Search

Background Up to one-third of hospitalized patients treated for urinary tract infection (UTI) have asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB). Both diagnostic (avoiding inappropriate urine cultures) and antibiotic stewardship (reducing unnecessary antibiotic use in asymptomatic patients) have been proposed to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use for ASB. However, it's unclear which method is most effective. Methods The Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium aimed to improve antibiotic use and outcomes of hospitalized patients with a positive urine culture between 7/1/2017—3/31/2020 (see Table 1 for patient characteristics) by benchmarking performance across 46 Michigan hospitals, sharing best practices, and implementing pay-for-performance metrics related to unnecessary treatment of ASB (see Figure 1). Using logistic regression models controlling for hospital clustering, we assessed change over time in percentage of hospitalized patients treated for UTI who had ASB (i.e., had no documented signs or symptoms of UTI) and hospital characteristics associated with baseline or change in unnecessary antibiotic prescribing. We then estimated the percentage of avoided ASB treatment attributable to diagnostic (decrease in urine cultures ordered on asymptomatic patients) vs. antibiotic stewardship (decrease duration or avoidance of antibiotic treatment). Results Across 46 hospitals, there were 15,493 patients with a positive urine culture. Of 13,805 patients treated for a UTI, 23.2% (3,197) had ASB. The percentage of patients treated for UTI who had ASB declined over time from 29.0% (95% CI: 26.1%, 32.0%) to 16.9% (95% CI: 14.2%, 20.1%; aOR 0.94 per quarter, 95% CI: 0.92-0.96; Figure 1) with hospitals not belonging to a larger healthcare system having the largest decrease over time (Table 2). Neither the proportion of patients with ASB who were treated with antibiotics (P=0.07) nor the duration of therapy for ASB changed over time (P=0.09); thus, nearly all avoided antibiotic therapy for ASB appeared due to diagnostic stewardship. Conclusions Across 46 hospitals, there was a decrease over time in unnecessary treatment for ASB with independent hospitals improving most. Diagnostic stewardship appeared responsible for nearly all improvement. Disclosures Payal K. Patel, MD, MPH, Qiagen: Honoraria.

Background In 10/2019, revised ATS/IDSA community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) guidelines removed healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP), expanding patients eligible for a 5-day antibiotic course. Using data from 46 hospitals in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium, we quantified the impact of removing HCAP on antibiotic duration for CAP. Methods From 11/2017 to 1/2022, data were abstracted from medical records of adult non-ICU medical patients admitted with pneumonia. Our primary outcome was percentage of patients who received 5-days of antibiotics out of those who, under the new CAP guidelines would be eligible for 5-days (including patients defined as HCAP prior to the 2019 guideline) [Table 1]. We evaluated using Chi-square, if the effect of the guidelines differed for patients defined as CAP based on the 2007 CAP guideline (pCAP) vs. HCAP. To assess the effect of the new guideline on 5-day therapy, we used segmented logistic regression accounting for hospital level clustering to look at changes at baseline and overtime before and after 10/2019. Results When applying the 2019 CAP definition to 34,810 patients admitted with pneumonia over the entire period, 41.2% (N=14,358) of patients were eligible for 5-day duration. Applying pre-2019 categorization to the entire period, 46.4% of pCAP (N=10,565/22,757) and 31.5% of HCAP (N=3793/12,053) were eligible for 5-day duration. Of those 5-day eligible, 34.4% (N=4,936) received 5 days (pCAP 35.5% N=3750; HCAP 31.2% N=1186, P< .001). Before 10/2019, 29.5% (N=2,018) of patients with pCAP who were eligible received 5 days vs 23.6% (N=548) of HCAP (P< .001). Post 10/2019, 46.5% (N=1,732) of patients with pCAP eligible received 5 days vs 43.5% (N=638) of HCAP (P=0.049). The improvement rate in 5-day therapy decreased after 10/2019, with similar decrements for both pCAP and HCAP [Figure 1]. Conclusion Among patients hospitalized with pneumonia, two thirds received an excess antibiotic duration, with similar proportions for pCAP and HCAP. Prior to the new guidelines, the 5-day treatment rate was improving for HCAP and pCAP. However, the rate of improvement decreased after 10/2019 for both pCAP and HCAP, suggesting the 2019 guidelines did not have an added effect on improving antibiotic duration. Disclosures Valerie Vaughn, MD, MSc, Thermo Fisher Scientific: Honoraria.

Background Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common cause for hospitalization and antibiotic overuse. We aimed to improve antibiotic duration for CAP across 41 hospitals participating in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium (HMS). Methods This prospective collaborative quality initiative included patients hospitalized with uncomplicated CAP who qualified for a 5-day antibiotic duration. Between 23 February 2017 and 5 February 2020, HMS targeted appropriate 5-day antibiotic treatment through benchmarking, sharing best practices, and pay-for-performance incentives. Changes in outcomes, including appropriate receipt of 5 ± 1–day antibiotic treatment and 30-day postdischarge composite adverse events (ie, deaths, readmissions, urgent visits, and antibiotic-associated adverse events), were assessed over time (per 3-month quarter), using logistic regression and controlling for hospital clustering. Results A total of 41 hospitals and 6553 patients were included. The percentage of patients treated with an appropriate 5 ± 1–day duration increased from 22.1% (predicted probability, 20.9% [95% confidence interval: 17.2%–25.0%]) to 45.9% (predicted probability, 43.9% [36.8%–51.2%]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per quarter, 1.10 [1.07–1.14]). Thirty-day composite adverse events occurred in 18.5% of patients (1166 of 6319) and decreased over time (aOR per quarter, 0.98 [95% confidence interval: .96–.99]) owing to a decrease in antibiotic-associated adverse events (aOR per quarter, 0.91 [.87–.95]). Conclusions Across diverse hospitals, HMS participation was associated with more appropriate use of short-course therapy and fewer adverse events in hospitalized patients with uncomplicated CAP. Establishment of national or regional collaborative quality initiatives with data collection and benchmarking, sharing of best practices, and pay-for-performance incentives may improve antibiotic use and outcomes for patients hospitalized with uncomplicated CAP.

Background:We sought to determine the incidence of community-onset and hospital-acquired coinfection in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to evaluate associated predictors and outcomes.Methods:In this multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from March 2020 to August 2020 across 38 Michigan hospitals, we assessed prevalence, predictors, and outcomes of community-onset and hospital-acquired coinfections. In-hospital and 60-day mortality, readmission, discharge to long-term care facility (LTCF), and mechanical ventilation duration were assessed for patients with versus without coinfection.Results:Of 2,205 patients with COVID-19, 141 (6.4%) had a coinfection: 3.0% community onset and 3.4% hospital acquired. Of patients without coinfection, 64.9% received antibiotics. Community-onset coinfection predictors included admission from an LTCF (OR, 3.98; 95% CI, 2.34–6.76; P < .001) and admission to intensive care (OR, 4.34; 95% CI, 2.87–6.55; P < .001). Hospital-acquired coinfection predictors included fever (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.15–5.27; P = .02) and advanced respiratory support (OR, 40.72; 95% CI, 13.49–122.93; P < .001). Patients with (vs without) community-onset coinfection had longer mechanical ventilation (OR, 3.31; 95% CI, 1.67–6.56; P = .001) and higher in-hospital mortality (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.06–3.40; P = .03) and 60-day mortality (OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.05–3.29; P = .03). Patients with (vs without) hospital-acquired coinfection had higher discharge to LTCF (OR, 8.48; 95% CI, 3.30–21.76; P < .001), in-hospital mortality (OR, 4.17; 95% CI, 2.37–7.33; P ≤ .001), and 60-day mortality (OR, 3.66; 95% CI, 2.11–6.33; P ≤ .001).Conclusion:Despite community-onset and hospital-acquired coinfection being uncommon, most patients hospitalized with COVID-19 received antibiotics. Admission from LTCF and to ICU were associated with increased risk of community-onset coinfection. Future studies should prospectively validate predictors of COVID-19 coinfection to facilitate the reduction of antibiotic use.

