twelve studies included participants with or without catheters (ie, not limited to catheterized patients only) in nursing homes.^15,20-31 Seven^32-38 studies included catheterized patients only or settings with high expected catheterization rates; settings for these studies included spinal cord units (n=3), nursing homes (n=2), rehabilitation ward (n=1) and VA hospital (n=1), including acute care, nursing home, and rehabilitation units. Total quality scores for the studies ranged from 8 to 25 (median, 15), detailed in Supplemental Table 1.

As detailed in Table 1 and Supplemental Table 2, 7 studies^{22,24,26,31,32,35,36} involved single interventions and 12 studies^{15,20,21,23,25,27-30,33,34,37,38} included multiple interventions. Interventions to impact catheter use and care were evaluated in 13 studies, including appropriateness of use,^21,25,29,30 improving catheter maintenance care,^15,20,29,30 securement,^15,29,30,32 prompting removal of unnecessary catheters,^21,25,29,30 improving incontinence care,^15,21,23,25 bladder scanners,^37,38 catheter changes,³⁵and comparing alternatives (condom catheter or intermittent straight catheter) to use of an indwelling catheter.^36,38 None focused on improving aseptic insertion. General infection control practices studied included improving hand hygiene,^{20-22,29-31,33,34} improving antibiotic use,^{15,20,21,28,34} initiation of infection control programs,^20,21,28 interventions to improve identification of UTIs/CAUTIs using infection symptom/sign criteria,^15,20,21,34 infection surveillance as an intervention,^28-30,33,34 and barrier precautions,^33,34 including preemptive precautions for catheterized patients.³⁴ Hydration was assessed in 3 studies.^24-26

Outcomes of Included Studies

Table 2 describes the studies’ outcomes reported for UTI, CAUTI, or bacteriuria.^15,20-38 The outcome definitions of UTI and CAUTI varied widely. Only 2 studies^22,39 reported UTI outcomes using definitions specific for nursing home settings such as McGeer’s criteria⁴⁰ a detailed review and comparison of published CAUTI definitions used clinically and for surveillance in nursing homes is provided in Supplemental Table 3. Two studies reported symptomatic CAUTIs per 1000 catheter-days.^32,34 Another study²² reported symptomatic CAUTIs per 1000 resident-days. Three reported symptomatic CAUTIs as counts.^35,38 Saint et al³⁶ reported CAUTIs as part of a combined outcome (ie, bacteriuria, CAUTI, or death).

The 19 studies (Table 2) reported 12 UTI outcomes,^{15,20,21,23,25-31,33} 9 CAUTI outcomes,^{15,22,32,34,35,38} 4 bacteriuria outcomes,^24,36,38 and 5 catheter use outcomes.^{21,29,30,37,38} Five studies showed CAUTI reduction^{15,22,32,34,35} (1 significantly³⁴); 9 studies showed UTI reduction^{13,18,19,21,23-25,27,28,31} (none significantly); 2 studies showed bacteriuria reduction (none significantly). One study³⁶ reported 2 composite outcomes including bacteriuria or CAUTI or death, with statistically significant improvement reported for 1 composite measure. Four studies reported catheter use, with all showing reduced catheter use in the intervention group; however, only 1 achieved statistically significant reduction.³⁷

Synthesis of Systematic Review Results

Overall, many studies reported decreases in UTI, CAUTI, and urinary catheter use measures but without statistical significance, with many studies likely underpowered for our outcomes of interest. Often, the outcomes of interest in this systematic review were not the main outcome for which the study was designed and originally powered. The interventions studied included several currently implemented as part of CAUTI bundles in the acute care setting, such as improving catheter use, and care and infection control strategies. Other included interventions target common challenges specific to the nursing home setting such as removing indwelling catheters upon admission to the nursing home from an acute-care facility^21,25 and applying interventions to address incontinence by either general strategies^{21,23,25,30,38} or the use of an incontinence specialist²³ to provide individual treatment plans. The only intervention that demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in CAUTI in chronically catheterized patients employed a comprehensive program to improve antimicrobial use, hand hygiene (including hand hygiene and gloves for catheter care), and preemptive precautions for patients with devices, along with promotion of standardized CAUTI definitions and active multidrug resistant organism surveillance.³⁴

Narrative Review Results

Table 3 includes a comprehensive list of potential interventions that have been considered for prevention of UTI or CAUTI (including those in acute care and nursing home settings), as summarized from this systematic review and prior narrative or systematic reviews.^43-115

We performed a broad systematic review of strategies to decrease UTI, CAUTI, and urinary catheter use that may be helpful in nursing homes. While many studies reported decreased UTI, CAUTI, or urinary catheter use measures, few demonstrated statistically significant reductions perhaps because many were underpowered to assess statistical significance. Pooled analyses were not feasible to provide the expected impact of these interventions in the nursing home setting.

