User login
Health care–associated infection rates going down
Background: HAIs are key drivers of morbidity and mortality for hospitalized patients. In 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted a point-prevalence survey that revealed an HAI in 4% of hospitalized patients. The most common infections included pneumonia, gastrointestinal infections, and surgical-site infections. Over time, efforts in patient safety and quality have expanded to reduce the rate of HAIs. This same survey was repeated in 2015 to assess for improvements.
Study design: Point-prevalence survey.
Setting: A collection of 199 Emerging Infection Program hospitals in 10 states.
Synopsis: Of 12,299 patients surveyed, 3.2% (95% confidence interval, 2.9%-3.5%) were found to have at least one HAI. This was a statistically significant reduction compared to the prevalence of 4% (95% CI, 3.7%-4.4%) found in the 2011 study. Approximately 75% of patients were on a medical ward, and 15% of patients were in the ICU. The age and sex of patients were similar to those of patients in the 2011 study.
The reduction in HAIs was primarily driven by a reduction in surgical-site infections and urinary tract infections. There was no reduction in the prevalence of health care–associated pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, or mortality. Consequently, this emphasizes the necessity of further work in these domains.
Bottom line: The overall prevalence of HAIs has decreased, but further quality improvement work is needed in order to expand this reduction to health care–associated pneumonia, C. difficile infection, and mortality from HAIs.
Citation: Magill SS et al. Changes in prevalence of heath care–associated infections in U.S. hospitals. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(18):1732-44.
Dr. McIntyre is an associate physician in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego.
Background: HAIs are key drivers of morbidity and mortality for hospitalized patients. In 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted a point-prevalence survey that revealed an HAI in 4% of hospitalized patients. The most common infections included pneumonia, gastrointestinal infections, and surgical-site infections. Over time, efforts in patient safety and quality have expanded to reduce the rate of HAIs. This same survey was repeated in 2015 to assess for improvements.
Study design: Point-prevalence survey.
Setting: A collection of 199 Emerging Infection Program hospitals in 10 states.
Synopsis: Of 12,299 patients surveyed, 3.2% (95% confidence interval, 2.9%-3.5%) were found to have at least one HAI. This was a statistically significant reduction compared to the prevalence of 4% (95% CI, 3.7%-4.4%) found in the 2011 study. Approximately 75% of patients were on a medical ward, and 15% of patients were in the ICU. The age and sex of patients were similar to those of patients in the 2011 study.
The reduction in HAIs was primarily driven by a reduction in surgical-site infections and urinary tract infections. There was no reduction in the prevalence of health care–associated pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, or mortality. Consequently, this emphasizes the necessity of further work in these domains.
Bottom line: The overall prevalence of HAIs has decreased, but further quality improvement work is needed in order to expand this reduction to health care–associated pneumonia, C. difficile infection, and mortality from HAIs.
Citation: Magill SS et al. Changes in prevalence of heath care–associated infections in U.S. hospitals. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(18):1732-44.
Dr. McIntyre is an associate physician in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego.
Background: HAIs are key drivers of morbidity and mortality for hospitalized patients. In 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted a point-prevalence survey that revealed an HAI in 4% of hospitalized patients. The most common infections included pneumonia, gastrointestinal infections, and surgical-site infections. Over time, efforts in patient safety and quality have expanded to reduce the rate of HAIs. This same survey was repeated in 2015 to assess for improvements.
Study design: Point-prevalence survey.
Setting: A collection of 199 Emerging Infection Program hospitals in 10 states.
Synopsis: Of 12,299 patients surveyed, 3.2% (95% confidence interval, 2.9%-3.5%) were found to have at least one HAI. This was a statistically significant reduction compared to the prevalence of 4% (95% CI, 3.7%-4.4%) found in the 2011 study. Approximately 75% of patients were on a medical ward, and 15% of patients were in the ICU. The age and sex of patients were similar to those of patients in the 2011 study.
The reduction in HAIs was primarily driven by a reduction in surgical-site infections and urinary tract infections. There was no reduction in the prevalence of health care–associated pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, or mortality. Consequently, this emphasizes the necessity of further work in these domains.
Bottom line: The overall prevalence of HAIs has decreased, but further quality improvement work is needed in order to expand this reduction to health care–associated pneumonia, C. difficile infection, and mortality from HAIs.
Citation: Magill SS et al. Changes in prevalence of heath care–associated infections in U.S. hospitals. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(18):1732-44.
Dr. McIntyre is an associate physician in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego.
Use of a CDSS increases safe outpatient management of low-risk PE patients
Background: Despite multiple guidelines that support outpatient management of acute PE in the appropriate patient population, the rate of hospital admission for patients eligible for outpatient management remains high. One explanation is that physicians may have difficulty identifying which patients meet discharge criteria.
Study design: Controlled pragmatic trial.
Setting: Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC).
Synopsis: A total of 21 KPNC EDs participated in this 16-month study of 1,703 patients; 11 EDs served as control sites and 10 as intervention sites. At month 9, ED physician study champions at intervention sites provided in-person training on outpatient PE management, the validated PE severity index (PESI), and the electronic CDSS. The CDSS was designed to use evidence-based guidelines to assist physicians in identifying patients eligible for outpatient care or short-term (less than 24-hour) observation in the ED. The CDSS was incorporated into the electronic medical record navigator used by ED physicians and not only calculated the PESI score, but also provided the patient’s risk class and 30-day all-cause mortality estimate. Adverse outcomes were defined as 5-day return visits for PE-related symptoms, recurrent VTE, major hemorrhage, and all-cause 30-day mortality. Results demonstrated an increase in home discharge at intervention sites (17.4% pre to 28% post) without an increase in adverse outcomes.
Bottom line: Use of an electronic CDSS to identify patients appropriate for home management of acute PE decreased admission rates without increasing adverse outcomes.
Citation: Vinson DR et al. Increasing safe outpatient management of emergency department patients with pulmonary embolism: a controlled pragmatic trial. Ann Int Med. 2018;169(12):855-65.
Dr. Bordin-Wosk is an assistant clinical professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego.
