Adam V. Weizman

Diverticular Disease: Epidemiology and Management

Diverticular disease of the colon is among the most prevalent conditions in western society and is among the leading reasons for outpatient visits and causes of hospitalization. While previously considered to be a disease primarily affecting the elderly, there is increasing incidence among individuals younger than 40 years of age. Diverticular disease most frequently presents as uncomplicated diverticulitis, and the cornerstone of management is antibiotic therapy and bowel rest. Segmental colitis associated with diverticula shares common histopathological features with inflammatory bowel disease and may benefit from treatment with 5-aminosalicylates. Surgical management may be required for patients with recurrent diverticulitis or one of its complications including peridiverticular abscess, perforation, fistulizing disease, and strictures and ⁄ or obstruction.

Increased risk of vancomycin-resistant enterococcus (VRE) infection among patients hospitalized for inflammatory bowel disease in the United States.

Background: Vancomycin‐resistant Enterococcus (VRE) infection has become an increasingly common hospital‐acquired infection in U.S. hospitals. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) frequently require hospitalization and therefore may be at increased risk of nosocomial infections. Methods: We used the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) to identify admissions for IBD (n = 116,842) between 1998 and 2004. We compared the prevalence of VRE in this group to that of non‐IBD gastrointestinal (GI) inpatients and general inpatients and assessed for associations between VRE and hospital mortality, length of stay, and total charges. Results: The crude VRE prevalence was 2.1/10,000 in hospitalized IBD patients, 1.3/10,000 in non‐IBD GI patients, and 0.9/10,000 in general inpatients. After adjustment for confounders, IBD inpatients were at increased risk of VRE compared to the non‐IBD GI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.65; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03‐2.64) and general inpatient (aOR 2.37; 95% CI: 1.31‐4.27) groups. Among IBD patients, there was a higher prevalence of VRE infection in those who had surgery (4.4/10,000 versus 1.7/10,000; P < 0.04) and total parenteral nutrition (6.9/10,000 versus 1.8/10,000; P < 0.003). VRE infection was not associated with an increase in mortality (0% versus 0.7%, P = 0.8); however, it was associated with 3‐fold higher total hospital charges (

How to Begin a Quality Improvement Project

63,517 versus

Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Is Associated with Worse Adherence to Conventional Therapy: The COMPLIANT Study.

21,918 USD; P < 0.0001) and increased average length of stay in hospital (16.1 versus 6.1 days; P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Hospitalized IBD patients have increased susceptibility to VRE that is associated with increased economic burden. This study reinforces the importance of measures to prevent nosocomial infection, particularly in the vulnerable IBD population. (Inflamm Bowel Dis 2011)

How to Sustain Change and Support Continuous Quality Improvement

Quality improvement involves a combined effort among health care staff and stakeholders to diagnose and treat problems in the health care system. However, health care professionals often lack training in quality improvement methods, which makes it challenging to participate in improvement efforts. This article familiarizes health care professionals with how to begin a quality improvement project. The initial steps involve forming an improvement team that possesses expertise in the quality of care problem, leadership, and change management. Stakeholder mapping and analysis are useful tools at this stage, and these are reviewed to help identify individuals who might have a vested interest in the project. Physician engagement is a particularly important component of project success, and the knowledge that patients/caregivers can offer as members of a quality improvement team should not be overlooked. After a team is formed, an improvement framework helps to organize the scientific process of system change. Common quality improvement frameworks include Six Sigma, Lean, and the Model for Improvement. These models are contrasted, with a focus on the Model for Improvement, because it is widely used and applicable to a variety of quality of care problems without advanced training. It involves three steps: setting aims to focus improvement, choosing a balanced set of measures to determine if improvement occurs, and testing new ideas to change the current process. These new ideas are evaluated using Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, where knowledge is gained by testing changes and reflecting on their effect. To show the real world utility of the quality improvement methods discussed, they are applied to a hypothetical quality improvement initiative that aims to promote home dialysis (home hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis). This provides an example that kidney health care professionals can use to begin their own quality improvement projects.