This review confirms that bundles of interventions for prevention of CAUTI have been implemented with some evidence of success in nursing home settings, with several components in common with those implemented in the acute care setting, such as hand hygiene and strategies to reduce and improve catheter use.⁴¹ Some studies focused on issues more common in nursing homes such as chronic catheterization and incontinence. A nursing home CAUTI bundle should be designed with the resources and challenges present in the nursing home environment in mind, and with recognition that, although the number of patients with catheters is less than in acute care, there will be more patients with chronic catheterization needs and incontinence.

Although catheter utilization in nursing homes is low, further reductions in catheter days and CAUTIs can be achieved. Catheter removal reminders and stop orders have demonstrated a greater than 50% reduction in CAUTIs in acute care settings;¹¹ an example of a stop-order intervention in nursing homes is trial removal of indwelling catheters present at facility admission without clear urologic need present at the time of admission.²⁵ Nursing home interventions to avoid catheter placement should include incontinence programs, discussion of alternatives to indwelling urinary catheters with patients, families, and frontline personnel, and urinary retention protocols. Programs to reduce CAUTI should include education to improve aseptic insertion, and to maintain awareness and proper care of catheters in place by regular assessment of catheter necessity, securement, hand hygiene, and preemptive barrier precautions for catheterized patients. Interventions that focus on improving appropriate use of urine tests and antibiotics to treat UTIs can also significantly affect the rates of reported symptomatic CAUTIs, with the potential to decrease unnecessary antibiotic use.^20,21

The main limitation of this review is that many studies provided little information about their intervention and definition of outcomes. The strength of this review is the detailed and broad search strategy applied with generous inclusion of interventions and outcomes to highlight the available evidence and details of interventions that have been studied and implemented.

This review synthesizes the current state of evidence and proposes strategies to reduce UTIs in nursing homes. Interventions that motivate catheter avoidance and catheter removal to prevent CAUTI in acute care¹¹ and nursing home settings are supported by the strongest available evidence, although the strength of that evidence is less in the nursing home setting. Limitations notwithstanding, interventions such as incontinence care planning and hydration programs can reduce UTI in this population and is important for overall wellbeing.

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the guidance that Vineet Chopra MD, MSc, provided regarding options for methodological quality assessment tools, and the assistance of Mary Rogers PhD, MS, in interpreting the published Downs and Black Quality Index items, which informed our modification of this tool for application in this study. The authors appreciate, also, the feedback provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Content and Materials Development Committee for the AHRQ Safety Program for Long-Term Care: Preventing CAUTI and other Healthcare-associated Infections.

Disclosures

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) contract #HHSA290201000025I provided funding for this study, which was developed in response to AHRQ Task Order #8 for ACTION II RFTO 26 CUSP for CAUTI in LTC. AHRQ developed the details of the task and provided comments on a draft report, which informed the report submitted to AHRQ in December 2013, used to inform the interventions for a national collaborative (http://www.hret.org/quality/projects/long-term-care-cauti.shtml). Dr. Meddings’s effort on this project was funded by concurrent effort from her AHRQ (K08 HS19767). Dr. Saint’s and Dr. Krein’s effort on this project was funded by concurrent effort from the Veterans Affairs National Center for Patient Safety, Ann Arbor Patient Safety Center of Inquiry. Dr. Meddings’s other research is funded by AHRQ (2R01HS018334-04), the NIH-LRP program, the VA National Center for Patient Safety, and the VA Ann Arbor Patient Safety Center of Inquiry. Dr. Krein’s other research is funded by a VA Health Services Research and Development Award (RCS 11-222). Dr. Mody’s other research is funded by VA Healthcare System Geriatric Research Clinical Care Center (GRECC), NIA-Pepper Center, NIA (R01AG032298, R01AG041780, K24AG050685-01). Dr. Saint has received fees for serving on advisory boards for Doximity and Jvion. All other authors report no financial conflicts of interest. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the sponsor, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, or the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. These analyses were presented in part as a poster presentation at the ID Week Annual Meeting on October 10, 2014 in Philadelphia, PA.