Background: Despite multiple guidelines that support outpatient management of acute PE in the appropriate patient population, the rate of hospital admission for patients eligible for outpatient management remains high. One explanation is that physicians may have difficulty identifying which patients meet discharge criteria.
Study design: Controlled pragmatic trial.
Setting: Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC).
Synopsis: A total of 21 KPNC EDs participated in this 16-month study of 1,703 patients; 11 EDs served as control sites and 10 as intervention sites. At month 9, ED physician study champions at intervention sites provided in-person training on outpatient PE management, the validated PE severity index (PESI), and the electronic CDSS. The CDSS was designed to use evidence-based guidelines to assist physicians in identifying patients eligible for outpatient care or short-term (less than 24-hour) observation in the ED. The CDSS was incorporated into the electronic medical record navigator used by ED physicians and not only calculated the PESI score, but also provided the patient’s risk class and 30-day all-cause mortality estimate. Adverse outcomes were defined as 5-day return visits for PE-related symptoms, recurrent VTE, major hemorrhage, and all-cause 30-day mortality. Results demonstrated an increase in home discharge at intervention sites (17.4% pre to 28% post) without an increase in adverse outcomes.
Bottom line: Use of an electronic CDSS to identify patients appropriate for home management of acute PE decreased admission rates without increasing adverse outcomes.
Citation: Vinson DR et al. Increasing safe outpatient management of emergency department patients with pulmonary embolism: a controlled pragmatic trial. Ann Int Med. 2018;169(12):855-65.
Dr. Bordin-Wosk is an assistant clinical professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego.
Background: Despite multiple guidelines that support outpatient management of acute PE in the appropriate patient population, the rate of hospital admission for patients eligible for outpatient management remains high. One explanation is that physicians may have difficulty identifying which patients meet discharge criteria.
Study design: Controlled pragmatic trial.
Setting: Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC).
Synopsis: A total of 21 KPNC EDs participated in this 16-month study of 1,703 patients; 11 EDs served as control sites and 10 as intervention sites. At month 9, ED physician study champions at intervention sites provided in-person training on outpatient PE management, the validated PE severity index (PESI), and the electronic CDSS. The CDSS was designed to use evidence-based guidelines to assist physicians in identifying patients eligible for outpatient care or short-term (less than 24-hour) observation in the ED. The CDSS was incorporated into the electronic medical record navigator used by ED physicians and not only calculated the PESI score, but also provided the patient’s risk class and 30-day all-cause mortality estimate. Adverse outcomes were defined as 5-day return visits for PE-related symptoms, recurrent VTE, major hemorrhage, and all-cause 30-day mortality. Results demonstrated an increase in home discharge at intervention sites (17.4% pre to 28% post) without an increase in adverse outcomes.
Bottom line: Use of an electronic CDSS to identify patients appropriate for home management of acute PE decreased admission rates without increasing adverse outcomes.
Citation: Vinson DR et al. Increasing safe outpatient management of emergency department patients with pulmonary embolism: a controlled pragmatic trial. Ann Int Med. 2018;169(12):855-65.
Dr. Bordin-Wosk is an assistant clinical professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego.
Predicted risk of cardiac complications varies among risk calculators
Background: A critical juncture in the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology 2014 perioperative guidelines relies on clinicians categorizing patients undergoing noncardiac surgery as either low risk (less than 1%) or elevated risk (greater than or equal to 1%) for a MACE. The purpose of this study is to determine whether there is variability between the three risk calculators endorsed by the ACC/AHA guidelines as prediction tools to make this risk stratification.
Study design: Retrospective observational study.
Setting: National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database.
Synopsis: The NSQIP database was used to identify 10,000 patients who had undergone noncardiac surgery. The risk of MACE for each patient was then calculated using the Revised Cardiac Risk Index, the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator, and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Myocardial Infarction or Cardiac Arrest calculator. Data were analyzed using the intraclass correlation coefficient and kappa analysis. Results demonstrated that 29% of the time the three calculators disagreed on which patients were classified as low risk. This suggests that, when following the ACC/AHA perioperative guidelines, a recommendation for further preoperative cardiac testing may depend on which risk prediction tool is used to calculate the risk of MACE.
Bottom line: Nearly one-third of the time, the three risk calculators recommended in the ACC/AHA 2014 perioperative guidelines do not agree on which patients are classified as low risk; this may affect clinical decision making for some patients.
Citation: Glance LG et al. Impact of the choice of risk model for identifying low-risk patients using the 2014 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association perioperative guidelines. Anesthesiology. 2018;129(5):889-900.
Dr. Bordin-Wosk is an assistant clinical professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego.
Background: A critical juncture in the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology 2014 perioperative guidelines relies on clinicians categorizing patients undergoing noncardiac surgery as either low risk (less than 1%) or elevated risk (greater than or equal to 1%) for a MACE. The purpose of this study is to determine whether there is variability between the three risk calculators endorsed by the ACC/AHA guidelines as prediction tools to make this risk stratification.
Study design: Retrospective observational study.
Setting: National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database.
Synopsis: The NSQIP database was used to identify 10,000 patients who had undergone noncardiac surgery. The risk of MACE for each patient was then calculated using the Revised Cardiac Risk Index, the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator, and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Myocardial Infarction or Cardiac Arrest calculator. Data were analyzed using the intraclass correlation coefficient and kappa analysis. Results demonstrated that 29% of the time the three calculators disagreed on which patients were classified as low risk. This suggests that, when following the ACC/AHA perioperative guidelines, a recommendation for further preoperative cardiac testing may depend on which risk prediction tool is used to calculate the risk of MACE.
Bottom line: Nearly one-third of the time, the three risk calculators recommended in the ACC/AHA 2014 perioperative guidelines do not agree on which patients are classified as low risk; this may affect clinical decision making for some patients.
Citation: Glance LG et al. Impact of the choice of risk model for identifying low-risk patients using the 2014 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association perioperative guidelines. Anesthesiology. 2018;129(5):889-900.
Dr. Bordin-Wosk is an assistant clinical professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego.
