Search

BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene is key to preventing healthcare-associated infection and the spread of respiratory viruses like the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19. Unfortunately, hand hygiene adherence of healthcare workers (HCWs) in Japan is suboptimal according to previous studies. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to evaluate hand hygiene adherence among physicians and nurses before touching hospitalized patients and to evaluate changes in hand hygiene adherence after a multimodal intervention was implemented. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a pre- and postintervention study with HCWs at four tertiary hospitals in Niigata, Japan. Hand hygiene observations were conducted from June to August 2018 (preintervention) and February to March 2019 (postintervention). INTERVENTION: The multimodal hand hygiene intervention recommended by the World Health Organization was tailored to each hospital and implemented from September 2018 to February 2019. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We observed hand hygiene adherence before touching patients in each hospital and compared rates before and after intervention. Intervention components were also evaluated. RESULTS: There were 2,018 patient observations preintervention and 1,630 postintervention. Overall, hand hygiene adherence improved from 453 of 2,018 preintervention observations (22.4%) to 548 of 1,630 postintervention observations (33.6%; P < .001). Rates improved more among nurses (13.9 percentage points) than among doctors (5.7 percentage points). Improvement varied among the hospitals: Hospital B (18.4 percentage points) was highest, followed by Hospitals D (11.4 percentage points), C (11.3 percentage points), and Hospital A (6.5 percentage points). CONCLUSIONS: A multimodal intervention improved hand hygiene adherence rates in physicians and nurses in Niigata, Japan; however, further improvement is necessary. Given the current suboptimal hand hygiene adherence rates in Japanese hospitals, the spread of COVID-19 within the hospital setting is a concern.

Objectives Most older adults have multimorbidity that impairs physical functioning, but it is difficult to quantify using claims data. We previously developed and validated a multimorbidity-weighted index (MWI) that embeds physical functioning through disease weightings. We mapped these conditions to International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes and compared them with existing indices. Design Population-based prospective cohort. Setting Respondents to the 2006-2016 waves of the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) with linked Medicare claims data and continuous enrollment in 2006. Participants Community-dwelling Medicare-eligible HRS participants (N = 9923; mean age = 75.5 ± 8.5 y). Measurements Individuals were followed for future physical functioning (2006-2014) and mortality (2007-2016). MWI conditions were mapped to ICD-9-CM codes to produce an ICD-coded MWI (MWI-ICD). We compared MWI-ICD, simple disease count, Charlson, Elixhauser, and the health-related quality of life comorbidity index (HRQOL-CI) through distributions, hazard ratios for mortality, and relationships with future physical functioning. Results MWI-ICD exhibited the broadest distribution and most unique values (5891). Left censoring was most pronounced for Charlson (34.3% score = 0) and Elixhauser (13.1% score = 0) vs MWI (5.0% score = 0). Hazard ratios and concordance (C)-statistics for mortality across extreme quartiles were similar for MWI-ICD, Elixhauser, and Charlson but lower for disease count and the HRQOL-CI. For physical functioning, MWI-ICD yielded the greatest contrast across extreme quartiles and overall coefficient of determination (R2 ). Conclusion MWI-ICD was significantly associated with mortality and future physical functioning and comparable with established metrics for mortality prediction although not weighted to mortality. MWI-ICD successfully captures diseases accumulation and functioning in claims data. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:999-1006, 2020.

AIMS To examine the characteristics of patients with diabetes who regularly receive help from a supporter in preparing for and attending medical visits, and the association between this help and clinical risk factors for diabetes complications. METHODS We linked survey data about family involvement for patients in the Veterans Health Administration system with poorly controlled Type 2 diabetes (n = 588; mean 67 years; 97% male) with health record data on blood pressure, glycaemic control and prescription-fill gaps. We used multivariable regression to assess whether supporter presence and, among patients with supporters, supporter role (visit preparation, accompaniment to medical visit or no involvement) were associated with concurrent trends in clinical risk factors over 2 years, adjusting for sociodemographic and health characteristics. RESULTS Most patients (78%) had a main health supporter; of these, more had regular support for preparing for appointments (69%) than were regularly accompanied to them (45%). Patients with preparation help only were younger and more educated than accompanied patients. Support presence and type was not significantly associated with clinical risk factors. CONCLUSIONS Family help preparing for appointments was common among these patients with high-risk diabetes. In its current form, family support for medical visits may not affect clinical factors in the short term. Supporters helping patients engage in medical visits may need training and assistance to have an impact on the clinical trajectory of patients with diabetes.

BACKGROUND Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are increasingly used in hospitalized patients. Yet, little is known about the vascular access nurses who often place them. METHODS We conducted a Web-based survey to assess vascular access nursing experience, practice, knowledge, and beliefs related to PICC insertion and care in 47 Michigan hospitals. RESULTS The response rate was 81% (172 received invitations, 140 completed the survey). More than half of all respondents (58%) reported placing PICCs for ≥5 years, and 23% had obtained dedicated vascular access certification. The most common reported indications for PICC insertion included intravenous antibiotics, difficult venous access, and chemotherapy. Many respondents (46%) reported placing a PICC in a patient receiving dialysis; however, 91% of these respondents reported receiving approval from nephrology prior to insertion. Almost all respondents (91%) used ultrasound to find a suitable vein for PICC insertion, and 76% used electrocardiography guidance to place PICCs. PICC occlusion was reported as the most frequently encountered complication, followed by device migration and deep vein thrombosis. Although 94% of respondents noted that their hospitals tracked the number of PICCs placed, only 40% reported tracking duration of PICC use. Relatedly, 30% of nurses reported that their hospitals had a written policy to evaluate PICC necessity or appropriateness. CONCLUSION This survey of vascular nursing experiences highlights opportunities to improve practices such as avoiding PICC use in dialysis, better tracking of PICC dwell times, and necessity. Hospitalists may use these data to inform clinical practice, appropriateness, and safety of PICCs in hospitalized patients. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:269–275. 2015 Society of Hospital Medicine