BackgroundThe Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC) provides evidence-based criteria for peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) use. Whether implementing MAGIC improves PICC appropriateness and reduces complications is unknown.MethodsA quasiexperimental study design to implement MAGIC in 52 Michigan hospitals was used. Data were collected from medical records by trained abstractors. Hospital performance on three appropriateness criteria was measured: short-term PICC use (≤5 days), use of multilumen PICCs and PICC placement in patients with chronic kidney disease. PICC appropriateness and device complications preintervention (January 2013 to December 2016) versus postintervention (January 2017 to January 2020) were compared. Change-point analysis was used to evaluate the effect of the intervention on device appropriateness. Logistic regression and Poisson models were fit to assess the association between appropriateness and complications (composite of catheter occlusion, venous thromboembolism (VTE) and central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI)).ResultsAmong 38 592 PICCs, median catheter dwell ranged from 8 to 56 days. During the preintervention period, the mean frequency of appropriate PICC use was 31.9% and the mean frequency of complications was 14.7%. Following the intervention, PICC appropriateness increased to 49.0% (absolute difference 17.1%, pConclusionsImplementation of MAGIC in Michigan hospitals was associated with improved PICC appropriateness and fewer complications. These findings have important quality, safety and policy implications for hospitals, patients and payors.

Opioid and benzodiazepine prescribing after COVID-19 hospitalization is not well understood. We aimed to characterize opioid and benzodiazepine prescribing among naïve patients hospitalized for COVID and to identify the risk factors associated with a new prescription at discharge. In this retrospective study of patients across 39 Michigan hospitals from March to November 2020, we identified 857 opioid- and benzodiazepine-naïve patients admitted with COVID-19 not requiring mechanical ventilation. Of these, 22% received opioids, 13% received benzodiazepines, and 6% received both during the hospitalization. At discharge, 8% received an opioid prescription, and 3% received a benzodiazepine prescription. After multivariable adjustment, receipt of an opioid or benzodiazepine prescription at discharge was associated with the length of inpatient opioid or benzodiazepine exposure. These findings suggest that hospitalization represents a risk of opioid or benzodiazepine initiation among naïve patients, and judicious prescribing should be considered to prevent opioid-related harms.

Background Antibiotics are commonly prescribed to patients as they leave the hospital. We aimed to create a comprehensive metric to characterize antibiotic overuse after discharge among hospitalized patients treated for pneumonia or urinary tract infection (UTI), and to determine whether overuse varied across hospitals and conditions. Methods In a retrospective cohort study of hospitalized patients treated for pneumonia or UTI in 46 hospitals between 1 July 2017–30 July 2019, we quantified the proportion of patients discharged with antibiotic overuse, defined as unnecessary antibiotic use, excess antibiotic duration, or suboptimal fluoroquinolone use. Using linear regression, we assessed hospital-level associations between antibiotic overuse after discharge in patients treated for pneumonia versus a UTI. Results Of 21 825 patients treated for infection (12 445 with pneumonia; 9380 with a UTI), nearly half (49.1%) had antibiotic overuse after discharge (56.9% with pneumonia; 38.7% with a UTI). For pneumonia, 63.1% of overuse days after discharge were due to excess duration; for UTIs, 43.9% were due to treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria. The percentage of patients discharged with antibiotic overuse varied 5-fold among hospitals (from 15.9% [95% confidence interval, 8.7%–24.6%] to 80.6% [95% confidence interval, 69.4%–88.1%]) and was strongly correlated between conditions (regression coefficient = 0.85; P < .001). Conclusions Antibiotic overuse after discharge was common and varied widely between hospitals. Antibiotic overuse after discharge was associated between conditions, suggesting that the prescribing culture, physician behavior, or organizational processes contribute to overprescribing at discharge. Multifaceted efforts focusing on all 3 types of overuse and multiple conditions should be considered to improve antibiotic prescribing at discharge., Of 21 825 hospitalized patients with pneumonia or urinary tract infection in 46 hospitals, half (49.1%) had antibiotic overuse after discharge. Overuse varied 5-fold among hospitals (15.9%–80.6%) and was correlated between conditions. To improve prescribing, stewardship should include care transitions.

Objective: Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) can be prevented through infection prevention practices and antibiotic stewardship. Diagnostic stewardship (ie, strategies to improve use of microbiological testing) can also improve antibiotic use. However, little is known about the use of such practices in US hospitals, especially after multidisciplinary stewardship programs became a requirement for US hospital accreditation in 2017. Thus, we surveyed US hospitals to assess antibiotic stewardship program composition, practices related to CDI, and diagnostic stewardship. Methods: Surveys were mailed to infection preventionists at 900 randomly sampled US hospitals between May and October 2017. Hospitals were surveyed on antibiotic stewardship programs; CDI prevention, treatment, and testing practices; and diagnostic stewardship strategies. Responses were compared by hospital bed size using weighted logistic regression. Results: Overall, 528 surveys were completed (59% response rate). Almost all (95%) responding hospitals had an antibiotic stewardship program. Smaller hospitals were less likely to have stewardship team members with infectious diseases (ID) training, and only 41% of hospitals met The Joint Commission accreditation standards for multidisciplinary teams. Guideline-recommended CDI prevention practices were common. Smaller hospitals were less likely to use high-tech disinfection devices, fecal microbiota transplantation, or diagnostic stewardship strategies. Conclusions: Following changes in accreditation standards, nearly all US hospitals now have an antibiotic stewardship program. However, many hospitals, especially smaller hospitals, appear to struggle with access to ID expertise and with deploying diagnostic stewardship strategies. CDI prevention could be enhanced through diagnostic stewardship and by emphasizing the role of non–ID-trained pharmacists and clinicians in antibiotic stewardship.

While guidelines stronglyrecommend dexamethasone in critical COVID-19, the optimal threshold to initiate corticosteroids in non-critically ill patients with COVID-19 remains unclear. Using data from a state-wide COVID-19 registry, we evaluated the effectiveness of early corticosteroids for preventing clinical deterioration among non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and receiving non-invasive oxygen therapy.This was a target trial using observational data from patients hospitalized for COVID-19 at 39 hospitals participating in the MI-COVID19 registry between March 16, 2020 and August 24, 2020. We studied the impact of corticosteroids initiated within 2 calendar days of hospitalization ("early steroids") versus no early steroids among non-ICU patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV2 receiving non-invasive supplemental oxygen therapy. Our primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality, transfer to intensive care, and receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and propensity score-weighted regression to measure the association of early steroids and outcomes.Among 1002 patients meeting study criteria, 231 (23.1%) received early steroids. After IPTW, to balance potential confounders between the treatment groups, early steroids were not associated with a decrease in the composite outcome (aOR 1.1, 95%CI 0.8-1.6) or in any components of the primary outcome.We found no evidence that early corticosteroid therapy prevents clinical deterioration among hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients receiving non-invasive oxygen therapy. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal threshold for initiating corticosteroids in this population.

Although characteristics and in-hospital outcomes for persons with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been well described, less is known about the longer-term outcomes of hospitalized patients Although characteristics and in-hospital outcomes for persons with COVID-19 have been well described, less is known about the longer-term outcomes of hospitalized patients Here, a study that aims to describe the 6-day postdischarge clinical, financial, and mental health outcomes of patients with COVID-19 using an observational cohort study is offered

Background Strategies to optimize antibiotic prescribing at discharge are not well understood. Methods In fall 2019, we surveyed 39 Michigan hospitals on their antibiotic stewardship strategies. The association of reported strategies with discharge antibiotic overuse (unnecessary, excess, suboptimal fluoroquinolones) for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and urinary tract infection (UTI) was evaluated in 2 ways: (1) all strategies assumed equal weight and (2) strategies were weighted based on the ROAD (Reducing Overuse of Antibiotics at Discharge) Home Framework (ie, Tier 1—Critical infrastructure, Tier 2—Broad inpatient interventions, Tier 3—Discharge-specific strategies) with Tier 3 strategies receiving the highest weight. Results Between 1 July 2017 and 30 July 2019, 39 hospitals with 20 444 patients (56.5% CAP; 43.5% UTI) were included. Survey response was 100%. Hospitals reported a median (interquartile range [IQR]) 12 (9–14) of 34 possible stewardship strategies. On analyses of individual stewardship strategies, the Tier 3 intervention, review of antibiotics prior to discharge, was the only strategy consistently associated with lower antibiotic overuse at discharge (adjusted incident rate ratio [aIRR] 0.543, 95% confidence interval [CI]: .335–.878). On multivariable analysis, weighting by ROAD Home tier predicted antibiotic overuse at discharge for both CAP and UTI. For diseases combined, having more weighted strategies was associated with lower antibiotic overuse at discharge (aIRR 0.957, 95% CI: .927–.987, per weighted intervention); discharge-specific stewardship strategies were associated with a 12.4% relative decrease in antibiotic overuse days at discharge. Conclusions The more stewardship strategies a hospital reported, the lower its antibiotic overuse at discharge. However, Tier 3, or discharge-specific strategies, appeared to have the largest effect on antibiotic prescribing at discharge.

