Search

Greater understanding of clinical decision thresholds may improve inappropriate testing and treatment of urinary tract infection (UTI). We used a survey of clinicians to examine UTI decision thresholds. Although overestimates of UTI occurred, testing and treatment thresholds were generally rational, were lower than previously reported, and differed by type of clinician.

BackgroundUrine cultures are nonspecific and often lead to misdiagnosis of urinary tract infection and unnecessary antibiotics. Diagnostic stewardship is a set of procedures that modifies test ordering, processing, and reporting in order to optimize diagnosis and downstream treatment. In this study, we aimed to develop expert guidance on best practices for urine culture diagnostic stewardship.MethodsA RAND-modified Delphi approach with a multidisciplinary expert panel was used to ascertain diagnostic stewardship best practices. Clinical questions to guide recommendations were grouped into three thematic areas (ordering, processing, reporting) in practice settings of emergency department, inpatient, ambulatory, and long-term care. Fifteen experts ranked recommendations on a 9-point Likert scale. Recommendations on which the panel did not reach agreement were discussed during a virtual meeting, then a second round of ranking by email was completed. After secondary review of results and panel discussion, a series of guidance statements was developed.ResultsOne hundred and sixty-five questions were reviewed. The panel reaching agreement on 104, leading to 18 overarching guidance statements. The following strategies were recommended to optimize ordering urine cultures: requiring documentation of symptoms, sending alerts to discourage ordering in the absence of symptoms, and cancelling repeat cultures. For urine culture processing, conditional urine cultures and urine white blood cell count as criteria were supported. For urine culture reporting, appropriate practices included nudges to discourage treatment under specific conditions and selective reporting of antibiotics to guide therapy decisions.ConclusionsThese 18 guidance statements can optimize use of urine cultures for better patient outcomes.

ObjectiveIn the absence of pyuria, positive urine cultures are unlikely to represent infection. Conditional urine reflex culture policies have the potential to limit unnecessary urine culturing. We evaluated the impact of this diagnostic stewardship intervention.DesignWe conducted a retrospective, quasi-experimental (nonrandomized) study, with interrupted time series, from August 2013 to January 2018 to examine rates of urine cultures before versus after the policy intervention. We compared 3 intervention sites to 3 control sites in an aggregated series using segmented negative binomial regression.SettingThe study included 6 acute-care hospitals within the Veterans' Health Administration across the United States.ParticipantsAdult patients with at least 1 urinalysis ordered during acute-care admission, excluding pregnant patients or those undergoing urological procedures, were included.MethodsAt the intervention sites, urine cultures were performed if a preceding urinalysis met prespecified criteria. No such restrictions occurred at the control sites. The primary outcome was the rate of urine cultures performed per 1,000 patient days. The safety outcome was the rate of gram-negative bloodstream infection per 1,000 patient days.ResultsThe study included 224,573 urine cultures from 50,901 admissions in 24,759 unique patients. Among the intervention sites, the overall average number of urine cultures performed did not significantly decrease relative to the preintervention period (5.9% decrease; P = 0.8) but did decrease by 21% relative to control sites (P < .01). We detected no significant difference in the rates of gram-negative bloodstream infection among intervention or control sites (P = .49).ConclusionsConditional urine reflex culture policies were associated with a decrease in urine culturing without a change in the incidence of gram-negative bloodstream infection.