Background: A critical juncture in the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology 2014 perioperative guidelines relies on clinicians categorizing patients undergoing noncardiac surgery as either low risk (less than 1%) or elevated risk (greater than or equal to 1%) for a MACE. The purpose of this study is to determine whether there is variability between the three risk calculators endorsed by the ACC/AHA guidelines as prediction tools to make this risk stratification.
Study design: Retrospective observational study.
Setting: National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database.
Synopsis: The NSQIP database was used to identify 10,000 patients who had undergone noncardiac surgery. The risk of MACE for each patient was then calculated using the Revised Cardiac Risk Index, the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator, and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Myocardial Infarction or Cardiac Arrest calculator. Data were analyzed using the intraclass correlation coefficient and kappa analysis. Results demonstrated that 29% of the time the three calculators disagreed on which patients were classified as low risk. This suggests that, when following the ACC/AHA perioperative guidelines, a recommendation for further preoperative cardiac testing may depend on which risk prediction tool is used to calculate the risk of MACE.
Bottom line: Nearly one-third of the time, the three risk calculators recommended in the ACC/AHA 2014 perioperative guidelines do not agree on which patients are classified as low risk; this may affect clinical decision making for some patients.
Citation: Glance LG et al. Impact of the choice of risk model for identifying low-risk patients using the 2014 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association perioperative guidelines. Anesthesiology. 2018;129(5):889-900.
Dr. Bordin-Wosk is an assistant clinical professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego.
Early extubation to noninvasive ventilation did not decrease time to liberation from ventilation
Background: Inclusion of noninvasive ventilation in weaning among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients has been shown to reduce total duration of ventilation and invasive ventilator days with an associated reduction in morbidity and mortality. It is not well studied whether these results apply to general ICU patients.
Study design: Randomized, allocation-concealed, open-label, multicenter trial.
Setting: United Kingdom National Health Service ICUs.
Synopsis: Patients from 41 general adult ICUs met inclusion criteria after they had been intubated for less than 48 hours and failed a spontaneous breathing trial. Intention-to-treat analysis in 319 of 364 patients (mean age, 63.1 years; 50.5% male) showed median time to liberation of 4.3 days in the noninvasive group versus 4.5 days in the invasive group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.1; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.40). However, secondary outcomes showed reduction in median time of invasive ventilation (1 day vs. 4 days) and total ventilator days (3 days vs. 4 days) in the noninvasive group without a significant difference in adverse events.
Not all secondary outcomes were powered to detect treatment differences. Hospitalists should consider noninvasive ventilation as an adjunct in weaning, especially in COPD patients, to reduce ventilator-associated complications and ICU resources when appropriate.
Bottom line: Protocolized early extubation to noninvasive ventilation was not associated with earlier liberation from all types of ventilation in the general ICU population.
Citation: Perkins GD et al. Effect of protocolized weaning with early extubation to noninvasive ventilation vs invasive weaning on time to liberation from mechanical ventilation among patients with respiratory failure: The breathe randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;320(18):1881-8.
Dr. Vuong is an associate physician in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego.
Background: Inclusion of noninvasive ventilation in weaning among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients has been shown to reduce total duration of ventilation and invasive ventilator days with an associated reduction in morbidity and mortality. It is not well studied whether these results apply to general ICU patients.
Study design: Randomized, allocation-concealed, open-label, multicenter trial.
Setting: United Kingdom National Health Service ICUs.
Synopsis: Patients from 41 general adult ICUs met inclusion criteria after they had been intubated for less than 48 hours and failed a spontaneous breathing trial. Intention-to-treat analysis in 319 of 364 patients (mean age, 63.1 years; 50.5% male) showed median time to liberation of 4.3 days in the noninvasive group versus 4.5 days in the invasive group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.1; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.40). However, secondary outcomes showed reduction in median time of invasive ventilation (1 day vs. 4 days) and total ventilator days (3 days vs. 4 days) in the noninvasive group without a significant difference in adverse events.
Not all secondary outcomes were powered to detect treatment differences. Hospitalists should consider noninvasive ventilation as an adjunct in weaning, especially in COPD patients, to reduce ventilator-associated complications and ICU resources when appropriate.
Bottom line: Protocolized early extubation to noninvasive ventilation was not associated with earlier liberation from all types of ventilation in the general ICU population.
Citation: Perkins GD et al. Effect of protocolized weaning with early extubation to noninvasive ventilation vs invasive weaning on time to liberation from mechanical ventilation among patients with respiratory failure: The breathe randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;320(18):1881-8.
Dr. Vuong is an associate physician in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego.
Background: Inclusion of noninvasive ventilation in weaning among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients has been shown to reduce total duration of ventilation and invasive ventilator days with an associated reduction in morbidity and mortality. It is not well studied whether these results apply to general ICU patients.
Study design: Randomized, allocation-concealed, open-label, multicenter trial.
Setting: United Kingdom National Health Service ICUs.
Synopsis: Patients from 41 general adult ICUs met inclusion criteria after they had been intubated for less than 48 hours and failed a spontaneous breathing trial. Intention-to-treat analysis in 319 of 364 patients (mean age, 63.1 years; 50.5% male) showed median time to liberation of 4.3 days in the noninvasive group versus 4.5 days in the invasive group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.1; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.40). However, secondary outcomes showed reduction in median time of invasive ventilation (1 day vs. 4 days) and total ventilator days (3 days vs. 4 days) in the noninvasive group without a significant difference in adverse events.
Not all secondary outcomes were powered to detect treatment differences. Hospitalists should consider noninvasive ventilation as an adjunct in weaning, especially in COPD patients, to reduce ventilator-associated complications and ICU resources when appropriate.
Bottom line: Protocolized early extubation to noninvasive ventilation was not associated with earlier liberation from all types of ventilation in the general ICU population.
Citation: Perkins GD et al. Effect of protocolized weaning with early extubation to noninvasive ventilation vs invasive weaning on time to liberation from mechanical ventilation among patients with respiratory failure: The breathe randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;320(18):1881-8.
Dr. Vuong is an associate physician in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego.