OBJECTIVES High-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) testing was approved in the United States to better facilitate diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Although hsTnT has been widely studied internationally, the impact of hsTnT on discharge diagnoses and health care utilization within the United States is less known. We sought to evaluate the effects of implementing hsTnT on diagnosis patterns and stress testing utilization. STUDY DESIGN We performed a retrospective cohort analysis consisting of patients with suspected ACS undergoing either conventional troponin I (n = 14,631) or hsTnT (n = 7237) testing between January 2016 and February 2019. METHODS Log-binomial regression with interrupted time series modeled diagnosis patterns, and logistic regression with segmented time trends modeled stress testing rates. Observed trends were compared with expected trends using average marginal effect (AME). RESULTS Rates of acute myocardial infarction-related diagnoses were similar in the post-hsTnT period (AME, -0.6%; P = .065). Post hsTnT introduction, patients were more likely to receive a diagnosis of heart failure (2.1%; P

ObjectiveTo describe patient characteristics, symptoms, patterns of care and outcomes for patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in Michigan.DesignMulticentre retrospective cohort study.Setting32 acute care hospitals in the state of Michigan.ParticipantsPatients discharged (16 March–11 May 2020) with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were identified. Trained abstractors collected demographic information on all patients and detailed clinical data on a subset of COVID-19-positive patients.Primary outcome measurementsPatient characteristics, treatment and outcomes including cardiopulmonary resuscitation, mortality and venous thromboembolism within and across hospitals.ResultsDemographic-only data from 1593 COVID-19-positive and 1259 persons under investigation discharges were collected. Among 1024 cases with detailed data, the median age was 63 years; median body mass index was 30.6; and 51.4% were black. Cough, fever and shortness of breath were the top symptoms. 37.2% reported a known COVID-19 contact; 7.0% were healthcare workers; and 16.1% presented from congregated living facilities.During hospitalisation, 232 (22.7%) patients were treated in an intensive care unit (ICU); 558 (54.9%) in a ‘cohorted’ unit; 161 (15.7%) received mechanical ventilation; and 90 (8.8%) received high-flow nasal cannula. ICU patients more often received hydroxychloroquine (66% vs 46%), corticosteroids (34% vs 18%) and antibiotic therapy (92% vs 71%) than general ward patients (pAcross 14 hospitals, the proportion of patients admitted directly to an ICU ranged from 0% to 43.8%; mechanical ventilation on admission from 0% to 12.8%; mortality from 7.9% to 45.7%. Use of at least one COVID-19-specific therapy varied from 32% to 96.3% across sites.ConclusionsDuring the early days of the Michigan outbreak of COVID-19, patient characteristics, treatment and outcomes varied widely within and across hospitals.

Key Points Question What is the frequency with which patients hospitalized with COVID-19 are treated with venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylactic- and treatment-dose anticoagulation, and what is the association of anticoagulation with in-hospital and 60-day mortality? Findings In this cohort study of 1351 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in which 1127 patients received anticoagulation, 34.8% missed 2 or more days of VTE prophylaxis. Use of only prophylactic-dose or treatment-dose anticoagulation was associated with lower in-hospital mortality vs no anticoagulation; however, only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality at 60 days. Meaning These findings suggest that prophylactic-dose VTE anticoagulation may be optimal therapy for patients hospitalized with COVID-19., This cohort study of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 examines the association of anticoagulation treatment with mortality rates, and assesses differences between prophylactic- and treatment-doses in in-hospital and 60-day mortality., Importance Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of COVID-19. It is not well understood how hospitals have managed VTE prevention and the effect of prevention strategies on mortality. Objective To characterize frequency, variation across hospitals, and change over time in VTE prophylaxis and treatment-dose anticoagulation in patients hospitalized for COVID-19, as well as the association of anticoagulation strategies with in-hospital and 60-day mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 used a pseudorandom sample from 30 US hospitals in the state of Michigan participating in a collaborative quality initiative. Data analyzed were from patients hospitalized between March 7, 2020, and June 17, 2020. Data were analyzed through March 2021. Exposures Nonadherence to VTE prophylaxis (defined as missing ≥2 days of VTE prophylaxis) and receipt of treatment-dose or prophylactic-dose anticoagulants vs no anticoagulation during hospitalization. Main Outcomes and Measures The effect of nonadherence and anticoagulation strategies on in-hospital and 60-day mortality was assessed using multinomial logit models with inverse probability of treatment weighting. Results Of a total 1351 patients with COVID-19 included (median [IQR] age, 64 [52-75] years; 47.7% women, 48.9% Black patients), only 18 (1.3%) had a confirmed VTE, and 219 (16.2%) received treatment-dose anticoagulation. Use of treatment-dose anticoagulation without imaging ranged from 0% to 29% across hospitals and increased over time (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.46; 95% CI, 1.31-1.61 per week). Of 1127 patients who ever received anticoagulation, 392 (34.8%) missed 2 or more days of prophylaxis. Missed prophylaxis varied from 11% to 61% across hospitals and decreased markedly over time (aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.82-0.97 per week). VTE nonadherence was associated with higher 60-day (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.03-1.67) but not in-hospital mortality (aHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.03). Receiving any dose of anticoagulation (vs no anticoagulation) was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (only prophylactic dose: aHR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.26-0.52; any treatment dose: aHR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.25-0.58). However, only the prophylactic dose of anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality at 60 days (prophylactic dose: aHR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.90; treatment dose: aHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.63-1.35). Conclusions and Relevance This large, multicenter cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, found evidence of rapid dissemination and implementation of anticoagulation strategies, including use of treatment-dose anticoagulation. As only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation was associated with lower 60-day mortality, prophylactic dosing strategies may be optimal for patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Background:Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are frequently used to deliver intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy after discharge from the hospital. Infectious disease (ID) physicians are often consulted prior to PICC placement, but whether their approval influences PICC appropriateness and complications is not known. Methods: Using data from the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium (HMS) on PICCs placed in critically ill and hospitalized medical patients between January 1, 2015, and July 26, 2019, we examined the association between ID physician approval of PICC insertion for IV antibiotics and device appropriateness and outcomes. Appropriateness was defined according to the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC) as a composite measure of (1) avoiding PICC use for durations ≤5 days; (2) using single-lumen instead of multilumen catheters; and (3) avoiding PICC use in patients with chronic kidney disease (eGFR>45 mL/min). The associations between ID approval of PICC use and odds of PICC-related complications (eg, deep vein thrombosis, central-line–associated bloodstream infection, and catheter occlusion) were also assessed. Multivariable models adjusting for patient severity of illness and hospital-level clustering were fit to both outcomes. Results were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% CIs. Results: Data from 36,594 patients who underwent PICC placement across 42 Michigan hospitals were included in the analysis. In total, 21,653 (55%) PICCs were placed for the indication of IV antibiotics; 14,935 (69%) of these had a documented ID consultation prior to placement, whereas 6,718 (31%) did not. Of the 14,935 PICCs with an ID consultation, 10,238 (69%) had ID approval documented prior to device placement (Fig. 1). Compared to no approval, PICCs approved by ID prior to insertion were more likely to be appropriate (OR, 3.51; 95% CI, 3.28–3.77; P < .001). Specifically, approval was associated with higher single-lumen use (OR, 5.13; 95% CI, 4.72–5.58; P < .001), less placement of PICCs with dwell times ≤ 5 days (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.25–0.32; P < .001), and less frequent use in patients with chronic kidney disease (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73–0.87; P < .001). ID approval of PICCs prior to insertion was associated with a significantly lower odds of PICC-related complications (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.51–0.64) (Table 1). Conclusions: ID approval of PICC use for IV antibiotic therapy in hospitalized patients was associated with greater appropriateness and fewer complications. Policies aimed at ensuring ID review prior to PICC use may help improve patient and device safety.Funding: NoneDisclosures:Valerie M. Vaughn reports contract research for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, the NIH, the SHEA, and the APIC. She also reports fees from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation Speaker’s Bureau, the CDC, the Pew Research Trust, Sepsis Alliance, and The Hospital and Health System Association of Pennsylvania.