Prevalence and predictors of MRSA, ESBL, and VRE colonization in the ambulatory IBD population

Background:Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use is highly prevalent among inflammatory bowel disease (IBD patients). We assessed whether its use, both for IBD and for general health, influenced adherence to conventional medications. Methods:We enrolled 392 IBD subjects in a prospective cohort study and categorized them as CAM nonusers (38%) and those who used CAM for general health (CAM-GEN, 41%) and for IBD (CAM-IBD, 21%). Their self-reported adherence was measured using the 4-item Morisky Adherence Scale during a median follow-up period of 6.8 months. Results:CAM-IBD users were less likely to be adherent to medical therapy than CAM nonusers and CAM-GEN users (70% vs. 84% and 81%, respectively, P < 0.05). Nearly all subjects who were nonadherent reported that it was unintentional (97%), and this did not vary use of CAM. After adjusting for confounders, the adjusted odds ratio for adherence among CAM-IBD relative to CAM nonuser was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.22–0.96). CAM-GEN demonstrated similar adherence to CAM nonusers (adjusted odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.44–1.66). CAM-IBD was also less likely than CAM nonusers and CAM-GEN to have improvement in their adherence scores during follow-up (14% vs. 33% and 34%, respectively, P < 0.01). The adjusted odds ratio for improved adherence in CAM-IBD compared with CAM nonusers and CAM-GEN were 0.32 (95% CI, 0.15–0.69) and 0.34 (95% CI, 0.16–0.72), respectively. Conclusions:CAM-IBD, but not CAM-GEN, was associated with lower adherence to IBD medical therapy. A third of CAM nonusers and CAM-GEN improved adherence during the observation period, suggesting a Hawthorne effect.

Quality of Care and Outcomes Among Hospitalized Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

To achieve sustainable change, quality improvement initiatives must become the new way of working rather than something added on to routine clinical care. However, most organizational change is not maintained. In this next article in this Moving Points in Nephrology feature on quality improvement, we provide health care professionals with strategies to sustain and support quality improvement. Threats to sustainability may be identified both at the beginning of a project and when it is ready for implementation. The National Health Service Sustainability Model is reviewed as one example to help identify issues that affect long-term success of quality improvement projects. Tools to help sustain improvement include process control boards, performance boards, standard work, and improvement huddles. Process control and performance boards are methods to communicate improvement results to staff and leadership. Standard work is a written or visual outline of current best practices for a task and provides a framework to ensure that changes that have improved patient care are consistently and reliably applied to every patient encounter. Improvement huddles are short, regular meetings among staff to anticipate problems, review performance, and support a culture of improvement. Many of these tools rely on principles of visual management, which are systems transparent and simple so that every staff member can rapidly distinguish normal from abnormal working conditions. Even when quality improvement methods are properly applied, the success of a project still depends on contextual factors. Context refers to aspects of the local setting in which the project operates. Context affects resources, leadership support, data infrastructure, team motivation, and team performance. For these reasons, the same project may thrive in a supportive context and fail in a different context. To demonstrate the practical applications of these quality improvement principles, these principles are applied to a hypothetical quality improvement initiative that aims to promote home dialysis (home hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis).

How to Diagnose Solutions to a Quality of Care Problem

BACKGROUND AND AIMS Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients may be at increased risk of acquiring antibiotic-resistant organisms (ARO). We sought to determine the prevalence of colonization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Enterobacteriaceae containing extended spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBL), and vancomycin-resistant enterococi (VRE) among ambulatory IBD patients. METHODS We recruited consecutive IBD patients from clinics (n=306) and 3 groups of non-IBD controls from our colon cancer screening program (n=67), the family medicine clinic (n=190); and the emergency department (n=428) from the same medical center in Toronto. We obtained nasal and rectal swabs for MRSA, ESBL, and VRE and ascertained risk factors for colonization. RESULTS Compared to non-IBD controls, IBD patients had similar prevalence of colonization with MRSA (1.5% vs. 1.6%), VRE (0% vs. 0%), and ESBL (9.0 vs. 11.1%). Antibiotic use in the prior 3 months was a risk factor for MRSA (OR, 3.07; 95% CI: 1.10-8.54), particularly metronidazole. Moreover, gastric acid suppression was associated with increased risk of MRSA colonization (adjusted OR, 7.12; 95% CI: 1.07-47.4). Predictive risk factors for ESBL included hospitalization in the past 12 months (OR, 2.04, 95% CI: 1.05-3.95); treatment with antibiotics it the past 3 months (OR, 2.66; 95% CI: 1.37-5.18), particularly prior treatment with vancomycin or cephalosporins. CONCLUSIONS Ambulatory IBD patients have similar prevalence of MRSA, ESBL and VRE compared to non-IBD controls. This finding suggests that the increased MRSA and VRE prevalence observed in hospitalized IBD patients is acquired in-hospital rather than in the outpatient setting.