HFNC 12 L/min on floor cuts down on bronchiolitis ICU transfers
SEATTLE – ICU transfers for acute bronchiolitis dropped 63% at Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital in St. Petersburg, Fla., after the high-flow nasal cannula limit on the floor was raised from 6 L/min to 12 L/min, and treatment was started in the emergency department, according to a presentation at Pediatric Hospital Medicine.
A year before the change was made in April 2018, there were 17 transfers among 249 bronchiolitis patients treated on the floor, a transfer rate of 6.8%. In the year after the change, there were eight among 319 patients, a transfer rate of 2.5%. Raising the limit to 12 L/min prevented an estimated 14 transfers, for a total savings of almost $250,000, said pediatric hospitalist and assistant professor Shaila Siraj, MD.
The change was made after Dr. Siraj and her colleagues noticed that when children topped out at 6 L, they sometimes only needed a slightly higher flow rate in the ICU, maybe 8 L or 10 L, for a short while before they came back to the floor. Given the safety of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), the ICU transfer often seemed like a waste of time and resources.
“As hospitalists, we felt we could safely take care of these patients,” Dr. Siraj said.
So she and her colleague pediatric critical care specialist Anthony Sochet, MD, also an assistant professor of pediatrics, reviewed over a year’s worth of data at All Children’s. They found that 12 L/min – roughly 1.5 L/kg/min – was the cutoff that best discriminated between patients who needed intubation and those who did not, “so that’s what we chose,” Dr. Sochet said.
For simplicity, they broke limits down by age: A maximum flow rate of 8 L/min for children up to 6 months old; 10 L for children aged 6-12 months; and up to 12 L/min for children age 12-24 months. The fraction of inspired oxygen remained the same at 50%. Children were started at maximum flows, then weaned down as they improved. Respiratory assessments were made at least every 4 hours.
The changes were part of a larger revision of the hospital’s pathway for uncomplicated bronchiolitis in children up to 2 years old; it was a joint effort involving nurses, respiratory therapists, and pediatric hospitalists, and ED and ICU teams.
Early initiation in the ED was “probably one of the most important” changes; it kept children from wearing out as they struggled to breath. Kids often start to improve right away, but when then don’t after 30-60 minutes, it’s an indication that they should probably be triaged to the ICU for possible intubation, Dr. Siraj said.
Dr. Sochet was careful to note that institutions have to assess their own situations before taking similar steps. “Not everyone has a tertiary care ICU staffed 24 and 7,” he said.
“You have to ask what floor resources you have, what’s your ability to escalate when you need to. Use data from your own institution to guide where you pick your cutoffs. Adequate staffing is really about respiratory [therapist]/nursing ratios, not the physicians,” he said.
In addition, “in an otherwise healthy child that just has [HFNC] for bronchiolitis, there is absolutely no reason why you should be withholding feeds.” Fed children will feel better and do better, he said.
The presenters had no disclosures.
SEATTLE – ICU transfers for acute bronchiolitis dropped 63% at Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital in St. Petersburg, Fla., after the high-flow nasal cannula limit on the floor was raised from 6 L/min to 12 L/min, and treatment was started in the emergency department, according to a presentation at Pediatric Hospital Medicine.
A year before the change was made in April 2018, there were 17 transfers among 249 bronchiolitis patients treated on the floor, a transfer rate of 6.8%. In the year after the change, there were eight among 319 patients, a transfer rate of 2.5%. Raising the limit to 12 L/min prevented an estimated 14 transfers, for a total savings of almost $250,000, said pediatric hospitalist and assistant professor Shaila Siraj, MD.
The change was made after Dr. Siraj and her colleagues noticed that when children topped out at 6 L, they sometimes only needed a slightly higher flow rate in the ICU, maybe 8 L or 10 L, for a short while before they came back to the floor. Given the safety of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), the ICU transfer often seemed like a waste of time and resources.
“As hospitalists, we felt we could safely take care of these patients,” Dr. Siraj said.
So she and her colleague pediatric critical care specialist Anthony Sochet, MD, also an assistant professor of pediatrics, reviewed over a year’s worth of data at All Children’s. They found that 12 L/min – roughly 1.5 L/kg/min – was the cutoff that best discriminated between patients who needed intubation and those who did not, “so that’s what we chose,” Dr. Sochet said.
For simplicity, they broke limits down by age: A maximum flow rate of 8 L/min for children up to 6 months old; 10 L for children aged 6-12 months; and up to 12 L/min for children age 12-24 months. The fraction of inspired oxygen remained the same at 50%. Children were started at maximum flows, then weaned down as they improved. Respiratory assessments were made at least every 4 hours.
The changes were part of a larger revision of the hospital’s pathway for uncomplicated bronchiolitis in children up to 2 years old; it was a joint effort involving nurses, respiratory therapists, and pediatric hospitalists, and ED and ICU teams.
Early initiation in the ED was “probably one of the most important” changes; it kept children from wearing out as they struggled to breath. Kids often start to improve right away, but when then don’t after 30-60 minutes, it’s an indication that they should probably be triaged to the ICU for possible intubation, Dr. Siraj said.
Dr. Sochet was careful to note that institutions have to assess their own situations before taking similar steps. “Not everyone has a tertiary care ICU staffed 24 and 7,” he said.
“You have to ask what floor resources you have, what’s your ability to escalate when you need to. Use data from your own institution to guide where you pick your cutoffs. Adequate staffing is really about respiratory [therapist]/nursing ratios, not the physicians,” he said.
In addition, “in an otherwise healthy child that just has [HFNC] for bronchiolitis, there is absolutely no reason why you should be withholding feeds.” Fed children will feel better and do better, he said.
The presenters had no disclosures.
SEATTLE – ICU transfers for acute bronchiolitis dropped 63% at Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital in St. Petersburg, Fla., after the high-flow nasal cannula limit on the floor was raised from 6 L/min to 12 L/min, and treatment was started in the emergency department, according to a presentation at Pediatric Hospital Medicine.
A year before the change was made in April 2018, there were 17 transfers among 249 bronchiolitis patients treated on the floor, a transfer rate of 6.8%. In the year after the change, there were eight among 319 patients, a transfer rate of 2.5%. Raising the limit to 12 L/min prevented an estimated 14 transfers, for a total savings of almost $250,000, said pediatric hospitalist and assistant professor Shaila Siraj, MD.