Background: Nearly half of hospitalized patients with bacteriuria or treated for pneumonia receive unnecessary antibiotics (noninfectious or nonbacterial syndrome such as asymptomatic bacteriuria), excess duration (antibiotics prescribed for longer than necessary), or avoidable fluoroquinolones (safer alternative available) at hospital discharge.1–3 However, whether antibiotic overuse at discharge varies between hospitals or is associated with patient outcomes remains unknown. Methods: From July 2017 to December 2018, trained abstractors at 46 Michigan hospitals collected detailed data on a sample of adult, non–intensive care, hospitalized patients with bacteriuria (positive urine culture with or without symptoms) or treated for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP; includes those with the disease formerly known as healthcare-associated pneumonia [HCAP]). Antibiotic prescriptions at discharge were assessed for antibiotic overuse using a previously described, guideline-based hierarchical algorithm.3 Here, we report the proportion of patients discharged with antibiotic overuse by the hospital. We also assessed hospital-level correlation (using Pearson’s correlation coefficient) between antibiotic overuse at discharge for patients with bacteriuria and patients treated for CAP. Finally, we assessed the association of antibiotic overuse at discharge with patient outcomes (mortality, readmission, emergency department visit, and antibiotic-associated adverse events) at 30 days using logit generalized estimating equations adjusted for patient characteristics and probability of treatment. Results: Of 17,081 patients (7,207 with bacteriuria; 9,874 treated for pneumonia), nearly half (42.2%) had antibiotic overuse at discharge (36.3% bacteriuria and 51.1% pneumonia). The percentage of patients discharged with antibiotic overuse varied 5-fold among hospitals from 14.7% (95% CI, 8.0%–25.3%) to 74.3% (95% CI, 64.2%–83.8%). Hospital rates of antibiotic overuse at discharge were strongly correlated between bacteriuria and CAP (Pearson’s correlation coefficient, 0.76; P ≤ .001) (Fig. 1). In adjusted analyses, antibiotic overuse at discharge was not associated with death, readmission, emergency department visit, or Clostridioides difficile infection. However, each day of overuse was associated with a 5% increase in the odds of patient-reported antibiotic-associated adverse events after discharge (Fig. 2). Conclusions: Antibiotic overuse at discharge was common, varied widely between hospitals, and was associated with patient harm. Furthermore, antibiotic overuse at discharge was strongly correlated between 2 disparate diseases, suggesting that prescribing culture or discharge processes—rather than disease-specific factors—contribute to overprescribing at discharge. Thus, discharge stewardship may be needed to target multiple diseases.Funding: This study was supported by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America and by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network.Disclosures: Valerie M. Vaughn reports contracted research for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, the Department of VA, the NIH, the SHEA, and the APIC. She also reports receipt of funds from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation Speaker’s Bureau, the CDC, the Pew Research Trust, Sepsis Alliance, and the Hospital and Health System Association of Pennsylvania.

Background: This document provides evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on the management of adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Methods: A multidisciplinary panel conducted pragmatic systematic reviews of the relevant research and applied Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology for clinical recommendations. Results: The panel addressed 16 specific areas for recommendations spanning questions of diagnostic testing, determination of site of care, selection of initial empiric antibiotic therapy, and subsequent management decisions. Although some recommendations remain unchanged from the 2007 guideline, the availability of results from new therapeutic trials and epidemiological investigations led to revised recommendations for empiric treatment strategies and additional management decisions. Conclusions: The panel formulated and provided the rationale for recommendations on selected diagnostic and treatment strategies for adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia.

BackgroundWhile midline vascular catheters are gaining popularity in clinical practice, patterns of use and outcomes related to these devices are not well known.MethodsTrained abstractors collected data from medical records of hospitalised patients who received midline catheters in 12 hospitals. Device characteristics, patterns of use and outcomes were assessed at device removal or at 30 days. Rates of major (upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis [DVT], bloodstream infection [BSI] and catheter occlusion) and minor complications were assessed. χ2 tests were used to examine differences in rates of complication by number of lumens, reasons for catheter removal l, and hospital-level differences in rates of midline use.ResultsComplete data on 1161 midlines representing 5%–72% of all midlines placed in participating hospitals between 1 January 2017 and 1 March 2018 were available. Most (70.8%) midlines were placed in general ward settings for difficult intravenous access (61.4%). The median dwell time of midlines across hospitals was 6 days; almost half (49%) were removed within 5 days of insertion. A major or minor complication occurred in 10.3% of midlines, with minor complications such as dislodgement, leaking and infiltration accounting for 71% of all adverse events. While rates of major complications including occlusion, upper-extremity DVT and BSI were low (2.2%, 1.4% and 0.3%, respectively), they were just as likely to lead to midline removal as minor complications (53.8% vs 52.5%, p=0.90). Across hospitals, absolute volume of midlines placed varied from 100 to 1837 devices, with corresponding utilisation rates of 0.97%–12.92% (pConclusionMidline use and outcomes vary widely across hospitals. Although rates of major complications are low, device removal as a result of adverse events is common.

Background Fluoroquinolones increase the risk of Clostridioides difficile infection and antibiotic resistance. Hospitals often use pre-prescription approval or prospective audit and feedback to target fluoroquinolone prescribing. Whether these strategies impact aggregate fluoroquinolone use is unknown. Methods This study is a 48-hospital, retrospective cohort of general-care, medical patients hospitalized with pneumonia or positive urine culture between December 2015–September 2017. Hospitals were surveyed on their use of pre-prescription approval and/or prospective audit and feedback to target fluoroquinolone prescribing during hospitalization (fluoroquinolone stewardship). After controlling for hospital clustering and patient factors, aggregate (inpatient and post-discharge) fluoroquinolone (ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin) exposure was compared between hospitals with and without fluoroquinolone stewardship. Results There were 11 748 patients (6820 pneumonia; 4928 positive urine culture) included at 48 hospitals. All hospitals responded to the survey: 29.2% (14/48) reported using pre-prescription approval and/or prospective audit and feedback to target fluoroquinolone prescribing. After adjustment, fluoroquinolone stewardship was associated with fewer patients receiving a fluoroquinolone (37.1% vs 48.2%; P = .01) and fewer fluoroquinolone treatment days per 1000 patients (2282 vs 3096 days/1000 patients; P = .01), driven by lower inpatient prescribing. However, most (66.6%) fluoroquinolone treatment days occurred after discharge, and hospitals with fluoroquinolone stewardship had twice as many new fluoroquinolone starts after discharge as hospitals without (15.6% vs 8.4%; P = .003). Conclusions Hospital-based stewardship interventions targeting fluoroquinolone prescribing were associated with less fluoroquinolone prescribing during hospitalization, but not at discharge. To limit aggregate fluoroquinolone exposure, stewardship programs should target both inpatient and discharge prescribing., In this 48-hospital cohort study of 11 748 patients hospitalized with pneumonia or positive urine cultures, hospital-based antibiotic stewardship interventions targeting fluoroquinolone prescribing were associated with less fluoroquinolone use during hospitalization, but appeared to partially increase fluoroquinolone prescribing at discharge.