Nearly a decade after the National Academy of Medicine released the “Improving Diagnosis in Health Care” report, diagnostic errors remain common, often leading to physical, psychological, emotional, and financial harm. Despite a robust body of research on potential solutions and next steps, the translation of these efforts to patient care has been limited. Improvement initiatives are still narrowly focused on selective themes such as diagnostic stewardship, preventing overdiagnosis, and enhancing clinical reasoning without comprehensively addressing vulnerable systems and processes surrounding diagnosis. To close this implementation gap, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released the Core Elements of Hospital Diagnostic Excellence programs on September 17, 2024. This initiative aligns with the World Health Organization’s (WHO) 2024 World Patient Safety Day focus on improving diagnosis. These Core Elements provide guidance for the formation of hospital programs to improve diagnosis and aim to integrate various disparate efforts in hospitals. By creating a shared mental model of diagnostic excellence, the Core Elements of Diagnostic Excellence supports actions to break down silos, guide hospitals toward multidisciplinary diagnostic excellence teams, and provide a foundation for building diagnostic excellence programs in hospitals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Diffusion chronometry is a technique gaining interest in the scientific community related to volcanology and petrology; however, modelling can be challenging for non-expert users. Here, we present DiffSim, a user-friendly standalone freeware that allows users to calculate magmatic timescales simulating 1D diffusion of major elements in olivine, orthopyroxene, titanomagnetite, and melt (inclusions). The freeware works solving the Fick's second law equation (for both Cartesian and spherical polar coordinates, depending on the phase) using finite differences through the Crank-Nicolson method. Users must specify the initial composition vs. distance profile, the time resolution, and the intensive conditions (such as temperature, pressure, and oxygen fugacity). For orthorhombic phases, such as olivine and orthopyroxene, users must also specify the plunge and the trend of the (001)-axis and the angle traverse of the 2D section being studied. The best-fitting profile, comparing the natural (measured) and the modelled (calculated) profiles, is obtained using the least-squares fitting method in accordance with the total time specified by the user for performing the diffusion modelling. To determine the uncertainties of the timescale calculation, DiffSim propagates errors based on the uncertainties associated with each intensive condition and the experimental diffusivity measurements. DiffSim is available as executable freeware, allowing researchers and students to use diffusion chronometry to elucidate information about crustal processes with ease and precision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND To design better antimicrobial stewardship programs, detailed data on the primary drivers and patterns of antibiotic use are needed. OBJECTIVE To characterize the indications for antibiotic therapy, agents used, duration, combinations, and microbiological justification in 6 acute-care US facilities with varied location, size, and type of antimicrobial stewardship programs. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, AND SETTING Retrospective medical chart review was performed on a random cross-sectional sample of 1,200 adult inpatients, hospitalized (>24 hrs) in 6 hospitals, and receiving at least 1 antibiotic dose on 4 index dates chosen at equal intervals through a 1-year study period (October 1, 2009-September 30, 2010). METHODS Infectious disease specialists recorded patient demographic characteristics, comorbidities, microbiological and radiological testing, and agents used, dose, duration, and indication for antibiotic prescriptions. RESULTS On the index dates 4,119 (60.5%) of 6,812 inpatients were receiving antibiotics. The random sample of 1,200 case patients was receiving 2,527 antibiotics (average: 2.1 per patient); 540 (21.4%) were prophylactic and 1,987 (78.6%) were therapeutic, of which 372 (18.7%) were pathogen-directed at start. Of the 1,615 empirical starts, 382 (23.7%) were subsequently pathogen-directed and 1,231 (76.2%) remained empirical. Use was primarily for respiratory (27.6% of prescriptions) followed by gastrointestinal (13.1%) infections. Fluoroquinolones, vancomycin, and antipseudomonal penicillins together accounted for 47.1% of therapy-days. CONCLUSIONS Use of broad-spectrum empirical therapy was prevalent in 6 US acute care facilities and in most instances was not subsequently pathogen directed. Fluoroquinolones, vancomycin, and antipseudomonal penicillins were the most frequently used antibiotics, particularly for respiratory indications. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2015;37(1):70-79.

BackgroundModification of empirical antimicrobials when warranted by culture results or clinical signs is recommended to control antimicrobial overuse and resistance. We aimed to assess the frequency with which patients were started on empirical antimicrobials, characteristics of the empirical regimen and the clinical characteristics of patients at the time of starting antimicrobials, patterns of changes to empirical therapy at different timepoints, and modifiable factors associated with changes to the initial empirical regimen in the first 5 days of therapy.MethodsWe did a chart review of adult inpatients receiving one or more antimicrobials in six US hospitals on 4 days during 2009 and 2010. Our primary outcome was the modification of antimicrobial regimen on or before the 5th day of empirical therapy, analysed as a three-category variable. Bivariate analyses were used to establish demographic and clinical variables associated with the outcome. Variables with p values below 0·1 were included in a multivariable generalised linear latent and mixed model with multinomial logit link to adjust for clustering within hospitals and accommodate a non-binary outcome variable.FindingsAcross the six study sites, 4119 (60%) of 6812 inpatients received antimicrobials. Of 1200 randomly selected patients with active antimicrobials, 730 (61%) met inclusion criteria. At the start of therapy, 220 (30%) patients were afebrile and had normal white blood cell counts. Appropriate cultures were collected from 432 (59%) patients, and 250 (58%) were negative. By the 5th day of therapy, 12·5% of empirical antimicrobials were escalated, 21·5% were narrowed or discontinued, and 66·4% were unchanged. Narrowing or discontinuation was more likely when cultures were collected at the start of therapy (adjusted OR 1·68, 95% CI 1·05-2·70) and no infection was noted on an initial radiological study (1·76, 1·11-2·79). Escalation was associated with multiple infection sites (2·54, 1·34-4·83) and a positive culture (1·99, 1·20-3·29).InterpretationBroad-spectrum empirical therapy is common, even when clinical signs of infection are absent. Fewer than one in three inpatients have their regimens narrowed within 5 days of starting empirical antimicrobials. Improved diagnostic methods and continued education are needed to guide discontinuation of antimicrobials.FundingUS Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion; Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; US Department of Veterans Administration; US Department of Homeland Security.

