Search

Abstract A medical error is a preventable adverse effect of medical care. Errors can happen in the hospital at the doctor’s office, at the pharmacy, laboratory and ward. These can also occur at home by the patient or the attendant. These errors may lead to death or major/minor injuries or can also be harmless. However these should be recorded, analysed and remedial measures implemented to reduce the risk of being committed in the future. We are reporting the medical care of our patient in persistent vegetative state over nineteen years due to medical error at our hospital resulting in brain anoxia. The key issues faced during the care were recurrent respiratory and urinary tract infections and in last one year kidney calculi leading to chronic kidney disease and its complications. There are no contractures or thrombo-embolic events and above all no bed sore over this period.

Background: In 2023, Nebraska held its 4th state antimicrobial stewardship (AS) educational conference, an annual one-day in-person event with continuing education offered for nurses, pharmacists, microbiology lab technicians, and physicians. One challenge of educational events is determining if content has been translated into practice. We sought to assess AS-related practice changes implemented by conference attendees. Methods: Conference attendees were sent 2 surveys by email following the conference. Survey 1 questions were integrated into the continuing education credit evaluation immediately following the conference. Survey 2 was sent three months later to all registered attendees. Qualitative responses were grouped by theme and descriptive statistics were used to evaluate Results: There were 203 attendees from across the state including a diverse group of learners (Table 1) representing metropolitan and rural areas of Nebraska (Figure 1) from acute care hospitals, critical access hospitals, long-term care settings, and public health. A total of 148 attendees (73%) answered questions in Survey 1 (Table 2), and 79 (39%) attendees responded to Survey 2. On Survey 1, 94% of respondents indicated that they intended to make practice changes, though 60% anticipated barriers including further staff training needs and lack of resources and health system support. On Survey 2, 83% of respondents indicated successful implementation of practice changes at three months after the conference. The most common practice changes included enhanced communication strategies, improved antibiotic tracking, monitoring, and review, policy and procedure updates, and AS tool implementation. On Survey 1, 26% (35/131) strongly agreed that their ability to treat patients was adequate prior to the conference; this increased to 55% (72/131) post-conference. On Survey 2, 56% (22/39) of respondents reported improvement in patient outcomes because of implemented practice changes following conference attendance. However, some also mentioned a short follow-up survey timeline as a limitation in assessing patient outcome improvements. Reported outcomes included improved receptiveness from providers, patients, and families to antibiotic use recommendations, shorter prescribed durations, and more appropriate initial antibiotic selection. Improved team performance was noted by 73% (27/37) of respondents. Themes included improved communication with internal and external stakeholders, more collaborative team discussions, increased confidence in recommendations, expanded provider and staff engagement, and increased leadership involvement. Conclusions: In addition to improved knowledge and understanding for a variety of AS-related areas, attendees of the conference also reported a high rate of practice changes that led to perceived improvements in patient outcomes and team function.

Background: Since 2009, the CDC has invested in nationwide outbreak response capacity through Healthcare-associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance (HAI/AR) Programs in public health departments. The unpredictable nature of outbreaks requires public health programs to be able to scale operations and adapt strategies to effectively respond to emerging challenges, as demonstrated by the COVID-19 pandemic. This analysis characterizes HAI/AR Programs response capacity in scalability, adaptability, and technical expertise. Method: We reviewed data from HAI/AR Programs in 50 state, 6 local, and 2 territorial health departments (August 2019–December 2022). HAI/AR responses were defined as specific public health actions to assess an acute risk and prevent further harm in the context of a confirmed or possible healthcare outbreak; responses were categorized as involving novel or targeted multi-drug resistant organisms (nMDROs), COVID-19, and HAIs or infection control breaches. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze reported responses in three domains: scalability (number of responses per year), adaptability (number of pathogens and healthcare facility types involved in responses), and technical expertise (number of responses involving onsite or remote infection control assessments). The annual number of responses conducted in 2019 was estimated based on five months of data (Aug–Dec); all other results were calculated directly. Results: From August 2019 to December 2022, 58 HAI/AR Programs reported 141,445 responses (87% COVID-19, 11% nMDROs, 2% other HAIs or infection control breaches). Annually, programs conducted an estimated 5,546 responses in 2019, and this figure rose to 42,359 in 2020, 49,124 in 2021, and 47,651 in 2022. Outbreak responses involved 110 different pathogens, including emerging infectious diseases (e.g., SARS-CoV-2, mpox), nMDRO (e.g., carbapenemase-producing organisms, Candida auris), and other pathogens (e.g., hepatitis viruses, Mycobacterium abscessus) across >20 setting types (e.g., acute care hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, ambulatory surgery centers, assisted living facilities). Additionally, programs responded to infection control breaches in the absence of identified patient infections, including drug diversion, medical device reprocessing, and injection safety breaches. Programs conducted 50,245 infection control assessments during reported responses. Conclusion: From 2019–2022, as the COVID-19 pandemic took hold, HAI/AR Programs effectively utilized CDC funding to scale their response operations with an 8-fold increase in annual response activity, including a 24% increase for non-COVID-19 responses. Programs adapted responses to various pathogens, including emerging infectious diseases, across various setting types. Health department staff utilized technical expertise to conduct infection control assessments. This analysis provides valuable insights into the resilience and impact of HAI/AR Programs nationwide.