To quantify variation in use and complications from peripherally inserted central catheters placed in the ICU versus peripherally inserted central catheters placed on the general ward.Retrospective cohort study.Fifty-two hospital Michigan quality collaborative.Twenty-seven-thousand two-hundred eighty-nine patients with peripherally inserted central catheters placed during hospitalization.Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient, provider, and device characteristics. Bivariate tests were used to assess differences between peripherally inserted central catheters placed in the ICU versus peripherally inserted central catheters placed on the ward. Multilevel mixed-effects generalized linear models adjusting for patient and device factors with a logit link clustered by hospital were used to examine the association between peripherally inserted central catheter complications and location of peripherally inserted central catheter placement. Variation in ICU peripherally inserted central catheter use, rates of complications, and appropriateness of use across hospitals was also examined. Eight-thousand two-hundred eighty patients (30.3%) received peripherally inserted central catheters in the ICU versus 19,009 (69.7%) on the general ward. The commonest indication for peripherally inserted central catheter use in the ICU was difficult IV access (35.1%) versus antibiotic therapy (53.3%) on wards. Compared with peripherally inserted central catheters placed in wards, peripherally inserted central catheters placed in the ICU were more often multilumen (59.5% vs 39.3; p0.001) and more often associated with a complication (odds ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.18-1.43; p0.001). Substantial variation in ICU peripherally inserted central catheter use and outcomes across hospitals was observed, with median peripherally inserted central catheter dwell time ranging from 3 to 38.5 days (p0.001) and complications from 0% to 40.2% (p0.001). Importantly, 87% (n = 45) of ICUs reported median peripherally inserted central catheter dwell times less than or equal to 14 days, a duration where traditional central venous catheters, not peripherally inserted central catheters, are considered appropriate by published criteria.Peripherally inserted central catheter use in the ICU is highly variable, associated with complications and often not appropriate. Further study of vascular access decision-making in the ICU appears necessary.

BackgroundAs SARS-CoV-2 continues to spread, and hospitals are treating a large number of patients with COVID-19, easy-to-use risk models that predict hospital mortality can assist in clinical decision making and triage.ObjectiveAs SARS-CoV-2 continues to spread, easy-to-use risk models that predict hospital mortality can assist in clinical decision making and triage. We aimed to develop a risk score model for in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 that was robust across hospitals and used clinical factors that are readily available and measured standardly across hospitals.MethodsIn this observational study we developed a risk score model using data collected by trained abstractors for patients in 20 diverse hospitals across the state of Michigan (Mi-COVID19) who were discharged between March 5, 2020 and August 14, 2020. Patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during hospitalization or were discharged with an ICD-10 code for COVID-19 (U07.1) were included. We employed an iterative forward selection approach to consider the inclusion of 145 potential risk factors available at hospital presentation. Model performance was externally validated with patients from 19 hospitals in the Mi-COVID19 registry not used in model development. We shared the model in an easy-to-use online application that allows the user to predict in-hospital mortality risk for a patient if they have any subset of the variables in the final model.ResultsOur final model includes the patient’s age, first recorded respiratory rate, first recorded pulse oximetry, highest creatinine level on day of presentation, and hospital’s COVID-19 mortality rate. No other factors showed sufficient incremental model improvement to warrant inclusion. The AUC for the derivation and validation sets were .796 and .829 respectively.ConclusionsRisk of in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients can be reliably estimated using a few factors, which are standardly measured and available to physicians very early in a hospital encounter.

Key Points Question Is approval by an infectious disease physician prior to placement of a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) for intravenous antimicrobials associated with appropriate device use or complications? Findings In this cohort study of 21 653 PICCs placed for intravenous antimicrobials in 42 hospitals, 47% of PICCs were placed with approval of an infectious disease physician. Compared with nonapproved PICCs, approved PICCs were more likely to be appropriately placed, and the patients less likely to experience complications. Meaning This cohort study suggests that infectious disease physician approval of PICCs prior to placement for intravenous antimicrobial therapy is associated with more appropriate device use and fewer complications., Importance Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are frequently used to deliver intravenous antimicrobial therapy. However, inappropriate PICC use may lead to patient harm. Objective To evaluate whether infectious disease physician approval prior to PICC placement for intravenous antimicrobials is associated with more appropriate device use and fewer complications. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study of 21 653 PICCs placed for a primary indication of intravenous antimicrobial therapy between January 1, 2015, and July 26, 2019, was conducted in 42 hospitals participating in a quality collaborative across Michigan among hospitalized medical patients. Main Outcomes and Measures Appropriateness of PICCs was defined according to the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters as a composite measure of (1) single-lumen catheter use, (2) avoiding use of PICCs for 5 days or less, and (3) avoiding use of PICCs for patients with chronic kidney disease (defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate, This cohort study evaluates whether infectious disease physician approval prior to placement of a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) for intravenous antimicrobials is associated with more appropriate device use and fewer complications.

Background Antibacterials may be initiated out of concern for bacterial coinfection in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We determined prevalence and predictors of empiric antibacterial therapy and community-onset bacterial coinfections in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods A randomly sampled cohort of 1705 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in 38 Michigan hospitals between 3/13/2020 and 6/18/2020. Data were collected on early (within 2 days of hospitalization) empiric antibacterial therapy and community-onset bacterial coinfections (positive microbiologic test ≤3 days). Poisson generalized estimating equation models were used to assess predictors. Results Of 1705 patients with COVID-19, 56.6% were prescribed early empiric antibacterial therapy; 3.5% (59/1705) had a confirmed community-onset bacterial infection. Across hospitals, early empiric antibacterial use varied from 27% to 84%. Patients were more likely to receive early empiric antibacterial therapy if they were older (adjusted rate ratio [ARR]: 1.04 [1.00–1.08] per 10 years); had a lower body mass index (ARR: 0.99 [0.99–1.00] per kg/m2), more severe illness (eg, severe sepsis; ARR: 1.16 [1.07–1.27]), a lobar infiltrate (ARR: 1.21 [1.04–1.42]); or were admitted to a for-profit hospital (ARR: 1.30 [1.15–1.47]). Over time, COVID-19 test turnaround time (returned ≤1 day in March [54.2%, 461/850] vs April [85.2%, 628/737], P < .001) and empiric antibacterial use (ARR: 0.71 [0.63–0.81] April vs March) decreased. Conclusions The prevalence of confirmed community-onset bacterial coinfections was low. Despite this, half of patients received early empiric antibacterial therapy. Antibacterial use varied widely by hospital. Reducing COVID-19 test turnaround time and supporting stewardship could improve antibacterial use.

Introduction Since sipuleucel-T approval in 2010, the treatment landscape for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) now includes the androgen-receptor signaling pathway inhibitors (ASPIs) abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide. In 2013 and 2014, these oral agents were approved for use in men with metastatic prostate cancer who had minimal to no symptoms. We compared overall survival (OS) in men who received their first mCRPC treatment using the Medicare Fee-for-Service 100% administrative claims research dataset with patient-level linkage to the National Death Index. Methods This retrospective cohort analysis (January 2013 to December 2017) included men who were chemo-naïve at treatment start in 2014 and who had continuous Medicare Parts A, B, and D eligibility during the 3-year observation period. We compared: first-line sipuleucel-T vs. first-line ASPIs and any-line sipuleucel-T vs. any-line ASPIs (without sipuleucel-T). We used a multivariable regression model to help control for potentially confounding factors while assessing survival outcomes. Results The model included 6044 eligible men (average age 75–78 years) with similar disease severity; > 80% were white. Median OS, presented as sipuleucel-T vs. ASPI, was 35.2 vs. 20.7 months (n, 906 vs. 5092; any-line cohort) and 34.9 vs. 21.0 months (n, 647 vs. 4810; first-line cohort). Model outcomes indicated sipuleucel-T was associated with significantly prolonged OS compared with ASPIs: adjusted hazard ratio, 0.59 (95% CI 0.527–0.651) and 0.56 (0.494–0.627) for the any-line and first-line cohorts, respectively. Conclusion This analysis suggests use of sipuleucel-T at any time was associated with improved OS compared with ASPI use alone. Of note, these analyses are intended as descriptive rather than definitive as this dataset contains limited data on key clinical factors. While selection bias is a risk in secondary claims data, this research provides important insight into real-world treatment outcomes. Electronic Supplementary Material The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-020-01509-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

In a 2016 survey of 46 Michigan hospitals, we identified four key needs for antibiotic stewardship: clinically-relevant antibiotic data, monitoring compliance, syndrome-specific interventions, and discharge stewardship. A stewardship initiative now addresses these needs within the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium.

Background In this study among men who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP), African American men (AAM) were 28% more likely to develop recurrent disease compared with Caucasian men (CM). However, among those who had nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), race did not predict metastases or overall survival. Whether race predicts metastases among men who receive androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) after a biochemical recurrence (BCR) (ie, before CRPC but after BCR) is untested. Methods The authors identified 595 AAM and CM who received ADT for a BCR that developed after RP between 1988 and 2015 in the Shared Equal-Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) database. Univariable and multivariable Cox models were used to test the association between race and the time from ADT to metastases. Secondary outcomes included the time to CRPC, all-cause mortality, and prostate cancer-specific mortality. Results During a median follow-up of 66 months after ADT, 62 of 354 CM (18%) and 38 of 241 AAM (16%) developed metastases. AAM were younger at the time they received ADT (63 vs 67 years; P .5). Conclusions Among veterans who received ADT post-BCR after RP, race was not a predictor of metastases or other adverse outcomes. The current findings suggest that research efforts to understand racial differences in prostate cancer biology should focus on early stages of the disease (ie, closer to the time of diagnosis).

