Jeffrey L. Greenwald

Procalcitonin Algorithms for Antibiotic Therapy Decisions: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials and Recommendations for Clinical Algorithms

Previous randomized controlled trials suggest that using clinical algorithms based on procalcitonin levels, a marker of bacterial infections, results in reduced antibiotic use without a deleterious effect on clinical outcomes. However, algorithms differed among trials and were embedded primarily within the European health care setting. Herein, we summarize the design, efficacy, and safety of previous randomized controlled trials and propose adapted algorithms for US settings. We performed a systematic search and included all 14 randomized controlled trials (N = 4467 patients) that investigated procalcitonin algorithms for antibiotic treatment decisions in adult patients with respiratory tract infections and sepsis from primary care, emergency department (ED), and intensive care unit settings. We found no significant difference in mortality between procalcitonin-treated and control patients overall (odds ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.14) or in primary care (0.13; 0-6.64), ED (0.95; 0.67-1.36), and intensive care unit (0.89; 0.66-1.20) settings individually. A consistent reduction was observed in antibiotic prescription and/or duration of therapy, mainly owing to lower prescribing rates in low-acuity primary care and ED patients, and shorter duration of therapy in moderate- and high-acuity ED and intensive care unit patients. Measurement of procalcitonin levels for antibiotic decisions in patients with respiratory tract infections and sepsis appears to reduce antibiotic exposure without worsening the mortality rate. We propose specific procalcitonin algorithms for low-, moderate-, and high-acuity patients as a basis for future trials aiming at reducing antibiotic overconsumption.

Project BOOST: effectiveness of a multihospital effort to reduce rehospitalization.

BACKGROUND Rehospitalization is a prominent target for healthcare quality improvement and performance-based reimbursement. The generalizability of existing evidence on best practices is unknown. OBJECTIVE To determine the effect of Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older adults through Safe Transitions) on rehospitalization rates and length of stay. DESIGN Semicontrolled pre-post study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS Volunteer sample of 11 hospitals varying in geography, size, and academic affiliation. INTERVENTION Hospitals implemented Project BOOST-recommended tools supported by an external quality improvement physician mentor. METHODS Pre-post changes in readmission rates and length of stay within BOOST units, and between BOOST units and site-designated control units. RESULTS The average rate of 30-day rehospitalization in BOOST units was 14.7% prior to implementation and 12.7% 12 months later (P = 0.010), reflecting an absolute reduction of 2% and a relative reduction of 13.6%. Rehospitalization rates for matched control units were 14.0% in the preintervention period and 14.1% in the postintervention period (P = 0.831). The mean absolute reduction in readmission rates in BOOST units compared to control units was 2.0% (P = 0.054 for signed rank test comparing differences in readmission rate reduction in BOOST units compared to site-matched control units). CONCLUSIONS Participation in Project BOOST appeared to be associated with a decrease in readmission rates.

Making inpatient medication reconciliation patient centered, clinically relevant and implementable: a consensus statement on key principles and necessary first steps.

Medication errors and adverse events caused by them are common during and after a hospitalization. The impact of these events on patient welfare and the financial burden, both to the patient and the healthcare system, are significant. In 2005, The Joint Commission put forth medication reconciliation as National Patient Safety Goal (NPSG) No. 8 in an effort to minimize adverse events caused during these types of care transitions. However, the meaningful and systematic implementation of medication reconciliation, as expressed through NPSG No. 8, proved to be extraordinarily difficult for healthcare institutions around the country. Given the importance of accurate and complete medication reconciliation for patient safety occurring across the continuum of care, the Society of Hospital Medicine convened a stakeholder conference in 2009 to begin to identify and address: (1) barriers to implementation; (2) opportunities to identify best practices surrounding medication reconciliation; (3) the role of partnerships among traditional healthcare sites and nonclinical and other community-based organizations; and (4) metrics for measuring the processes involved in medication reconciliation and their impact on preventing harm to patients. The focus of the conference was oriented toward medication reconciliation for a hospitalized patient population; however, many of the themes and concepts derived would also apply to other care settings. This paper highlights the key domains needing to be addressed and suggests first steps toward doing so. An overarching principle derived at the conference is that medication reconciliation should not be viewed as an accreditation function. It must, first and foremost, be recognized as an important element of patient safety. From this principle, the participants identified ten key areas requiring further attention in order to move medication reconciliation toward this focus. 1 There is need for a uniformly acceptable and accepted definition of what constitutes a medication and what processes are encompassed by reconciliation. Clarifying these terms is critical to ensuring more uniform impact of medication reconciliation. 2 The varying roles of the multidisciplinary participants in the reconciliation process must be clearly defined. These role definitions should include those of the patient and family/caregiver and must occur locally, taking into account the need for flexibility in design given the varying structures and resources at healthcare sites. 3 Measures of the reconciliation processes must be clinically meaningful (i.e., of defined benefit to the patient) and derived through consultation with stakeholder groups. Those measures to be reported for national benchmarking and accreditation should be limited in number and clinically meaningful. 4 While a comprehensive reconciliation system is needed across the continuum of care, a phased approach to implementation, allowing it to start slowly and be tailored to local organizational structures and work flows, will increase the chances of successful organizational uptake. 5 Developing mechanisms for prospectively and proactively identifying patients at risk for medication-related adverse events and failed reconciliation is needed. Such an alert system would help maintain vigilance toward these patient safety issues and help focus additional resources on high risk patients. 6 Given the diversity in medication reconciliation practices, research aimed at identifying effective processes is important and should be funded with national resources. Funding should include varying sites of care (e.g., urban and rural, academic and nonacademic, etc.). 7 Strategies for medication reconciliation-both successes and key lessons learned from unsuccessful efforts-should be widely disseminated. 8 A personal health record that is integrated and easily transferable between sites of care is needed to facilitate successful medication reconciliation. 9 Partnerships between healthcare organizations and community-based organizations create opportunities to reinforce medication safety principles outside the traditional clinician-patient relationship. Leveraging the influence of these organizations and other social networking platforms may augment population-based understanding of their importance and role in medication safety. 10 Aligning healthcare payment structures with medication safety goals is critical to ensure allocation of adequate resources to design and implement effective medication reconciliation processes. Medication reconciliation is complex and made more complicated by the disjointed nature of the American healthcare system. Addressing these ten points with an overarching goal of focusing on patient safety rather than accreditation should result in improvements in medication reconciliation and the health of patients.