Given the limited number of geriatricians in the U.S., hospitalists commonly manage nursing home residents admitted for post-acute care.^1-4 Urinary tract infection (UTI) is one of the most common infections in nursing homes, often leading to sepsis and readmission to acute care.⁵ Inappropriate use of antibiotics to treat asymptomatic bacteriuria is both common and hazardous to nursing home residents.⁶ Up to 10% of nursing home residents will have an indwelling urinary catheter at some point during their stay.^7-9 Residents with indwelling urinary catheters are at increased risk for catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) and bacteriuria, with an estimated 50% of catheterized residents developing symptomatic CAUTI.⁵ While urinary catheter prevalence is lower in nursing homes than in the acute care setting, duration of use is often prolonged.^7,10 In a setting where utilization is low, but use is prolonged, interventions designed to reduce UTI in acutely ill patients¹¹ may not be as helpful for preventing infection in nursing home residents.

Our objective was to review the available evidence to prevent UTIs in nursing home residents to inform both bedside care and research efforts. Two types of literature review and summary were performed. First, we conducted a systematic review of individual studies reporting outcomes of UTI, CAUTI, bacteriuria, or urinary catheter use after interventions for reducing catheter use, improving insertion and maintenance of catheters, and/or general infection prevention strategies (eg, improving hand hygiene, infection surveillance, contact precautions, standardizing UTI diagnosis, and antibiotic use). Second, we performed a narrative review to generate an overview of evidence and published recommendations in both acute care and nursing home settings to prevent UTI in catheterized and non-catheterized older adults, which is provided as a comprehensive reference table for clinicians and researchers choosing and refining interventions to reduce UTIs.

The systematic review was performed according to the criteria of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis recommendations. The protocol was registered at the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, (CRD42013005787). The narrative review was performed using the articles obtained from the systematic search and a targeted literature review by topic for a comprehensive list of interventions, including other interventions summarized in published reviews and guidelines.

Eligibility Criteria Review

Study Design. To address the breadth and depth of literature available to inform interventions to prevent UTI in nursing homes, broad eligibility criteria were applied with the expectation of varied designs and outcomes. All included studies for the systematic review were published manuscripts reporting a comparison group. We included randomized controlled trials as well as nonrandomized trials (pretest/posttest, with or without concurrent or nonconcurrent controls), with any duration of postintervention follow-up. Observational and retrospective studies were excluded.

Participants. We were interested in interventions and outcomes reported for nursing homes, defined as facilities providing short-stay skilled nursing care and/or rehabilitation, as well as long-term care. We also included evidence derived from rehabilitation facilities and spinal cord injury programs focused on reducing CAUTI risk for chronically catheterized residents. We excluded long-term acute care hospitals, hospice, psychiatric/mental health facilities, pediatric, and community dwelling/outpatient settings.

Interventions. We included interventions involving urinary catheter use such as improving appropriate use, aseptic placement, maintenance care, and prompting removal of unnecessary catheters. We included infection prevention strategies with a particular interest in hand hygiene, barrier precautions, infection control strategies, infection surveillance, use of standardized infection definitions, and interventions to improve antibiotic use. We included single and multiple interventions.

Outcomes
1. Healthcare-associated urinary tract infection: UTI occurring after admission to a healthcare facility, not identified specifically as catheter-associated. We categorized UTI outcomes with as much detail as provided, such as whether the reported outcome included only noncatheter-associated UTIs, the time required after admission (eg, more than 2 days), and whether the UTIs were defined by only laboratory criteria, clinically diagnosed infections, symptomatic, or long-term care specific surveillance definitions.

2. Catheter-associated urinary tract infection: UTI occurring in patients during or immediately after use of a urinary catheter. We noted whether CAUTI was defined by laboratory criteria, clinical symptoms, provider diagnosis, or antimicrobial treatment for case identification. We were primarily interested in CAUTI developing after placing an indwelling urinary catheter, commonly known as a Foley, but also in CAUTI occurring with other catheter types such as intermittent straight catheters, external or “condom” catheters, and suprapubic catheters.