Introduction Enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate (plus prednisone) are new hormonal treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This study compared treatment duration, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and treatment costs for chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC patients treated with enzalutamide or abiraterone acetate in the USA. Methods Chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC patients initiating treatment with enzalutamide or abiraterone acetate were identified from administrative claims. Continuous enrollment ≥ 6 months before and ≥ 3 months after the index date (initiation date of enzalutamide or abiraterone acetate) was required. Treatment duration, all-cause and prostate cancer-related HRU, and costs were estimated during the post-index period. Multivariable analyses compared HRU and costs between cohorts, adjusting for baseline characteristics. Results Overall, 920 chemotherapy-naïve patients initiated enzalutamide and 2310 initiated abiraterone acetate (median follow-up, 10.7 and 13.5 months, respectively). More enzalutamide-treated patients had corticosteroid-sensitive comorbidities at baseline. Treatment duration was longer with enzalutamide versus abiraterone acetate (median, 10.7 vs. 8.8 months; P = 0.008). Enzalutamide was associated with fewer all-cause inpatient admissions [adjusted incidence rate ratio (95% confidence interval) 0.87 (0.76, 0.99)], days of hospitalization [0.84 (0.70, 1.02)], and outpatient visits [0.94 (0.90, 0.98)], and fewer prostate cancer-related outpatient visits [0.92 (0.87, 0.96)] compared with abiraterone acetate. Enzalutamide was also associated with lower prostate cancer-related inpatient and emergency department costs [adjusted differences, $122 (P = 0.024) and $28 (P = 0.009), respectively]. Conclusion Chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC patients treated with enzalutamide versus abiraterone acetate had longer treatment duration and incurred lower HRU and prostate cancer-related inpatient and emergency department costs. Funding Astellas Pharma Inc. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-018-0774-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction Bicalutamide (BIC), a non-steroidal anti-androgen, is FDA-indicated for use in combination with a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analog for treatment of Stage D2 metastatic carcinoma of the prostate. Lack of consensus exists regarding the clinical benefit of BIC use, either alone or combined use of BIC with an LHRH analog or antagonist (combined androgen blockade or CAB), versus treatment with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone. Methods The SEER-Medicare database was used to identify prostate cancer patients aged ≥ 66 years diagnosed between 2007 and 2011 and who filled at least one prescription for BIC. Duration of BIC treatment was assessed in relation to ADT use; either alone (monotherapy), as part of CAB only, and as part of CAB followed by monotherapy. Additionally, we assessed use of BIC during or outside a potential testosterone flare prevention period (initiation within 2 months of an LHRH agonist). Results A total of 7521 prostate cancer patients who filled a prescription for BIC were identified. Eighteen percent of the cohort used BIC alone, over half the patients (54%) used BIC as part of CAB and 27% used BIC as part of CAB followed by monotherapy. Among men treated with BIC as part of CAB, 58% received BIC only within the potential flare period. Conclusions Although there is no FDA indication for BIC use as monotherapy, > 44% of patients in this study used BIC alone or as part of CAB followed by monotherapy. Further research is necessary to understand the outcomes of BIC utilization in these settings, particularly compared with newer second-generation anti-androgens. Funding Medivation LLC, a Pfizer company, and Astellas, Pharma, Inc. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-018-0738-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background The current study was performed to describe patient characteristics, treatment patterns, survival, health care resource use (HRU), and costs among older women in the United States with advanced (American Joint Committee on Cancer stage III/IV) triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Methods Women who were aged ≥66 years at the time of diagnosis and diagnosed with advanced TNBC between January 1, 2007, and January 1, 2011, in the SEER-Medicare database and who were followed for survival through December 31, 2013, were eligible. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics at the time of diagnosis, subsequent treatment patterns, and survival outcomes were analyzed. HRU and costs for the first 3 months after diagnosis, the last 3 months of life, and the time in between are summarized. All analyses were stratified by American Joint Committee on Cancer stage of disease. Results There were 1244 patients newly diagnosed with advanced TNBC; the majority were aged ≥75 years (61% with stage III disease and 57.4% with stage IV disease) and white (>70% of patients in both disease stage groups). The most common treatment approaches were surgery combined with chemotherapy for patients for stage III disease (50.6%) and chemotherapy alone or with radiotherapy for patients with stage IV disease (31.3%). Diverse chemotherapy regimens were administered for each line of therapy; nevertheless, the medications used were consistent with national guidelines. Patients with stage III and stage IV disease were found to have a similar mean number of hospitalizations and outpatient visits, but mean monthly costs were greater for patients with stage IV disease at all 3 time points. The mean cost per patient-month (in 2013 US dollars) was $4810 for patients with stage III disease and $9159 for patients with stage IV disease. Conclusions Among older women with advanced TNBC, significant treatment variations and considerable HRU and costs exist. Further research is needed to find effective treatments with which to reduce the clinical and economic burden of this disease. Cancer 2018;124:2104-14. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Background The guidelines for peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) recommend avoiding insertion if the anticipated duration of use is =5 days. However, short-term PICC use is common in hospitals. We sought to identify patient, provider, and device characteristics and the clinical outcomes associated with short-term PICCs. Methods Between January 2014 and June 2016, trained abstractors at 52 Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety (HMS) Consortium sites collected data from medical records of adults that received PICCs during hospitalization. Patients were prospectively followed until PICC removal, death, or 70 days after insertion. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit to identify factors associated with short-term PICCs, defined as dwell time of =5 days. Complications associated with short-term use, including major (eg, venous thromboembolism [VTE] or central lineassociated bloodstream infection [CLABSI]) or minor (eg, catheter occlusion, tip migration) events were assessed. Results Of the 15,397 PICCs placed, 3902 (25.3%) had a dwell time of =5 days. Most (95.5%) short-term PICCs were removed during hospitalization. Compared to PICCs placed for >5 days, variables associated with short-term PICCs included difficult venous access (odds ratio [OR], 1.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.40-1.69), multilumen devices (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.39-1.69), and teaching hospitals (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.04-1.52). Among those with short-term PICCs, 374 (9.6%) experienced a complication, including 99 (2.5%) experiencing VTE and 17 (0.4%) experiencing CLABSI events. The most common minor complications were catheter occlusion (4%) and tip migration (2.2%). Conclusion Short-term use of PICCs is common and associated with patient, provider, and device factors. As PICC placement, even for brief periods, is associated with complications, efforts targeted at factors underlying such use appear necessary.

As severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 continues to spread, easy-to-use risk models that predict hospital mortality can assist in clinical decision making and triage. We aimed to develop a risk score model for in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized with 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) that was robust across hospitals and used clinical factors that are readily available and measured standardly across hospitals. In this retrospective observational study, we developed a risk score model using data collected by trained abstractors for patients in 20 diverse hospitals across the state of Michigan (Mi-COVID19) who were discharged between March 5, 2020 and August 14, 2020. Patients who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 during hospitalization or were discharged with an ICD-10 code for COVID-19 (U07.1) were included. We employed an iterative forward selection approach to consider the inclusion of 145 potential risk factors available at hospital presentation. Model performance was externally validated with patients from 19 hospitals in the Mi-COVID19 registry not used in model development. We shared the model in an easy-to-use online application that allows the user to predict in-hospital mortality risk for a patient if they have any subset of the variables in the final model. Two thousand one hundred and ninety-three patients in the Mi-COVID19 registry met our inclusion criteria. The derivation and validation sets ultimately included 1690 and 398 patients, respectively, with mortality rates of 19.6% and 18.6%, respectively. The average age of participants in the study after exclusions was 64 years old, and the participants were 48% female, 49% Black, and 87% non-Hispanic. Our final model includes the patient's age, first recorded respiratory rate, first recorded pulse oximetry, highest creatinine level on day of presentation, and hospital's COVID-19 mortality rate. No other factors showed sufficient incremental model improvement to warrant inclusion. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for the derivation and validation sets were .796 (95% confidence interval, .767–.826) and .829 (95% confidence interval, .782–.876) respectively. We conclude that the risk of in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients can be reliably estimated using a few factors, which are standardly measured and available to physicians very early in a hospital encounter.