Role of Procalcitonin in Managing Adult Patients With Respiratory Tract Infections

Respiratory infections remain the most common reason why patients seek medical care in ambulatory and hospital settings, and they are the most frequent precursor of sepsis. In light of the limitations of clinical signs and symptoms and traditional microbiologic diagnostics for respiratory infections, blood biomarkers that correlate with the presence and extent of bacterial infections may provide additional useful information to improve diagnostic and prognostic efforts and help with therapeutic decisions in individual patients. A growing body of evidence supports the use of procalcitonin (PCT) to differentiate bacterial from viral respiratory diagnoses, to help risk stratify patients, and to guide antibiotic therapy decisions about initial need for, and optimal duration of, therapy. Although still relatively new on the clinical frontier, a series of randomized controlled trials have evaluated PCT protocols for antibiotic-related decision making and have included patients from different clinical settings and with different severities of respiratory infection. In these trials, initial PCT levels were effective in guiding decisions about the initiation of antibiotic therapy in lower-acuity patients, and subsequent measurements were effective for guiding duration of therapy in higher-acuity patients, without apparent harmful effects. Recent European respiratory infection guidelines now also recognize this concept. As with any other laboratory test, PCT should not be used on a stand-alone basis. Rather, it must be integrated into clinical protocols, together with clinical, microbiologic data and with results from clinical risk scores. The aim of this review is to summarize recent evidence about the usefulness of PCT in patients with lower respiratory tract infections and to discuss the potential benefits and limitations of this marker when used for clinical decision making.

Preventing the preventable: reducing rehospitalizations through coordinated, patient-centered discharge processes.

Objectives Growing literature suggests that a significant proportion of rehospitalizations could be prevented if systems were put in place aimed at identifying and addressing some of the underlying issues that cause them. This article highlights key risk factors for unplanned rehospitalizations and illustrates a project that has successfully addressed many of the underlying issues that contribute to them. Primary Practice Setting(s) The study illustrated herein took place at an inner-city academic teaching hospital. Findings/Conclusions Proactively identifying patient-, clinician-, and system-associated barriers to successful discharge transitions is critical for effective transitions of care for patients leaving the hospital setting. This process represents a culture change, requires a multidisciplinary approach to care, and mandates clear delineation of roles and responsibilities in the process, with ultimate and clear process ownership being defined. With such steps in place in a system of care, it is reasonable to expect a reduction in preventable rehospitalizations.

Post-discharge hospital utilization among adult medical inpatients with depressive symptoms†

BACKGROUND Little evidence exists to determine whether depression predicts hospital utilization following discharge among adult inpatients on a general medical service. OBJECTIVE We aimed to determine whether a positive depression screen during hospitalization is significantly associated with an increased rate of returning for hospital services. DESIGN A secondary analysis was performed using data from 738 English-speaking, hospitalized adults from the Project RED randomized controlled trial (clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00252057) conducted at an urban academic safety-net hospital. MEASUREMENTS We used the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) depression screening tool to identify patients with depressive symptoms. The primary endpoint was hospital utilization, defined as the number of emergency department (ED) visits plus readmissions within 30 days of discharge. Poisson regression was used to control for confounding variables. RESULTS Of the 738 subjects included in the analysis, 238 (32%) screened positive for depressive symptoms. The unadjusted hospital utilization within 30 days of discharge was 56 utilizations per 100 depressed patients compared with 30 utilizations per 100 non-depressed patients, incident rate ratio (IRR) (confidence interval [CI]), 1.90 (1.51-2.40). After controlling for potential confounders, a higher rate of post-discharge hospital utilization was observed in patients with depressive symptoms compared to patients without depressive symptoms (IRR [CI], 1.73 [1.27-2.36]). CONCLUSIONS A positive screen for depressive symptoms during an inpatient hospital stay is associated with an increased rate of readmission within 30 days of discharge in an urban, academic, safety-net hospital population.