3. Bacteriuria: We included the laboratory-based definition of bacteriuria as an outcome to include studies that reduced asymptomatic bacteriuria.

4. Urinary catheter use measures: This includes measures such as urinary catheter utilization ratios (catheter-days/patient-days), prevalence of urinary catheter use, or percentage of catheters with an appropriate indication.

Study Characteristics for Inclusion. Our systematic search included published papers in the English language. We did not exclude studies based on the number of facilities included or eligible, residents/patients included (based on age, gender, catheter use or type, or antibiotic use), intervention details, study withdrawal, loss to follow-up, death, or duration of pre-intervention and postintervention phases.

Data Sources and Searches

The following data sources were searched: Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to June 22, 2015), Cochrane Library via Wiley (1960 to June 22, 2015), CINAHL (1981 to June 22, 2015), Web of Science (1926 to June 22, 2015), and Embase.com (1946 to June 22, 2015). Two major systematic search strategies were performed for this review (Figure). Systematic search 1 was designed broadly using all data sources described above to identify interventions aimed at reducing all UTI events (defined under “Outcomes” above) or urinary catheter use (all types), focusing on interventions evaluated in nursing homes. Systematic search 2 was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE to identify studies to reduce UTI events or urinary catheter use measures for patients with a history of long-term or chronic catheter use, including nursing homes and other post-acute care settings such as rehabilitation units or hospitals and spinal cord injury programs, which have large populations of patients with chronic catheter needs. To inform the completeness of the broader systematic searches, supplemental systematic search strategies were performed for specific topics including hydration (supplemental search 1), published work by nursing home researchers known to the authors (supplemental search 2), and contact precautions (supplemental search 3). Search 1 is available at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42013005787. Full search strategies for search 2 and supplemental searches are available upon request.

Study Selection

One author performed an initial screen of all records retrieved by the systematic searches by title and abstract and applied the initial exclusions (eg, non-human, no outcomes of interest), identified duplicate records, and assigned potentially relevant studies into groups such as review articles, epidemiology, interventions, and articles requiring further text review before categorization (Figure). After initial screening, Dr. Meddings reviewed the records by title/abstract. Reference lists were reviewed for potential articles for inclusion. Full-text article review informed the selection of those for dual abstraction and quality scoring performed by 2 authors, with discrepancies resolved by a third author. We requested additional information from authors from whom our search had generated only an abstract or brief report, or when additional information such as pre-intervention data was needed.^12-18

Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

Relevant data regarding study design, participants, inclusion/exclusion criteria, outcomes, and quality criteria were abstracted independently by 2 authors. Methodological quality scores were assigned using a modification of the Quality index checklist developed by Downs and Black appropriate for assessing both randomized and nonrandomized studies of healthcare interventions.¹⁹ We also reviewed study funding sources and other potential quality concerns.

Data Analysis

Due to large trial heterogeneity among these studies about interventions and outcomes reported, outcome data could not be combined into summary measures for meta-analysis to give overall estimates of treatment effects.

Systematic Search Results and Study Selection

As detailed in the study flow diagram (Figure), 5794 total records were retrieved by systematic search 1 (4697 studies), search 2 (909 studies), and supplemental searches (188 studies). Hand searching of reference lists of 41 reviews (including narrative and systematic reviews) yielded 77 additional studies for consideration. Twenty-nine records on interventions that were the focus of systematic reviews, including topics of cranberry use, catheter coatings, antimicrobial prophylaxis, washout/irrigation strategies, and sterile versus clean intermittent straight catheterization, were excluded from dual abstraction. Two records were excluded after team discussion of the dual-abstraction results, because 1 study did not meet criteria as an intervention study and 1 study’s setting was not applicable in nursing homes. A total of 20 records^15,20-38 (in which 19 studies were described) were selected for final inclusion for detailed assessment and reporting for the systematic review.

Characteristics of Included Studies

Table 1 describes the 19 intervention studies in terms of design, participants, setting, and whether the study included specific categories of interventions expected to decrease UTI or catheter use. These studies included 8 randomized controlled trials (4 with cluster-randomization at the facility or unit level), 10 pre-post nonrandomized interventions, and 1 nonrandomized intervention with concurrent controls. Twelve studies included participants with or without catheters (ie, not limited to catheterized patients only) in nursing homes.^15,20-31 Seven^32-38 studies included catheterized patients only or settings with high expected catheterization rates; settings for these studies included spinal cord units (n=3), nursing homes (n=2), rehabilitation ward (n=1) and VA hospital (n=1), including acute care, nursing home, and rehabilitation units. Total quality scores for the studies ranged from 8 to 25 (median, 15), detailed in Supplemental Table 1.