Background Antibiotic therapy has no known benefit against COVID-19, but is often initiated out of concern for concomitant bacterial infection. We sought to determine how common early empiric antibiotic therapy and community-onset bacterial co-infections are in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods In this multi-center cohort study of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 discharged from 32 Michigan hospitals during the COVID-19 Michigan surge, we describe the use of early empiric antibiotic therapy (within the first two days) and prevalence of community-onset bacterial co-infection. Additionally, we assessed patient and hospital predictors of early empiric antibiotic using poison generalized estimating equation models. Results Between 3/10/2020 and 5/10/2020, data were collected on 951 COVID-19 PCR positive patients. Patient characteristics are described in Table 1. Nearly two thirds (62.4%, 593/951) of COVID-19 positive patients were prescribed early empiric antibiotic therapy, most of which (66.2%, 393/593) was directed at community-acquired pathogens. Across hospitals, the proportion of COVID-19 patients prescribed early empiric antibiotics varied from 40% to 90% (Figure 1). On multivariable analysis, patients were more likely to receive early empiric antibiotic therapy if they were older (adjusted rate ratio [ARR]: 1.01 [1.00–1.01] per year), required respiratory support (e.g., low flow oxygen, ARR: 1.16 [1.04–1.29]), had signs of a bacterial infection (e.g., lobar infiltrate, ARR: 1.17 [1.02–1.34]), or were admitted to a for-profit hospital (ARR: 1.27 [1.11–1.45]); patients admitted later were less likely to receive empiric antibiotics (April vs. March, ARR: 0.72 [0.62–0.84], Table 2). Community-onset bacterial co-infections were identified in 4.5% (43/951) of COVID-19 positive patients (2.4% [23/951] positive blood culture; 1.9% [18/951] positive respiratory culture). Conclusion Despite low prevalence of community-onset bacterial co-infections, patients hospitalized with COVID-19 often received early empiric antibiotic therapy. Given the potential harms from unnecessary antibiotic use, including additional personal protective equipment to administer antibiotics, judicious antibiotic use is key in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Disclosures Tejal N. Gandhi, MD, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (Grant/Research Support) Scott A. Flanders, MD, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (Research Grant or Support)Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (Research Grant or Support)

Background Although common, the impact of low-cost bedside visual tools, such as whiteboards, on patient care is unclear. Purpose To systematically review the literature and assess the influence of bedside visual tools on patient satisfaction. Data sources Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, Web of Science, CINAHL, and CENTRAL. Data extraction Studies of adult or pediatric hospitalized patients reporting physician identification, understanding of provider roles, patient-provider communication, and satisfaction with care from the use of visual tools were included. Outcomes were categorized as positive, negative, or neutral based on survey responses for identification, communication, and satisfaction. Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of study bias. Data synthesis Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Visual tools included whiteboards (n = 4), physician pictures (n = 7), whiteboard and picture (n = 1), electronic medical record-based patient portals (n = 3), and formatted notepads (n = 1). Tools improved patients' identification of providers (13/13 studies). The impact on understanding the providers' roles was largely positive (8/10 studies). Visual tools improved patient-provider communication (4/5 studies) and satisfaction (6/8 studies). In adults, satisfaction varied between positive with the use of whiteboards (2/5 studies) and neutral with pictures (1/5 studies). Satisfaction related to pictures in pediatric patients was either positive (1/3 studies) or neutral (1/3 studies). Differences in tool format (individual pictures vs handouts with pictures of all providers) and study design (randomized vs cohort) may explain variable outcomes. Conclusion The use of bedside visual tools appears to improve patient recognition of providers and patient-provider communication. Future studies that include better design and outcome assessment are necessary before widespread use can be recommended.

Essentials How best to quantify thrombosis risk with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) is unknown. Data from a registry were used to develop the Michigan Risk Score (MRS) for PICC thrombosis. Five risk factors were associated with PICC thrombosis and used to develop a risk score. MRS was predictive of the risk of PICC thrombosis and can be useful in clinical practice. SummaryBackground Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are associated with upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT). We developed a score to predict risk of PICC-related thrombosis. Methods Using data from the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium, image-confirmed upper-extremity DVT cases were identified. A logistic, mixed-effects model with hospital-specific random intercepts was used to identify factors associated with PICC-DVT. Points were assigned to each predictor, stratifying patients into four classes of risk. Internal validation was performed by bootstrapping with assessment of calibration and discrimination of the model. Results Of 23 010 patients who received PICCs, 475 (2.1%) developed symptomatic PICC-DVT. Risk factors associated with PICC-DVT included: history of DVT; multi-lumen PICC; active cancer; presence of another CVC when the PICC was placed; and white blood cell count greater than 12 000. Four risk classes were created based on thrombosis risk. Thrombosis rates were 0.9% for class I, 1.6% for class II, 2.7% for class III and 4.7% for class IV, with marginal predicted probabilities of 0.9% (0.7, 1.2), 1.5% (1.2, 1.9), 2.6% (2.2, 3.0) and 4.5% (3.7, 5.4) for classes I, II, III, and IV, respectively. The risk classification rule was strongly associated with PICC-DVT, with odds ratios of 1.68 (95% CI, 1.19, 2.37), 2.90 (95% CI, 2.09, 4.01) and 5.20 (95% CI, 3.65, 7.42) for risk classes II, III and IV vs. risk class I, respectively. Conclusion The Michigan PICC-DVT Risk Score offers a novel way to estimate risk of DVT associated with PICCs and can help inform appropriateness of PICC insertion.

Objective: To estimate the healthcare costs and characteristics of docetaxel chemotherapy episodes of care for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Methods: This study used the Medicare 5% sample and MarketScan Commercial (2010–2013) claims data sets to identify men with mCRPC and initial episodes of docetaxel treatment. Docetaxel episodes included docetaxel claim costs from the first claim until 30 days after the last claim, with earlier termination for death, insurance disenrollment, or the end of a 24-month look-forward period from initial docetaxel index date. Docetaxel drug claim costs were adjusted for 2011 generic docetaxel introduction, while other costs were adjusted to 2015 values using the national average annual unit cost increase. Results: This study identified 281 Medicare-insured and 155 commercially insured men, with 325 and 172 docetaxel episodes, respectively. The average number of cycles (unique docetaxel infusion days) per episode was 6.9 for Medicare and 6.3 for commercial cohorts. The average cost per episode was $28,792 for Medicare and $67,958 for commercial cohorts, with docetaxel drug costs contributing $2,588 and $13,169 per episode, respectively. The average cost per episode on docetaxel infusion days was $8,577 (30%) for Medicare and $28,412 (42%) for commercial. Non-docetaxel infusion day costs included $7,074 (25%) for infused or injected drugs for Medicare, $10,838 (16%) for commercial cohorts, and $6,875 (24%) and $9,324 (14%) for inpatient admissions, respectively. Limitations: The applicability is only to the metastatic castration-resistance clinical setting, rather than the metastatic hormone-sensitive setting, and the lack of data on the cost effectiveness of different sequencing strategies of a range of systemic therapies including enzalutamide, abiraterone, radium-223, and taxane chemotherapy. Conclusion: The majority of docetaxel episode costs in Medicare and commercial mCRPC populations were non-docetaxel drug costs. Future research should evaluate the total cost of care in mCPRC.