Immunoassays designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 protein antigens (Ag) are commonly used to diagnose COVID-19. The most widely used tests are lateral flow assays that generate results in approximately 15 minutes for diagnosis at the point-of-care. Higher throughput, laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 Ag assays have also been developed. The number of commercially available SARS-CoV-2 Ag detection tests has increased rapidly, as has the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the literature and develop best-practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 Ag testing. This guideline is an update to the third in a series of frequently updated COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines developed by the IDSA. IDSA's goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations or suggestions that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients, public health authorities, administrators, and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests in both medical and nonmedical settings. A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests. A review of relevant, peer-reviewed published literature was conducted through 1 April 2022. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. The panel made 10 diagnostic recommendations that address Ag testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals and assess single versus repeat testing strategies. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests with Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) have high specificity and low to moderate sensitivity compared with nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). Ag test sensitivity is dependent on the presence or absence of symptoms and, in symptomatic patients, on timing of testing after symptom onset. In most cases, positive Ag results can be acted upon without confirmation. Results of point-of-care testing are comparable to those of laboratory-based testing, and observed or unobserved self-collection of specimens for testing yields similar results. Modeling suggests that repeat Ag testing increases sensitivity compared with testing once, but no empirical data were available to inform this question. Based on these observations, rapid RT-PCR or laboratory-based NAAT remain the testing methods of choice for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, when timely molecular testing is not readily available or is logistically infeasible, Ag testing helps identify individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were insufficient to make a recommendation about the utility of Ag testing to guide release of patients with COVID-19 from isolation. The overall quality of available evidence supporting use of Ag testing was graded as very low to moderate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accurate molecular diagnostic tests are necessary for confirming a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and for identifying asymptomatic carriage of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The number of available SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection tests continues to increase as does the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. Thus, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) developed an evidence-based diagnostic guideline to assist clinicians, clinical laboratorians, patients, and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests. In addition, we provide a conceptual framework for understanding molecular diagnostic test performance, discuss nuances of test result interpretation in a variety of practice settings, and highlight important unmet research needs related to COVID-19 diagnostic testing. IDSA convened a multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review to identify and prioritize clinical questions and outcomes related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostics. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. The panel agreed on 12 diagnostic recommendations. Access to accurate SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing is critical for patient care, hospital infection prevention, and the public health response to COVID-19 infection. Information on the clinical performance of available tests continues to grow, but the quality of evidence of the current literature to support this updated molecular diagnostic guideline remains moderate to very low. Recognizing these limitations, the IDSA panel weighed available diagnostic evidence and recommends nucleic acid testing for all symptomatic individuals suspected of having COVID-19. In addition, testing is suggested for asymptomatic individuals with known or suspected contact with a COVID-19 case when the results will impact isolation/quarantine/personal protective equipment (PPE) usage decisions. Evidence in support of rapid testing and testing of upper respiratory specimens other than nasopharyngeal swabs, which offer logistical advantages, is sufficient to warrant conditional recommendations in favor of these approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recently updated Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the Association of Professionals in Infection Control practice recommendations for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) prevention in acute care facilities list contact precautions (CPs) for patients known to be infected or colonized with MRSA as an "essential practice," meaning that it should be adopted in all acute care facilities. We argue that existing evidence on benefits and harms associated with CP do not justify this recommendation. There are no controlled trials that support broad use of CP for MRSA prevention. Data from hospitals that have discontinued CP for MRSA have found no impact on MRSA acquisition or infection. The burden and harms of CP remain concerning, including the environmental impact of increased gown and glove use. We suggest that CP be included among other "additional approaches" to MRSA prevention that can be implemented under specific circumstances (eg outbreaks, evidence of ongoing transmission despite application of essential practices). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Perform a pilot study of online game-based learning (GBL) using natural frequencies and feedback to teach diagnostic reasoning. We conducted a multicenter randomized-controlled trial of computer-based training. We enrolled medical students, residents, practicing physicians and nurse practitioners. The intervention was a 45 min online GBL training vs. control education with a primary outcome of score on a scale of diagnostic accuracy (composed of 10 realistic case vignettes, requesting estimates of probability of disease after a test result, 0–100 points total). Of 90 participants there were 30 students, 30 residents and 30 practicing clinicians. Of these 62 % (56/90) were female and 52 % (47/90) were white. Sixty were randomized to GBL intervention and 30 to control. The primary outcome of diagnostic accuracy immediately after training was better in GBL (mean accuracy score 59.4) vs. control (37.6), p=0.0005. The GBL group was then split evenly (30, 30) into no further intervention or weekly emails with case studies. Both GBL groups performed better than control at one-month and some continued effect at three-month follow up. Scores at one-month GBL (59.2) GBL plus emails (54.2) vs. control (33.9), p=0.024; three-months GBL (56.2), GBL plus emails (42.9) vs. control (35.1), p=0.076. Most participants would recommend GBL to colleagues (73 %), believed it was enjoyable (92 %) and believed it improves test interpretation (95 %). In this pilot study, a single session with GBL nearly doubled score on a scale of diagnostic accuracy in medical trainees and practicing clinicians. The impact of GBL persisted after three months. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]