Search

Previous studies have demonstrated that proactive psychiatric consultation reduces hospital length of stay (LOS) in the general medical setting; however this model has not been studied in the intensive care unit (ICU).To compare outcomes between a conventional consultation model and a proactive psychiatric consultation model.Two medical ICUs (MICUs) were randomized to proactive psychiatric consultation vs conventional consultation psychiatric models. Proactive consultation included embedding a psychiatrist into daily MICU team rounds on all patients. In the conventional consultation MICU, psychiatric consultations were activated when deemed necessary. Primary outcomes were hospital LOS and MICU LOS. Secondary outcomes included delirium-coma-free hours and ventilator-free hours.A total of 429 patients were admitted to the proactive consultation MICU; 393 patients were admitted to the conventional consultation MICU. The consultation rate for the intervention group was 24.2% vs 6.1% in the control group (p0.001). Time to psychiatric consultation was shorter in the intervention group. Median hospital LOS was 6.92 days, interquartile range 3.70-14.31 in the intervention group vs 7.69 days, interquartile range 3.95-16.21 in the control group (p = 0.113). MICU LOS, delirium-coma-free hours, and ventilator-free hours were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Among the respiratory failure subgroup, hospital LOS was shorter in the intervention vs control group (median 9.46 days, interquartile range 4.95-17.56 vs 12.29 days, interquartile range 6.58-21.10, p = 0.011).Proactive psychiatric consultation in a MICU was associated with decreased time to consultation among all patients and shorter hospital LOS among patients with respiratory failure.

Background: Total joint replacement recipients (TJR) are at risk for prosthetic joint infection (PJI), particularly those with comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus (DM) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: We mailed surveys to 1078 subjects undergoing primary TJR between 2011 and 2016 ​at an academic center. The survey asked about medical, dental, and orthopedic history and use of antibiotics prior to dental appointments. We generated adjusted relative risks (aRR) for using antibiotic prophylaxis less than always using Poisson regression, adjusting for demographic, clinical, and behavioral factors. Results: We received surveys from 639 subjects; 597 were eligible and formed the analytical sample. 66 ​% reported always using antibiotic prophylaxis. DM and RA were not associated with prophylaxis use. Factors associated with less frequent use included: BMI ≥30 (aRR ​= ​1.27, 95 ​% CI [1.01, 1.60]), dental cleanings