Abstract Objective: The study examined resources needed by Infection Preventionists (IP) to address infection prevention and control (IPC) program gaps. Design: A 49-question survey. Setting: Licensed Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs) in Federal Emergency Management Area (FEMA) Region VII. Participants: IP at licensed CAHs. Methods: The survey conducted between December 2020 and January 2021 consisted of questions focusing on four categories including IPC program infrastructure, competency-based training, audit and feedback, and identification of high-risk pathogens/serious communicable diseases (HRP/SCD). An IPC score was calculated for each facility by totaling “Yes” responses (which indicate best practices) to 49 main survey questions. Follow-up questions explored the resources needed by the CAHs to implement or further strengthen best practices and mitigate IPC practice gaps. Welch t-test was used to study differences in IPC practice scores between states. Results: 50 of 259 (19.3%) CAHs participated in the survey with 37 (14.3%) answering all 49 questions. CAHs responding to all questions had a median IPC score of 35. There was no significant difference between IPC practice scores of CAHs in NE and IA. The top three IPC gaps were absence of drug diversion program (77%), lack of audits and feedback for insertion and maintenance of central venous catheters (76%), and missing laboratory risk assessments to identify tests that can be offered safely for patients under investigation for HRP/SCD (76%). Standardized audit tools, educational resources, and staff training materials were cited as much-needed resources. Conclusion: IPC practice gaps exist in CAHs. Various resources are needed for gap mitigation.

Background: Prescribing errors related to the COVID-19 oral antiviral agent nirmatrelvir-ritonavir have been reported and are primarily due to improper renal dosing and significant drug–drug interactions. These patient safety issues are particularly concerning in the long-term care facility (LTCF) population. The Nebraska Antimicrobial Stewardship Assessment and Promotion Program (ASAP) is a unique collaborative partnership involving the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Nebraska Medicine, and the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). ASAP is funded through the Nebraska DHHS healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial resistance (HAI/AR) program and was established in 2016, with a primary focus of promoting safe and effective antimicrobial use in Nebraska. In 2022, ASAP developed a statewide pharmacist-led service to assist LTCFs in evaluating prescriptions for COVID-19 oral therapeutics. We studied the impact of ASAP pharmacist intervention on COVID-19 oral antiviral prescriptions. Methods: ASAP created a centralized LTCF treatment request process for oral antivirals. A REDCap survey hosted on a dedicated program webpage was used to collect requests for treatment submitted by any LTCF in Nebraska, including assisted living facilities. An ASAP pharmacist reviewed each survey submission for renal and hepatic function, drug–drug interactions, date of symptom onset, and ability to take oral medications. After pharmacist approval, delivery of the appropriate COVID-19 therapeutic to the LTCF was coordinated with the dispensing pharmacy. The pharmacists recorded the specific interventions for each treatment in the program database. Descriptive analyses were used to study the program impact. Results: In total, 630 courses of oral COVID-19 antivirals were administered to Nebraska LTCF residents through the ASAP program in 2022. The median patient age was 84 years, and 59% were female. Most dispensed courses (n = 410, 65%) needed pharmaceutical interventions upon review for 506 individual interventions. The most frequent intervention was to hold or adjust doses of concomitant medications in 205 patients (33%), followed by antiviral dose adjustment for renal function in 117 patients (19%), and selecting an alternative COVID-19 therapy due to drug–drug interactions in 108 patients (17%). COVID-19 therapeutic agents were changed upon ASAP intervention to be in compliance with the National Institute of Health COVID-19 treatment guidelines in 37 patients (6%). Conclusions: Pharmacist review of oral antiviral prescriptions for COVID-19 through a public health–supported initiative identified and prevented potential patient safety issues in LTCF residents. Future studies should analyze the impact of similar interventions on patient outcomes.

Background: Critical-access hospitals (CAHs) are required to meet the CDC 7 Core Elements of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs). CAHs have lower adherence to the core elements than larger acute-care hospitals, and literature defining which core-element deficiencies exist within CAHs as well as barriers to adherence is lacking. Methods: We evaluated 21 CAH ASPs (5 in Nebraska and 15 in Iowa) that self-identified as potentially deficient in the Core Elements, via self-assessment followed by in-depth interviews with local ASP team members to assess adherence to the CDC Core Elements for ASPs. Core-element compliance was rated as either full (1 point), partial (0.5), or deficient (0), with a maximum score of 7 per ASP. High-priority recommendations to ensure core-element compliance were provided to facilities as written feedback. Self-reported barriers to implementation were thematically categorized. Results: Among the 21 CAH ASPs, none fully met all 7 core elements (range, 2.5–6.5), with a median of 5 full core elements met (Fig. 1). Only 6 ASPs (28.6%) had at least partial adherence to each of the 7 core elements. Action (21 of 21, 100%) and leadership commitment (16 of 21, 76.2%) were the core elements with the highest adherence, and accountability (4 of 21, 19%) and education (9 of 21, 42.9%) were the lowest. The most frequent high-priority recommendations were to provide physician and pharmacist leader ASP training (19 of 21, 90.5%), to track antimicrobial stewardship interventions (12 of 21, 57.1%), and to provide or track educational activities (12 of 21, 57.1%) (Fig. 2). One-third of programs were recommended to establish a physician leader. The most commonly self-identified barriers to establishing and maintaining an ASP were a lack of dedicated resources such as time of personnel (15 of 20, 75%), lack of infectious diseases expertise and training (8 of 20, 40%), and electronic medical record limitations (5 of 20, 25%) (Fig. 3). Conclusions: CAH ASPs demonstrate several critical gaps in achieving adherence to the CDC Core Elements, primarily in training for physician and pharmacist leaders and providing stewardship-focused education. Further resources and training customized to the issues present in CAH ASPs should be developed.