Background: Clinicians often diagnose bacterial infections such as urinary tract infection (UTI) and pneumonia in patients who are asymptomatic or have nonbacterial causes of their symptoms. Misdiagnosis of infection leads to unnecessary antibiotic use and potentially delays correct diagnoses. Interventions to improve diagnosis often focus on infections separately. However, if misdiagnosis is linked, broader interventions to improve diagnosis may be more effective. Thus, we assessed whether misdiagnosis of UTI and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) was correlated. Methods: From July 2017 to July 2019, abstractors at 46 Michigan hospitals collected data on a sample of adult, non–intensive care, hospitalized patients with bacteriuria (positive urine culture) or who were treated for presumed CAP (discharge diagnosis plus antibiotics). Patients with concomitant bacterial infections were excluded. Using a previously described method,1,2 patients were assessed for UTI or CAP based on symptoms, signs, and laboratory or radiology findings. Misdiagnosis of UTI was defined as patients with asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) treated with antibiotics number of patients with bacteriuria Misdiagnosis of CAP was defined as patients treated for presumed CAP who did not have CAP number of patients treated for presumed CAP. Hospital-level correlation was assessed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient between misdiagnosis of UTI and CAP. For patients with prescriber data (N = 3,293), we also assessed emergency department (ED)-level correlation. Results: Of 11,914 patients with bacteriuria, 31.9% (N = 3,796) had ASB. Of those, 2,973 of 3,796 (78.3%) received antibiotics. Of 14,085 patients treated for CAP, 1,602 (11.4%) did not have CAP. Incidence of misdiagnosis varied by hospital: those with high rates of misdiagnosis of UTI were more likely to have high rates of misdiagnosis of CAP (Pearson’s correlation coefficient, 0.58; P ≤ .001) (Fig. 1). Of 2,137 patients misdiagnosed with UTI, 1,159 (54.2%) had antibiotic treatment started in the ED; of those, 942 (81.3%) remained on antibiotics on day 3 of hospitalization. Of 1,156 patients misdiagnosed with CAP, 871 (75.3%) had antibiotic therapy started in the ED, and 789 of these 871 patients (90.6%) were still on antibiotics on day 3 of hospitalization. Hospitals with high rates of UTI misdiagnosis in the ED were more likely to have high rates of CAP misdiagnosis in the ED (Pearson’s correlation coefficient, 0.33; P ≤ .001). Conclusions: Misdiagnosis of 2 unrelated infections was moderately correlated by hospital and weakly correlated by hospital ED. Potential causes include differences in organizational culture (eg, low tolerance for diagnostic uncertainty, emergency department culture), organizational initiatives (eg, sepsis, stewardship), or coordination between emergency and hospital medicine. Additionally, antibiotics initiated in the ED were typically continued following admission, potentially reflecting diagnosis momentum.Funding: This work was supported by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network.Disclosures: Valerie M. Vaughn reports contract research for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, the NIH, the SHEA, and the APIC. She also reports fees from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation Speaker’s Bureau, the CDC, the Pew Research Trust, Sepsis Alliance, and The Hospital and Health System Association of Pennsylvania.

Aim: This study seeks to improve the understanding of treatment patterns and associated health-related quality of life (HRQoL), clinical outcomes and healthcare utilization in US patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Patients & methods: Treatment Registry for Outcomes in CRPC Patients (TRUMPET) is a US-based, prospective, observational multicenter registry (NCT02380274) involving patients with CRPC and their caregivers. Patients initiating their first active treatment course will be enrolled from urology and medical oncology practices, with data captured up to 4 years. Results: Information on prescribing patterns, HRQoL, clinical outcomes and healthcare utilization will be collected. Conclusion: TRUMPET will enable scientific understanding of disease management in terms of HRQoL, clinical outcomes and healthcare utilization in clinical practice for patients with CRPC.

Background: The majority of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are triggered by nonbacterial causes, yet most patients receive antibiotics. Treatment guided by procalcitonin (PCT), a sensitive biomarker of bacterial infection, safely decreases antibiotic use in many controlled trials. We evaluated PCT implementation for inpatients with AECOPD at a large academic hospital. Methods: All patients admitted for AECOPD during the first 6 months of PCT-guided therapy were eligible for inclusion in this retrospective cohort study. Patients with PCT performed were compared with those without PCT. The primary outcome was antibiotic days of therapy (DOT). Secondary outcomes included 30-day readmission and mortality. Results: Of the 238 AECOPD admissions, 73 (31%) had PCT performed. Procalcitonin-tested patients were more likely to meet systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, require intensive care unit (ICU)-level care, and have a longer length of stay (LOS) compared with those without PCT. Even after adjustment for these factors, PCT-tested patients received more inpatient DOT and there was no difference in total DOT. However, a low PCT value (Conclusions: In this real-world analysis of inpatients with AECOPD, PCT-guided therapy was poorly adopted by providers and was not associated with a decrease in total antibiotic DOT. However, a low PCT level was associated with a 25.5% decrease in IV antibiotic DOT, suggesting increased comfort stepping down from IV to PO therapy.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES:Clinicians may offer abiraterone plus prednisone (ABI), enzalutamide (ENZA), or sipuleucel-T (SIP-T) to patients with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic metastatic ca...

Objective: The aim of this analysis was to examine treatment patterns in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in routine clinical practice in the United States, including factors influencing the choice of front-line treatment intensity and the effect of age and treatment line. Methods: We used data from the Adelphi AML Disease Specific Programme, a real-world, cross-sectional survey conducted in 2015. Physicians completed patient record forms providing patients’ demographic and clinical characteristics. Results: In total, 61 academic, non-academic, and office-based hematologists and hematology/oncology specialists provided data on 457 patients with AML; 284 had ≥20% blasts (World Health Organization-defined AML) and were included in the analysis. In the front-line setting, 60% of patients received high-intensity therapy, most commonly cytarabine plus anthracycline; the most common low-intensity treatments were hypomethylating agents. Primary drivers for selecting high-intensity versus low-intensity treatment were age, performance status, and comorbidities; 67%, 64%, and 61% of physicians stated they would prescribe high-intensity treatment to patients aged p0001). In a selected cohort of relapsed/refractory patients, 69% of patients received high-intensity therapy (78% of patients aged Conclusions: Most patients in this analysis of real-world survey data received well-established, front-line induction therapies. Treatment intensity was determined by age, comorbidities, and performance status, as recommended by guidelines.

Background The optimal approach to assess risk of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized medical patients is unknown. We examined how well the Caprini risk assessment model predicts venous thromboembolism in hospitalized medical patients. Methods Between January 2011 and March 2014, venous thromboembolism events and risk factors were collected from non-intensive care unit medical patients hospitalized in facilities across Michigan. After calculation of the Caprini score for each patient, mixed logistic spline regression was used to determine the predicted probabilities of 90-day venous thromboembolism by receipt of pharmacologic prophylaxis across the Caprini risk continuum. Results A total of 670 (1.05%) of 63,548 eligible patients experienced a venous thromboembolism event within 90 days of hospital admission. The mean Caprini risk score was 4.94 (range, 0-28). Predictive modeling revealed a consistent linear increase in venous thromboembolism for Caprini scores between 1 and 10; estimates beyond a score of 10 were unstable. Receipt of pharmacologic prophylaxis resulted in a modest decrease in venous thromboembolism risk (odds ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.99; P = .04). However, the low overall incidence of venous thromboembolism led to large estimates of numbers needed to treat to prevent a single venous thromboembolism event. A Caprini cut-point demonstrating clear benefit of prophylaxis was not detected. Conclusions Although a linear association between the Caprini risk assessment model and the risk of venous thromboembolism was noted, an extremely low incidence of venous thromboembolism events in non-intensive care unit medical patients was observed. The Caprini risk assessment model was unable to identify a subset of medical patients who benefit from pharmacologic prophylaxis.

Inappropriate antimicrobial use in hospitalized patients contributes to antimicrobial-resistant infections and complications. We sought to evaluate the impact, barriers, and facilitators of antimicrobial stewardship best practices in a diverse group of hospital medicine programs. This multihospital initiative included 1 community nonteaching hospital, 2 community teaching hospitals, and 2 academic medical centers participating in a collaborative with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement. We conducted multimodal physician education on best practices for antimicrobial use including: (1) enhanced antimicrobial documentation, (2) improved quality and accessibility of local clinical guidelines, and (3) a 72-hour antimicrobial "timeout." Implementation barriers included variability in physician practice styles, lack of awareness of stewardship importance, and overly broad interventions. Facilitators included engaging hospitalists, collecting real time data and providing performance feedback, and appropriately limiting the scope of interventions. In 2 hospitals, complete antimicrobial documentation in sampled medical records improved significantly (4% to 51% and 8% to 65%, P < 0.001 for each comparison). A total of 726 antimicrobial timeouts occurred at 4 hospitals, and 30% resulted in optimization or discontinuation of antimicrobials. With careful attention to key barriers and facilitators, hospitalists can successfully implement effective antimicrobial stewardship practices. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:576-580. © 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine.

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