Search

Additional file 2: Supplementary Table 2. Sensitivity analysis of risk of readmission by ADI grouping for varying threshold.

Additional file 1: Supplementary Table 1. Odds of 30-day readmission for CDI patients by patient characteristic and ADI score national percentile.

Additional file 3: Supplementary Table 3. Odds of 30-day rehospitalization by subgroup.

Summary of empiric antibiotic therapy guidelines used at the study site for developing the PARA program. Guidelines were derived from national and local guidelines in the Philippines for empiric antibiotic therapy [11, 12] and institutional antibiogram data (data not shown). (DOCX 18 kb)

Algorithm for PARA (Prior Approval for Restricted Antimicrobials). (DOCX 145 kb)

Initial semi-structured ďťżinterview guide, based on the SEIPS framework. (PDF 139 kb)

Table S2. Fidelity assessment. (DOCX 47 kb)

ST1. Sensitivity analysis results: frequencies of MRSA, MSSA, and Total SA colonization at the endpoint of the trial at each body site, stratified by re-assigned GI or extra-GI colonization group based on PCR and culture screening results at baseline, and probiotic or placebo treatment group. (DOCX 110Â kb)

ST1. Sensitivity analysis results: frequencies of MRSA, MSSA, and Total SA colonization at the endpoint of the trial at each body site, stratified by re-assigned GI or extra-GI colonization group based on PCR and culture screening results at baseline, and probiotic or placebo treatment group. (DOCX 110Â kb)

Illustrative quotations from the interviews arranged within the five bathing steps and the order set intervention. (DOCX 49 kb)

Table S3. Meta-regression analysis showed that the stratified estimates did not significantly differ between subgroups. (DOCX 14 kb)

Figure S1. Effect of chlorhexidine gluconate bathing comparing Randomized vs. non-randomized studies. Figure S2. Effect of chlorhexidine gluconate bathing comparing bundled vs. non-bundled interventions. Figure S3. Effect of chlorhexidine gluconate bathing comparing 2% chlorhexidine impregnated wipes vs. 4% CHG solution. Figure S4. Effect of chlorhexidine gluconate bathing comparing intensive care unit (ICU) vs. non-ICU settings. (PDF 164 kb)

Table S1. Characteristics of included studies. (DOCX 57 kb)

Table S2. Fidelity assessment. (DOCX 47 kb)

Figure S1. Effect of chlorhexidine gluconate bathing comparing Randomized vs. non-randomized studies. Figure S2. Effect of chlorhexidine gluconate bathing comparing bundled vs. non-bundled interventions. Figure S3. Effect of chlorhexidine gluconate bathing comparing 2% chlorhexidine impregnated wipes vs. 4% CHG solution. Figure S4. Effect of chlorhexidine gluconate bathing comparing intensive care unit (ICU) vs. non-ICU settings. (PDF 164 kb)

Table S1. Characteristics of included studies. (DOCX 57 kb)

Table S3. Meta-regression analysis showed that the stratified estimates did not significantly differ between subgroups. (DOCX 14 kb)