The change was made after Dr. Siraj and her colleagues noticed that when children topped out at 6 L, they sometimes only needed a slightly higher flow rate in the ICU, maybe 8 L or 10 L, for a short while before they came back to the floor. Given the safety of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), the ICU transfer often seemed like a waste of time and resources.
“As hospitalists, we felt we could safely take care of these patients,” Dr. Siraj said.
So she and her colleague pediatric critical care specialist Anthony Sochet, MD, also an assistant professor of pediatrics, reviewed over a year’s worth of data at All Children’s. They found that 12 L/min – roughly 1.5 L/kg/min – was the cutoff that best discriminated between patients who needed intubation and those who did not, “so that’s what we chose,” Dr. Sochet said.
For simplicity, they broke limits down by age: A maximum flow rate of 8 L/min for children up to 6 months old; 10 L for children aged 6-12 months; and up to 12 L/min for children age 12-24 months. The fraction of inspired oxygen remained the same at 50%. Children were started at maximum flows, then weaned down as they improved. Respiratory assessments were made at least every 4 hours.
The changes were part of a larger revision of the hospital’s pathway for uncomplicated bronchiolitis in children up to 2 years old; it was a joint effort involving nurses, respiratory therapists, and pediatric hospitalists, and ED and ICU teams.
Early initiation in the ED was “probably one of the most important” changes; it kept children from wearing out as they struggled to breath. Kids often start to improve right away, but when then don’t after 30-60 minutes, it’s an indication that they should probably be triaged to the ICU for possible intubation, Dr. Siraj said.
Dr. Sochet was careful to note that institutions have to assess their own situations before taking similar steps. “Not everyone has a tertiary care ICU staffed 24 and 7,” he said.
“You have to ask what floor resources you have, what’s your ability to escalate when you need to. Use data from your own institution to guide where you pick your cutoffs. Adequate staffing is really about respiratory [therapist]/nursing ratios, not the physicians,” he said.
In addition, “in an otherwise healthy child that just has [HFNC] for bronchiolitis, there is absolutely no reason why you should be withholding feeds.” Fed children will feel better and do better, he said.
The presenters had no disclosures.
REPORTING FROM PHM 2019
Key clinical point:
Major finding: ICU transfers dropped 63% after the floor limit was raised from 6 L/min to 12 L/min.
Study details: Before/after quality improvement project
Disclosures: There was no external funding, and the presenters had no disclosures.
Standardized communication may prevent anticoagulant adverse drug events
Background: With increased use of anticoagulants, the amount of related ADEs has also increased. ADEs may be preventable through improved communication during transitions of care. The key communication elements are not standardized.
Study design: Delphi method.
Setting: Consensus panel in New York state.
Synopsis: The New York State Anticoagulation Coalition (NYSACC) tasked an expert multidisciplinary panel of physicians, pharmacists, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants to develop a list of minimum required data elements (RDEs) for transitions of care using the Delphi method.
The following items are the 15 RDEs that require documentation: (1) current anticoagulants; (2) indications; (3) new or previous user; (4) if new, start date, (5) short-term or long-term use; (6) if short term, intended duration; (7) last two doses given; (8) next dose due; (9) latest renal function; (10) provision of patient education materials; (11) assessment of patient/caregiver understanding; (12) future anticoagulation provider; and if warfarin, (13) the target range, (14) at least 2-3 consecutive international normalized ratio results, and (15) next INR level.
Bottom line: Standardized communication during transitions of care regarding anticoagulation may reduce anticoagulant ADEs. Objective evidence showing reduction of ADEs after implementation of the list is needed.
Citation: Triller D et al. Defining minimum necessary anticoagulation-related communication at discharge: Consensus of the Care Transitions Task Force of the New York State Anticoagulation Coalition. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2018;44(11):630-40.
Dr. Vuong is an associate physician in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego.
Background: With increased use of anticoagulants, the amount of related ADEs has also increased. ADEs may be preventable through improved communication during transitions of care. The key communication elements are not standardized.
Study design: Delphi method.
Setting: Consensus panel in New York state.
Synopsis: The New York State Anticoagulation Coalition (NYSACC) tasked an expert multidisciplinary panel of physicians, pharmacists, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants to develop a list of minimum required data elements (RDEs) for transitions of care using the Delphi method.
The following items are the 15 RDEs that require documentation: (1) current anticoagulants; (2) indications; (3) new or previous user; (4) if new, start date, (5) short-term or long-term use; (6) if short term, intended duration; (7) last two doses given; (8) next dose due; (9) latest renal function; (10) provision of patient education materials; (11) assessment of patient/caregiver understanding; (12) future anticoagulation provider; and if warfarin, (13) the target range, (14) at least 2-3 consecutive international normalized ratio results, and (15) next INR level.
Bottom line: Standardized communication during transitions of care regarding anticoagulation may reduce anticoagulant ADEs. Objective evidence showing reduction of ADEs after implementation of the list is needed.
Citation: Triller D et al. Defining minimum necessary anticoagulation-related communication at discharge: Consensus of the Care Transitions Task Force of the New York State Anticoagulation Coalition. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2018;44(11):630-40.
Dr. Vuong is an associate physician in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego.
Background: With increased use of anticoagulants, the amount of related ADEs has also increased. ADEs may be preventable through improved communication during transitions of care. The key communication elements are not standardized.
Study design: Delphi method.
Setting: Consensus panel in New York state.
Synopsis: The New York State Anticoagulation Coalition (NYSACC) tasked an expert multidisciplinary panel of physicians, pharmacists, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants to develop a list of minimum required data elements (RDEs) for transitions of care using the Delphi method.
The following items are the 15 RDEs that require documentation: (1) current anticoagulants; (2) indications; (3) new or previous user; (4) if new, start date, (5) short-term or long-term use; (6) if short term, intended duration; (7) last two doses given; (8) next dose due; (9) latest renal function; (10) provision of patient education materials; (11) assessment of patient/caregiver understanding; (12) future anticoagulation provider; and if warfarin, (13) the target range, (14) at least 2-3 consecutive international normalized ratio results, and (15) next INR level.