Quality Improvement Primer Series: The Plan-Do-Study-Act Cycle and Data Display

BACKGROUND Half of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) require hospitalization. We sought to characterize inpatient quality indicators of care and outcomes during IBD-related hospitalizations at 4 major IBD referral centers in Canada. METHODS We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients with IBD admitted from 2011 to 2013 to tertiary centers in Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, and Vancouver. We assessed the following inpatient indicators of care: pharmacological venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis, Clostridium difficile testing, and medical rescue therapy for steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis (UC). We also evaluated rates of VTE, C. difficile infection, and IBD-related surgery. RESULTS There were 837 patients hospitalized for IBD (Crohns disease, 59%; UC, 41%). The proportion of patients with IBD who received VTE prophylaxis and C. difficile testing were 77% and 82%, respectively, although these indicators varied significantly by center and admitting specialty. Patients admitted under surgeons were more likely than those admitted under gastroenterologists to receive VTE prophylaxis (84% versus 74%, P = 0.016) but less likely to be tested for C. difficile (41% versus 88%, P < 0.0001). The rate of VTE was the same for those who did and did not receive VTE prophylaxis (2.2 per 1000 hospital-days). Among the 14 VTE events, 79% had received prophylaxis, but only 36% within 24 hours of admission. Among steroid-refractory UC patients, 70% received rescue therapy within 7 days of steroid initiation. The proportion of patients with UC and CD who required respective bowel surgery was 18% and 20%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS There are opportunities to optimize quality of care among hospitalized patients with IBD.Background: Half of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) require hospitalization. We sought to characterize inpatient quality indicators of care and outcomes during IBD-related hospitalizations at 4 major IBD referral centers in Canada. Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients with IBD admitted from 2011 to 2013 to tertiary centers in Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, and Vancouver. We assessed the following inpatient indicators of care: pharmacological venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis, Clostridium difficile testing, and medical rescue therapy for steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis (UC). We also evaluated rates of VTE, C. difficile infection, and IBD-related surgery. Results: There were 837 patients hospitalized for IBD (Crohns disease, 59%; UC, 41%). The proportion of patients with IBD who received VTE prophylaxis and C. difficile testing were 77% and 82%, respectively, although these indicators varied significantly by center and admitting specialty. Patients admitted under surgeons were more likely than those admitted under gastroenterologists to receive VTE prophylaxis (84% versus 74%, P = 0.016) but less likely to be tested for C. difficile (41% versus 88%, P < 0.0001). The rate of VTE was the same for those who did and did not receive VTE prophylaxis (2.2 per 1000 hospital-days). Among the 14 VTE events, 79% had received prophylaxis, but only 36% within 24 hours of admission. Among steroid-refractory UC patients, 70% received rescue therapy within 7 days of steroid initiation. The proportion of patients with UC and CD who required respective bowel surgery was 18% and 20%, respectively. Conclusions: There are opportunities to optimize quality of care among hospitalized patients with IBD.

Have genomic discoveries in inflammatory bowel disease translated into clinical progress

To change a particular quality of care outcome within a system, quality improvement initiatives must first understand the causes contributing to the outcome. After the causes of a particular outcome are known, changes can be made to address these causes and change the outcome. Using the example of home dialysis (home hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis), this article within this Moving Points feature on quality improvement will provide health care professionals with the tools necessary to analyze the steps contributing to certain outcomes in health care quality and develop ideas that will ultimately lead to their resolution. The tools used to identify the main contributors to a quality of care outcome will be described, including cause and effect diagrams, Pareto analysis, and process mapping. We will also review common change concepts and brainstorming activities to identify effective change ideas. These methods will be applied to our home dialysis quality improvement project, providing a practical example that other kidney health care professionals can replicate at their local centers.