As detailed in Table 1 and Supplemental Table 2, 7 studies^{22,24,26,31,32,35,36} involved single interventions and 12 studies^{15,20,21,23,25,27-30,33,34,37,38} included multiple interventions. Interventions to impact catheter use and care were evaluated in 13 studies, including appropriateness of use,^21,25,29,30 improving catheter maintenance care,^15,20,29,30 securement,^15,29,30,32 prompting removal of unnecessary catheters,^21,25,29,30 improving incontinence care,^15,21,23,25 bladder scanners,^37,38 catheter changes,³⁵and comparing alternatives (condom catheter or intermittent straight catheter) to use of an indwelling catheter.^36,38 None focused on improving aseptic insertion. General infection control practices studied included improving hand hygiene,^{20-22,29-31,33,34} improving antibiotic use,^{15,20,21,28,34} initiation of infection control programs,^20,21,28 interventions to improve identification of UTIs/CAUTIs using infection symptom/sign criteria,^15,20,21,34 infection surveillance as an intervention,^28-30,33,34 and barrier precautions,^33,34 including preemptive precautions for catheterized patients.³⁴ Hydration was assessed in 3 studies.^24-26

Outcomes of Included Studies

Table 2 describes the studies’ outcomes reported for UTI, CAUTI, or bacteriuria.^15,20-38 The outcome definitions of UTI and CAUTI varied widely. Only 2 studies^22,39 reported UTI outcomes using definitions specific for nursing home settings such as McGeer’s criteria⁴⁰ a detailed review and comparison of published CAUTI definitions used clinically and for surveillance in nursing homes is provided in Supplemental Table 3. Two studies reported symptomatic CAUTIs per 1000 catheter-days.^32,34 Another study²² reported symptomatic CAUTIs per 1000 resident-days. Three reported symptomatic CAUTIs as counts.^35,38 Saint et al³⁶ reported CAUTIs as part of a combined outcome (ie, bacteriuria, CAUTI, or death).

The 19 studies (Table 2) reported 12 UTI outcomes,^{15,20,21,23,25-31,33} 9 CAUTI outcomes,^{15,22,32,34,35,38} 4 bacteriuria outcomes,^24,36,38 and 5 catheter use outcomes.^{21,29,30,37,38} Five studies showed CAUTI reduction^{15,22,32,34,35} (1 significantly³⁴); 9 studies showed UTI reduction^{13,18,19,21,23-25,27,28,31} (none significantly); 2 studies showed bacteriuria reduction (none significantly). One study³⁶ reported 2 composite outcomes including bacteriuria or CAUTI or death, with statistically significant improvement reported for 1 composite measure. Four studies reported catheter use, with all showing reduced catheter use in the intervention group; however, only 1 achieved statistically significant reduction.³⁷

Synthesis of Systematic Review Results

Overall, many studies reported decreases in UTI, CAUTI, and urinary catheter use measures but without statistical significance, with many studies likely underpowered for our outcomes of interest. Often, the outcomes of interest in this systematic review were not the main outcome for which the study was designed and originally powered. The interventions studied included several currently implemented as part of CAUTI bundles in the acute care setting, such as improving catheter use, and care and infection control strategies. Other included interventions target common challenges specific to the nursing home setting such as removing indwelling catheters upon admission to the nursing home from an acute-care facility^21,25 and applying interventions to address incontinence by either general strategies^{21,23,25,30,38} or the use of an incontinence specialist²³ to provide individual treatment plans. The only intervention that demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in CAUTI in chronically catheterized patients employed a comprehensive program to improve antimicrobial use, hand hygiene (including hand hygiene and gloves for catheter care), and preemptive precautions for patients with devices, along with promotion of standardized CAUTI definitions and active multidrug resistant organism surveillance.³⁴

Narrative Review Results

Table 3 includes a comprehensive list of potential interventions that have been considered for prevention of UTI or CAUTI (including those in acute care and nursing home settings), as summarized from this systematic review and prior narrative or systematic reviews.^43-115

We performed a broad systematic review of strategies to decrease UTI, CAUTI, and urinary catheter use that may be helpful in nursing homes. While many studies reported decreased UTI, CAUTI, or urinary catheter use measures, few demonstrated statistically significant reductions perhaps because many were underpowered to assess statistical significance. Pooled analyses were not feasible to provide the expected impact of these interventions in the nursing home setting.