Telephone follow-up as a primary care intervention for postdischarge outcomes improvement: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE Postdischarge telephone follow-up plays an integral part in transitional care efforts in many regions. We systematically reviewed the literature to evaluate the evidence regarding the impact of primary care-based telephone follow-up on postdischarge emergency department visits and hospital readmissions. METHODS We performed an electronic database search for relevant telephone follow-up studies originating in adult primary care settings. RESULTS Only 3 studies (N=1765) met entry criteria for this review. None of the studies demonstrated evidence of reduced admissions or emergency department visits from primary care-based telephone follow-ups. All 3 studies reported improved primary care office contact as a result of telephone follow-up intervention. CONCLUSIONS Despite the growing use of primary care-based telephone follow-up in the postdischarge period, there are no high-quality studies demonstrating its benefit. However, its positive impact on patient engagement holds potentially meaningful implications. In light of recent national health care legislation, the primary care field is ripe for high-quality studies to evaluate the effectiveness of telephone follow-up for patients in the postdischarge period. Particular areas of research focus are discussed.

Making Inpatient Medication Reconciliation Patient Centered, Clinically Relevant, and Implementable: A Consensus Statement on Key Principles and Necessary First Steps

This white paper identifies potential solutions to help ensure the utility and sustainability of this critical patient safety issue.

Rationale and design of the Multicenter Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study (MARQUIS)

BackgroundUnresolved medication discrepancies during hospitalization can contribute to adverse drug events, resulting in patient harm. Discrepancies can be reduced by performing medication reconciliation; however, effective implementation of medication reconciliation has proven to be challenging. The goals of the Multi-Center Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study (MARQUIS) are to operationalize best practices for inpatient medication reconciliation, test their effect on potentially harmful unintentional medication discrepancies, and understand barriers and facilitators of successful implementation.MethodsSix U.S. hospitals are participating in this quality improvement mentored implementation study. Each hospital has collected baseline data on the primary outcome: the number of potentially harmful unintentional medication discrepancies per patient, as determined by a trained on-site pharmacist taking a “gold standard” medication history. With the guidance of their mentors, each site has also begun to implement one or more of 11 best practices to improve medication reconciliation. To understand the effect of the implemented interventions on hospital staff and culture, we are performing mixed methods program evaluation including surveys, interviews, and focus groups of front line staff and hospital leaders.DiscussionAt baseline the number of unintentional medication discrepancies in admission and discharge orders per patient varies by site from 2.35 to 4.67 (mean=3.35). Most discrepancies are due to history errors (mean 2.12 per patient) as opposed to reconciliation errors (mean 1.23 per patient). Potentially harmful medication discrepancies averages 0.45 per patient and varies by site from 0.13 to 0.82 per patient. We discuss several barriers to implementation encountered thus far. In the end, we anticipate that MARQUIS tools and lessons learned have the potential to decrease medication discrepancies and improve patient outcomes.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01337063

Evaluation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Recommendations Regarding Routine Testing for Human Immunodeficiency Virus by an Inpatient Service: Who Are We Missing?

OBJECTIVE To assess the proportion of hospitalized patients who tested positive for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) by a routine inpatient testing service, as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who might not have been identified had routine testing not been offered. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this retrospective cohort study, the medical records of patients who tested HIV positive by the inpatient testing service between 1999 and 2003 were compared with the medical records of inpatients who tested HIV negative by the inpatient testing service and the medical records of patients who tested HIV positive in ambulatory settings. We compared HIV risk factors, discharge diagnoses, CD4 cell counts, and HIV RNA concentrations. RESULTS A total of 243 patients participated in this study: 81 patients who tested HIV positive and 81 who tested HIV negative by the inpatient testing service, and 81 patients who tested HIV positive in ambulatory settings. Both HIV-positive inpatients and HIV-positive outpatients had similar frequencies of HIV risk factors (46% vs 43%; P=.75). Both groups differed significantly from HIV-negative inpatients (4%; P<.001). Comparing HIV-positive inpatients with HIV-positive outpatients, CD4 cell counts were lower (196 vs 371 cells/mm3; P<.001), and HIV RNA levels were higher (4.61 vs 4.09 Iog, HIV RNA; P=.001). At diagnosis, 64 HIV-positive inpatients (79%) met criteria for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome compared with 21 HIV-positive outpatients (26%) (P<.001). CONCLUSION Patients who tested HIV positive through inpatient testing have more advanced disease than those identified as outpatients. Half of these patients would not have been identified had testing not been routinely offered. Routine inpatient HIV testing offers an important opportunity to identify patients with HIV infection.