Bottom line: Standardized communication during transitions of care regarding anticoagulation may reduce anticoagulant ADEs. Objective evidence showing reduction of ADEs after implementation of the list is needed.
Citation: Triller D et al. Defining minimum necessary anticoagulation-related communication at discharge: Consensus of the Care Transitions Task Force of the New York State Anticoagulation Coalition. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2018;44(11):630-40.
Dr. Vuong is an associate physician in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego.
Productivity-based salary structure not associated with value-based culture
Background: Although new payment models have been implemented by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for hospital reimbursement, little is known about the effects of reimbursement models on the culture of providing value-based care among individual hospitalists. The concern is that productivity-based models increase pressure on hospitalists to maximize volume and billing, as opposed to focusing on value.
Study design: Observational, cross-sectional, survey-based study.
Setting: A total of 12 hospitals in California, which represented university, community, and safety-net settings.
Synopsis: Hospitalists were asked to complete the High-Value Care Culture Survey (HVCCS), a validated tool that assesses value-based decision making. Components of the survey assessed leadership and health system messaging, data transparency and access, comfort with cost conversations, and blame-free environments. Hospitalists were also asked to self-report their reimbursement structure: salary alone, salary plus productivity, or salary plus value-based adjustments.
A total of 255 hospitalists completed the survey. The mean HVCCS score was 50.2 on a 0-100 scale. Hospitalists who reported reimbursement with salary plus productivity adjustments had a lower mean HVCCS score (beta = –6.2; 95% confidence interval, –9.9 to –2.5) when compared with hospitalists paid with salary alone. An association was not found between HVCCS score and reimbursement with salary plus value-based adjustments when compared with salary alone, though this finding may have been limited by sample size.
Bottom line: A hospitalist reimbursement model of salary plus productivity was associated with lower measures of value-based care culture.
Citation: Gupta R et al. Association between hospitalist productivity payments and high-value care culture. J Hosp Med. 2019;14(1):16-21.
Dr. Huang is a physician adviser and associate clinical professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego.
Background: Although new payment models have been implemented by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for hospital reimbursement, little is known about the effects of reimbursement models on the culture of providing value-based care among individual hospitalists. The concern is that productivity-based models increase pressure on hospitalists to maximize volume and billing, as opposed to focusing on value.
Study design: Observational, cross-sectional, survey-based study.
Setting: A total of 12 hospitals in California, which represented university, community, and safety-net settings.
Synopsis: Hospitalists were asked to complete the High-Value Care Culture Survey (HVCCS), a validated tool that assesses value-based decision making. Components of the survey assessed leadership and health system messaging, data transparency and access, comfort with cost conversations, and blame-free environments. Hospitalists were also asked to self-report their reimbursement structure: salary alone, salary plus productivity, or salary plus value-based adjustments.
A total of 255 hospitalists completed the survey. The mean HVCCS score was 50.2 on a 0-100 scale. Hospitalists who reported reimbursement with salary plus productivity adjustments had a lower mean HVCCS score (beta = –6.2; 95% confidence interval, –9.9 to –2.5) when compared with hospitalists paid with salary alone. An association was not found between HVCCS score and reimbursement with salary plus value-based adjustments when compared with salary alone, though this finding may have been limited by sample size.
Bottom line: A hospitalist reimbursement model of salary plus productivity was associated with lower measures of value-based care culture.
Citation: Gupta R et al. Association between hospitalist productivity payments and high-value care culture. J Hosp Med. 2019;14(1):16-21.
Dr. Huang is a physician adviser and associate clinical professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego.
Background: Although new payment models have been implemented by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for hospital reimbursement, little is known about the effects of reimbursement models on the culture of providing value-based care among individual hospitalists. The concern is that productivity-based models increase pressure on hospitalists to maximize volume and billing, as opposed to focusing on value.
Study design: Observational, cross-sectional, survey-based study.
Setting: A total of 12 hospitals in California, which represented university, community, and safety-net settings.
Synopsis: Hospitalists were asked to complete the High-Value Care Culture Survey (HVCCS), a validated tool that assesses value-based decision making. Components of the survey assessed leadership and health system messaging, data transparency and access, comfort with cost conversations, and blame-free environments. Hospitalists were also asked to self-report their reimbursement structure: salary alone, salary plus productivity, or salary plus value-based adjustments.
A total of 255 hospitalists completed the survey. The mean HVCCS score was 50.2 on a 0-100 scale. Hospitalists who reported reimbursement with salary plus productivity adjustments had a lower mean HVCCS score (beta = –6.2; 95% confidence interval, –9.9 to –2.5) when compared with hospitalists paid with salary alone. An association was not found between HVCCS score and reimbursement with salary plus value-based adjustments when compared with salary alone, though this finding may have been limited by sample size.
Bottom line: A hospitalist reimbursement model of salary plus productivity was associated with lower measures of value-based care culture.
Citation: Gupta R et al. Association between hospitalist productivity payments and high-value care culture. J Hosp Med. 2019;14(1):16-21.
Dr. Huang is a physician adviser and associate clinical professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego.
Additional physical therapy decreases length of stay
Background: The optimal quantity of physical therapy provided to hospitalized patients is unknown. It has been hypothesized that the costs of additional physical therapy might be outweighed by a decrease in length of stay. A prior meta-analysis done by the same authors was inconclusive; subsequently, additional large trials were published, prompting the authors to repeat their meta-analysis.
Study design: Meta-analysis.
Setting: Literature review of English-language studies conducted worldwide.
Synopsis: A total of 24 randomized controlled trials with a total of 3,262 participants was included in this meta-analysis. The primary finding was that additional physical therapy was associated with a 3-day reduction in length of stay in subacute settings (95% confidence interval, –4.6 to –0.9) and a 0.6-day reduction in acute care settings (95% CI, –1.1 to 0.0). Furthermore, additional physical therapy was associated with small improvements in self-care and activities of daily living. One trial included an economic analysis that suggested additional physical therapy was cost effective.