This review confirms that bundles of interventions for prevention of CAUTI have been implemented with some evidence of success in nursing home settings, with several components in common with those implemented in the acute care setting, such as hand hygiene and strategies to reduce and improve catheter use.⁴¹ Some studies focused on issues more common in nursing homes such as chronic catheterization and incontinence. A nursing home CAUTI bundle should be designed with the resources and challenges present in the nursing home environment in mind, and with recognition that, although the number of patients with catheters is less than in acute care, there will be more patients with chronic catheterization needs and incontinence.

Although catheter utilization in nursing homes is low, further reductions in catheter days and CAUTIs can be achieved. Catheter removal reminders and stop orders have demonstrated a greater than 50% reduction in CAUTIs in acute care settings;¹¹ an example of a stop-order intervention in nursing homes is trial removal of indwelling catheters present at facility admission without clear urologic need present at the time of admission.²⁵ Nursing home interventions to avoid catheter placement should include incontinence programs, discussion of alternatives to indwelling urinary catheters with patients, families, and frontline personnel, and urinary retention protocols. Programs to reduce CAUTI should include education to improve aseptic insertion, and to maintain awareness and proper care of catheters in place by regular assessment of catheter necessity, securement, hand hygiene, and preemptive barrier precautions for catheterized patients. Interventions that focus on improving appropriate use of urine tests and antibiotics to treat UTIs can also significantly affect the rates of reported symptomatic CAUTIs, with the potential to decrease unnecessary antibiotic use.^20,21

The main limitation of this review is that many studies provided little information about their intervention and definition of outcomes. The strength of this review is the detailed and broad search strategy applied with generous inclusion of interventions and outcomes to highlight the available evidence and details of interventions that have been studied and implemented.

This review synthesizes the current state of evidence and proposes strategies to reduce UTIs in nursing homes. Interventions that motivate catheter avoidance and catheter removal to prevent CAUTI in acute care¹¹ and nursing home settings are supported by the strongest available evidence, although the strength of that evidence is less in the nursing home setting. Limitations notwithstanding, interventions such as incontinence care planning and hydration programs can reduce UTI in this population and is important for overall wellbeing.

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the guidance that Vineet Chopra MD, MSc, provided regarding options for methodological quality assessment tools, and the assistance of Mary Rogers PhD, MS, in interpreting the published Downs and Black Quality Index items, which informed our modification of this tool for application in this study. The authors appreciate, also, the feedback provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Content and Materials Development Committee for the AHRQ Safety Program for Long-Term Care: Preventing CAUTI and other Healthcare-associated Infections.

Disclosures

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) contract #HHSA290201000025I provided funding for this study, which was developed in response to AHRQ Task Order #8 for ACTION II RFTO 26 CUSP for CAUTI in LTC. AHRQ developed the details of the task and provided comments on a draft report, which informed the report submitted to AHRQ in December 2013, used to inform the interventions for a national collaborative (http://www.hret.org/quality/projects/long-term-care-cauti.shtml). Dr. Meddings’s effort on this project was funded by concurrent effort from her AHRQ (K08 HS19767). Dr. Saint’s and Dr. Krein’s effort on this project was funded by concurrent effort from the Veterans Affairs National Center for Patient Safety, Ann Arbor Patient Safety Center of Inquiry. Dr. Meddings’s other research is funded by AHRQ (2R01HS018334-04), the NIH-LRP program, the VA National Center for Patient Safety, and the VA Ann Arbor Patient Safety Center of Inquiry. Dr. Krein’s other research is funded by a VA Health Services Research and Development Award (RCS 11-222). Dr. Mody’s other research is funded by VA Healthcare System Geriatric Research Clinical Care Center (GRECC), NIA-Pepper Center, NIA (R01AG032298, R01AG041780, K24AG050685-01). Dr. Saint has received fees for serving on advisory boards for Doximity and Jvion. All other authors report no financial conflicts of interest. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the sponsor, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, or the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. These analyses were presented in part as a poster presentation at the ID Week Annual Meeting on October 10, 2014 in Philadelphia, PA.