No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundUrinary and (peripheral and central) intravenous catheters are widely used in hospitalized patients. However, up to 56% of the catheters do not have an appropriate indication and some serious complications with the use of these catheters can occur. The main objective of our quality improvement project is to reduce the use of catheters without an appropriate indication by 25–50%, and to evaluate the affecting factors of our de-implementation strategy.MethodsIn a multicenter, prospective interrupted time series analysis, several interventions to avoid inappropriate use of catheters will be conducted in seven hospitals in the Netherlands. Firstly, we will define a list of appropriate indications for urinary and (peripheral and central) intravenous catheters, which will restrict the use of catheters and urge catheter removal when the indication is no longer appropriate. Secondly, after the baseline measurements, the intervention will take place, which consists of a kick-off meeting, including a competitive feedback report of the baseline measurements, and education of healthcare workers and patients. Additional strategies based on the baseline data and local conditions are optional. The primary endpoint is the percentage of catheters with an inappropriate indication on the day of data collection before and after the de-implementation strategy. Secondary endpoints are catheter-related infections or other complications, catheter re-insertion rate, length of hospital (and ICU) stay and mortality. In addition, the cost-effectiveness of the de-implementation strategy will be calculated.DiscussionThis study aims to reduce the use of urinary and intravenous catheters with an inappropriate indication, and as a result reduce the catheter-related complications. If (cost-) effective it provides a tool for a nationwide approach to reduce catheter-related infections and other complications.Trial registrationDutch trial registry: NTR6015. Registered 9 August 2016.

Purpose Inappropriate use of urinary and intravenous catheters is still frequent. The use of catheters is associated with some serious complications, such as health care associated infections (HAIs). An efficient way to reduce HAIs is to avoid inappropriate use of catheters, but the role for patients in quality improvement initiatives is unclear. The aim of this study is to investigate patients knowledge and experience with catheters, to design patient interventions to reduce inappropriate catheter use. Methods We assessed patient's knowledge and experience with catheters using a self report questionnaire, and included patients with a urinary and/or peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) during the baseline measurements of a quality improvement project to reduce inappropriate catheters use. Results A total number of 82 patients completed the questionnaire, of which 49 had a urinary catheter and 72 a PIVC. Patients were unaware about the indication for their urinary catheter in 20.9% and PIVC in 19.5%. Nevertheless, 65.3% reported symptoms due to urinary catheters and 37.5% for PIVCs. Interestingly, only 25.5% and 22.4% reported that they would ask their doctor if the catheter could be removed. Conclusions There is a lack of knowledge about the indication for having a urinary and peripheral intravenous catheter in a substantial part of patients. Although catheters cause symptoms, patients in general do not ask if the catheter could be removed. Doctors should give more information and ask more questions about catheters to their patients. Quality improvement initiatives stimulating patients to actively participate in their treatment are needed.

Background: Urinalysis and urine culture are two of the most commonly ordered tests. A positive urine test in asymptomatic patients often leads to overtreatment. Antimicrobials for asymptomatic bacteriuria is one of the most common unnecessary treatments. We aimed to explore the current ordering patterns of urinalysis and cultures. Methods: This is a substudy of the multicentre RICAT-trial, a successful quality improvement project to reduce inappropriate use of intravenous and urinary catheters in seven hospitals in the Netherlands. Adult patients with a (central or peripheral) venous or urinary catheter admitted to internal medicine and non-surgical subspecialty wards were eligible for inclusion. Data were collected every other week during baseline (seven months) and intervention periods (seven months). The primary outcome was the proportion of urine cultures performed following a negative urinalysis, i.e. dipstick and/or microscopic analysis, within 24 h. Results: Between September 2016 and April 2018, we included 3748 patients, of which 3111 (83%) were admitted from the emergency department. Urinalysis and/or urine cultures were obtained in 2610 (70%) of 3748 patients. 626 (23.7%) of 2636 urine cultures and 1351 (55.8%) of 2419 microscopic analysis were unnecessary performed after a negative urinalysis. Cancelling urine testing orders after a negative dipstick would have saved almost € 19.500 during the study period in these seven hospitals. Conclusion: Unnecessary urine testing is frequent in non-surgical patients in the Netherlands. We need to take action to reduce unnecessary urinalysis and cultures, and thereby probably reduce overtreatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria. Our hypothesis was that more than 15% urine cultures collected would

No abstract

IntroductionAntimicrobial treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) is one of the most common unnecessary uses of antimicrobials. Earlier studies have shown that the prevalence of this inappropriate treatment ranges from 45% to 83%. Multifaceted interventions based on international guidelines and antimicrobial stewardship can decrease overtreatment of ASB. We have designed a study protocol with the main objective of reducing overtreatment of ASB by 50% through use of a deimplementation strategy.Methods and analysisWe will use a stepped-wedge cluster randomised design, comparing outcomes before and after introduction of our intervention in the emergency department (ED) of five hospitals (clusters) in the Netherlands. All patients (≥18 years old) who have a urine test performed in the ED will be screened for eligibility. The deimplementation strategy consists of a combination of interventions, including education, audit and feedback. The primary endpoint is overtreatment of ASB in patients without risk factors (eg, pregnancy, planned invasive urological procedures and neutropenia). Secondary endpoints are the duration of antimicrobial treatment for ASB, the number of urine cultures and urinalysis per 1000 patients, and overtreatment of positive urinalysis in asymptomatic patients.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from the medical ethics research committee of the Academic Medical Centre (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) with a waiver for informed consent. Local feasibility was obtained by the local institutional review boards of all participating hospitals. Our study aims to reduce inappropriate screening and treatment of ASB in EDs, improve healthcare quality, lower the increase in antimicrobial resistance and save costs. If proven (cost)-effective, this study provides a well-suited strategy for a nationwide approach to reduce overtreatment of ASB. Relevant results of our study will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at relevant (scientific) conferences.Trial registration numberNL8242; Pre-results.

Background: Previously, the RICAT (Reduction of Inappropriate use of intravenous and urinary CATheters) study had been conducted by ourselves to reduce inappropriate use of intravenous and urinary catheters in medical wards to prevent healthcare-associated infections. Aim: To compare surgical and medical wards, and to determine risk factors for inappropriate catheter use. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed from October, 2017, to May, 2018, in surgical wards of two university hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were prospectively observed every other week for seven months. Inappropriate use was compared with nonsurgical wards in the RICAT study. Findings: In all, 409 surgical patients were included, and they were compared with 1781 medical patients. Inappropriate use occurred in 36 (8.5%) out of 425 peripheral intravenous catheters in 373 surgical patients, compared to 400 (22.9%) out of 1747 peripheral intravenous catheters in 1665 medical patients, a difference of 14.4% (95% confidence interval (CI): 11.1e17.8; P < 0.001). Inappropriate use of urinary catheters occurred in 14 (10.4%) out of 134 surgical patients, compared to 105 (32.4%) out of 324 medical patients, a difference of 22.0% (95% CI: 14.7e29.2; P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis in the two university hospitals confirmed these differences. The main risk factor for inappropriate use of peripheral intravenous catheters was admission in medical wards (odds ratio (OR): 3.50; 95% CI: 2.15e5.69), which was also one of the main risk factors for urinary catheters (OR: 2.75; 95% CI: 1.36e5.55). Conclusion: Inappropriate use of catheters is more common in medical wards compared to surgical wards. Prevention strategies to reduce healthcare-associated infections should primarily focus on sites with high prevalence of inappropriate use.