Of note, there was no standard definition of “additional physical therapy” across the heterogeneous group of trials analyzed in this meta-analysis. In all studies, the experimental group received more physical therapy than the control group, either by increased frequency or duration of sessions. Nonetheless, hospitals may consider increasing physical therapy services as a cost-effective means of reducing length of stay.
Bottom line: Additional physical therapy in acute and subacute care settings results in a decreased length of stay and may be cost effective.
Citation: Peiris CL et al. Additional physical therapy services reduce length of stay and improve health outcomes in people with acute and subacute conditions: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehab. 2018;99(11):2299-312.
Dr. Huang is a physician adviser and associate clinical professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego.
Background: The optimal quantity of physical therapy provided to hospitalized patients is unknown. It has been hypothesized that the costs of additional physical therapy might be outweighed by a decrease in length of stay. A prior meta-analysis done by the same authors was inconclusive; subsequently, additional large trials were published, prompting the authors to repeat their meta-analysis.
Study design: Meta-analysis.
Setting: Literature review of English-language studies conducted worldwide.
Synopsis: A total of 24 randomized controlled trials with a total of 3,262 participants was included in this meta-analysis. The primary finding was that additional physical therapy was associated with a 3-day reduction in length of stay in subacute settings (95% confidence interval, –4.6 to –0.9) and a 0.6-day reduction in acute care settings (95% CI, –1.1 to 0.0). Furthermore, additional physical therapy was associated with small improvements in self-care and activities of daily living. One trial included an economic analysis that suggested additional physical therapy was cost effective.
Of note, there was no standard definition of “additional physical therapy” across the heterogeneous group of trials analyzed in this meta-analysis. In all studies, the experimental group received more physical therapy than the control group, either by increased frequency or duration of sessions. Nonetheless, hospitals may consider increasing physical therapy services as a cost-effective means of reducing length of stay.
Bottom line: Additional physical therapy in acute and subacute care settings results in a decreased length of stay and may be cost effective.
Citation: Peiris CL et al. Additional physical therapy services reduce length of stay and improve health outcomes in people with acute and subacute conditions: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehab. 2018;99(11):2299-312.
Dr. Huang is a physician adviser and associate clinical professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego.
Background: The optimal quantity of physical therapy provided to hospitalized patients is unknown. It has been hypothesized that the costs of additional physical therapy might be outweighed by a decrease in length of stay. A prior meta-analysis done by the same authors was inconclusive; subsequently, additional large trials were published, prompting the authors to repeat their meta-analysis.
Study design: Meta-analysis.
Setting: Literature review of English-language studies conducted worldwide.
Synopsis: A total of 24 randomized controlled trials with a total of 3,262 participants was included in this meta-analysis. The primary finding was that additional physical therapy was associated with a 3-day reduction in length of stay in subacute settings (95% confidence interval, –4.6 to –0.9) and a 0.6-day reduction in acute care settings (95% CI, –1.1 to 0.0). Furthermore, additional physical therapy was associated with small improvements in self-care and activities of daily living. One trial included an economic analysis that suggested additional physical therapy was cost effective.
Of note, there was no standard definition of “additional physical therapy” across the heterogeneous group of trials analyzed in this meta-analysis. In all studies, the experimental group received more physical therapy than the control group, either by increased frequency or duration of sessions. Nonetheless, hospitals may consider increasing physical therapy services as a cost-effective means of reducing length of stay.
Bottom line: Additional physical therapy in acute and subacute care settings results in a decreased length of stay and may be cost effective.
Citation: Peiris CL et al. Additional physical therapy services reduce length of stay and improve health outcomes in people with acute and subacute conditions: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehab. 2018;99(11):2299-312.
Dr. Huang is a physician adviser and associate clinical professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego.
Use hospital MRSA rates to guide pediatric osteomyelitis treatment
SEATTLE – If your hospital’s methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus rate is less than 10%, cefazolin is a reasonable empiric choice for pediatric acute hematogenous osteomyelitis (AHO). It covers the usual suspects: methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, group A Streptococcus, and Kingella.
Above the 10% mark, coverage should include considerations of MRSA; clindamycin is good option so long as 85% of isolates are susceptible. Above that, it’s time for vancomycin, according to Nivedita Srinivas, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University.
There are no practice guidelines in the United States for the diagnosis and management of AHO in children; Dr. Srinivas and colleagues sought to plug the gaps in a talk at Pediatric Hospitalist Medicine.
Pediatric AHO is more common in children under 5 years old and in boys. Lower extremities are the usual targets. Staphylococcus aureus, group B Streptococcus, and gram negatives are the most common causes in newborns; Staphylococcus aureus, group A Streptococcus, and Kingella in older infants and preschoolers; and Staphylococcus aureus and group A Streptococcus in older children.
About half the time, treatment remains empiric because nothing grows out on culture, and there are a few clinical pearls to keep in mind in those cases. A family history of boils or spider bites is suspicious for MRSA, and coverage should include Salmonella in children with abnormal hemoglobins and Streptococcus pneumoniae in children without a spleen or with functional asplenia. Pseudomonas has to be kept in mind with puncture wounds, and Brucella in children who drink unpasteurized milk, Dr. Srinivas said.
A switch from IV to oral therapy is appropriate when C-reactive protein (CRP) drops 50% from its peak or below 3 mg/dL, positive cultures – if any – turn negative, fever has been absent for 24 hours, there’s no sign of metastatic disease, and patients have markedly reduced pain and can bear weight on the infected limb, said copresenter Marie Wang, MD, also a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford.
The oral switch, of course, must have similar coverage as the IV antibiotic: high-dose cephalexin for cefazolin, for instance. Children can be sent home on a PICC line to continue IV treatment, but they won’t do any better than children switched to an oral treatment, and the indwelling catheter can cause problems, she said.
Pleuritic or other sudden pain at a distant site suggests septic emboli. “[Staphylococcus aureus] is notorious for going places you don’t” expect it to go “and forming microabscesses, which become larger abscesses” and need to be drained, said the third presenter, Russell McCulloh, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.
