Background Inappropriate Clostridioides difficile testing is common in the hospital setting, leading to potential overdiagnosis of infection when single-step nucleic acid amplification testing is used. The potential role of infectious diseases specialists in enforcing appropriate C. difficile testing is unclear. Methods At a single 697-bed academic hospital, we performed a retrospective study from March 1, 2012 to December 31, 2019 comparing hospital onset C. difficile infection rates (HO-CDI) during three consecutive time periods: baseline 1 (37 months, no decision support), baseline 2 (32 months, computer decision support), and intervention period (25 months, mandatory infectious diseases specialist approval for all C. difficile testing on hospital day 4 or later). We used a discontinuous growth model to assess the impact of the intervention on HO-CDI rates. Results During the study period, we evaluated C. difficile infections across 331,180 admission and 1,172,015 patient days. During the intervention period, a median of one HO-CDI test approval request per day (range, 0 to 6 alerts/day) was observed; adherence by providers with obtaining approval was 85%. The HO-CDI rate was 10.2, 10.4, and 4.3 events per 10,000 patient days for each consecutive time period, respectively. In adjusted analysis, the HO-CDI rate did not differ significantly between the two baseline periods (P = .14) but did differ between the baseline 2 period and intervention period (P < .001). Conclusions An infectious disease-led C. difficile testing approval process was feasible and associated with a >50% decrease in HO-CDI rates, due to enforcement of appropriate testing.
Objective Test anxiety is a debilitating disorder that can impair cognitive performance and affect academic success. Aromatherapy is commonly used for relaxation therapy. The primary aim of the study was to determine if nasal inhaler aromatherapy, utilizing a blend of rosemary and lavender essential oils, could be a useful strategy to reduce testing anxiety in students. Methods This study recruited first trimester chiropractic students enrolled in both Neuroanatomy I and Biochemistry I. A randomized crossover design was utilized over 2 study days during final exams, with a 2-day wash-out period. Participants were randomly assigned into groups based on results of test anxiety analysis. On each day, students were given a nasal inhaler with either an aromatherapy blend of lavender and rosemary essential oils or distilled water as the control. Students completed pretest surveys and posttest surveys to rate their anxiety levels. Paired sample t-tests were performed to determine group differences in test anxiety. Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were conducted. Results Forty-five students were randomly assigned into the study, whereas only 38 completed per-protocol. Between group comparisons showed no statistically significant difference between change in anxiety scores between aromatherapy and control for both intention-to-treat (p =.10) and per-protocol (p =.07). Conclusion Use of personal inhalers and aromatherapy diffusers were not shown to reduce test anxiety in a chiropractic population under high-stakes examination. Other options should be explored for future research.
Background: In an effort to reduce inappropriate testing of hospital-onset Clostridioides difficile infection (HO-CDI), we sequentially implemented 2 strategies: an electronic health record-based clinical decision support tool that alerted ordering physicians about potentially inappropriate testing without a hard stop (intervention period 1), replaced by mandatory infectious diseases attending physician approval for any HO-CDI test order (intervention period 2). We analyzed appropriate HO-CDI testing rates of both intervention periods. Methods: We performed a retrospective study of patients 18 years or older who had an HO-CDI test (performed after hospital day 3) during 3 different periods: baseline (no intervention, September 2014–February 2015), intervention 1 (clinical decision support tool only, April 2015–September 2015), and intervention 2 (ID approval only, December 2017–September 2018). From each of the 3 periods, we randomly selected 150 patients who received HO-CDI testing (450 patients total). We restricted the study to the general medicine, bone marrow transplant, medical intensive care, and neurosurgical intensive care units. We assessed each HO-CDI test for appropriateness (see Table 1 for criteria), and we compared rates of appropriateness using the χ2 test or Kruskall-Wallis test, where appropriate. Results: In our cohort of 450 patients, the median age was 61 years, and the median hospital length of stay was 20 days. The median hospital day that HO-CDI testing was performed differed among the 3 groups: 12 days at baseline, 10 days during intervention 1, and 8.5 days during intervention 2 (P < .001). Appropriateness of HO-CDI testing increased from the baseline with both interventions, but mandatory ID approval was associated with the highest rate of testing appropriateness (Fig. 1). Reasons for inappropriate ordering did not differ among the periods, with <3 documented stools being the most common criterion for inappropriateness. During intervention 2, among the 33 inappropriate tests, 8 (24%) occurred where no approval from an ID attending was recorded. HO-CDI test positivity rates during the 3 time periods were 12%, 11%, and 21%, respectively (P = .03). Conclusions: We found that both the clinical decision support tool and mandatory ID attending physician approval interventions improved appropriateness of HO-CDI testing. Mandatory ID attending physician approval leading to the highest appropriateness rate. Even with mandatory ID attending physician approval, some tests continued to be ordered inappropriately per retrospective chart review; we suspect that this is partly explained by underdocumentation of criteria such as stool frequency. In healthcare settings where appropriateness of HO-CDI testing is not optimal, mandatory ID attending physician approval may provide an option beyond clinical decision-support tools.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.