Four weeks of antibiotics are usually enough, so long as there aren’t complications such as septic thrombophlebitis, endocarditis, sickle cell disease, skull involvement, or immunodeficiencies. Source control and good, postdischarge care – including regular CRP and antibiotic toxicity labs – are critical. Monitoring is recommended for a year.
“X-rays are good at looking for longer-term complications, but bony abnormalities are not going to show up for the first 2 weeks,” Dr. McCulloh said.
The presenters didn’t have any relevant disclosures. The meeting was sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.
SEATTLE – If your hospital’s methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus rate is less than 10%, cefazolin is a reasonable empiric choice for pediatric acute hematogenous osteomyelitis (AHO). It covers the usual suspects: methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, group A Streptococcus, and Kingella.
Above the 10% mark, coverage should include considerations of MRSA; clindamycin is good option so long as 85% of isolates are susceptible. Above that, it’s time for vancomycin, according to Nivedita Srinivas, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University.
There are no practice guidelines in the United States for the diagnosis and management of AHO in children; Dr. Srinivas and colleagues sought to plug the gaps in a talk at Pediatric Hospitalist Medicine.
Pediatric AHO is more common in children under 5 years old and in boys. Lower extremities are the usual targets. Staphylococcus aureus, group B Streptococcus, and gram negatives are the most common causes in newborns; Staphylococcus aureus, group A Streptococcus, and Kingella in older infants and preschoolers; and Staphylococcus aureus and group A Streptococcus in older children.
About half the time, treatment remains empiric because nothing grows out on culture, and there are a few clinical pearls to keep in mind in those cases. A family history of boils or spider bites is suspicious for MRSA, and coverage should include Salmonella in children with abnormal hemoglobins and Streptococcus pneumoniae in children without a spleen or with functional asplenia. Pseudomonas has to be kept in mind with puncture wounds, and Brucella in children who drink unpasteurized milk, Dr. Srinivas said.
A switch from IV to oral therapy is appropriate when C-reactive protein (CRP) drops 50% from its peak or below 3 mg/dL, positive cultures – if any – turn negative, fever has been absent for 24 hours, there’s no sign of metastatic disease, and patients have markedly reduced pain and can bear weight on the infected limb, said copresenter Marie Wang, MD, also a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford.
The oral switch, of course, must have similar coverage as the IV antibiotic: high-dose cephalexin for cefazolin, for instance. Children can be sent home on a PICC line to continue IV treatment, but they won’t do any better than children switched to an oral treatment, and the indwelling catheter can cause problems, she said.
Pleuritic or other sudden pain at a distant site suggests septic emboli. “[Staphylococcus aureus] is notorious for going places you don’t” expect it to go “and forming microabscesses, which become larger abscesses” and need to be drained, said the third presenter, Russell McCulloh, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.
Four weeks of antibiotics are usually enough, so long as there aren’t complications such as septic thrombophlebitis, endocarditis, sickle cell disease, skull involvement, or immunodeficiencies. Source control and good, postdischarge care – including regular CRP and antibiotic toxicity labs – are critical. Monitoring is recommended for a year.
“X-rays are good at looking for longer-term complications, but bony abnormalities are not going to show up for the first 2 weeks,” Dr. McCulloh said.
The presenters didn’t have any relevant disclosures. The meeting was sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.
SEATTLE – If your hospital’s methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus rate is less than 10%, cefazolin is a reasonable empiric choice for pediatric acute hematogenous osteomyelitis (AHO). It covers the usual suspects: methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, group A Streptococcus, and Kingella.
Above the 10% mark, coverage should include considerations of MRSA; clindamycin is good option so long as 85% of isolates are susceptible. Above that, it’s time for vancomycin, according to Nivedita Srinivas, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University.
There are no practice guidelines in the United States for the diagnosis and management of AHO in children; Dr. Srinivas and colleagues sought to plug the gaps in a talk at Pediatric Hospitalist Medicine.
Pediatric AHO is more common in children under 5 years old and in boys. Lower extremities are the usual targets. Staphylococcus aureus, group B Streptococcus, and gram negatives are the most common causes in newborns; Staphylococcus aureus, group A Streptococcus, and Kingella in older infants and preschoolers; and Staphylococcus aureus and group A Streptococcus in older children.
About half the time, treatment remains empiric because nothing grows out on culture, and there are a few clinical pearls to keep in mind in those cases. A family history of boils or spider bites is suspicious for MRSA, and coverage should include Salmonella in children with abnormal hemoglobins and Streptococcus pneumoniae in children without a spleen or with functional asplenia. Pseudomonas has to be kept in mind with puncture wounds, and Brucella in children who drink unpasteurized milk, Dr. Srinivas said.
A switch from IV to oral therapy is appropriate when C-reactive protein (CRP) drops 50% from its peak or below 3 mg/dL, positive cultures – if any – turn negative, fever has been absent for 24 hours, there’s no sign of metastatic disease, and patients have markedly reduced pain and can bear weight on the infected limb, said copresenter Marie Wang, MD, also a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford.
The oral switch, of course, must have similar coverage as the IV antibiotic: high-dose cephalexin for cefazolin, for instance. Children can be sent home on a PICC line to continue IV treatment, but they won’t do any better than children switched to an oral treatment, and the indwelling catheter can cause problems, she said.
Pleuritic or other sudden pain at a distant site suggests septic emboli. “[Staphylococcus aureus] is notorious for going places you don’t” expect it to go “and forming microabscesses, which become larger abscesses” and need to be drained, said the third presenter, Russell McCulloh, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.
Four weeks of antibiotics are usually enough, so long as there aren’t complications such as septic thrombophlebitis, endocarditis, sickle cell disease, skull involvement, or immunodeficiencies. Source control and good, postdischarge care – including regular CRP and antibiotic toxicity labs – are critical. Monitoring is recommended for a year.
“X-rays are good at looking for longer-term complications, but bony abnormalities are not going to show up for the first 2 weeks,” Dr. McCulloh said.
The presenters didn’t have any relevant disclosures. The meeting was sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM PHM 2019
CPAP safety for infants with bronchiolitis on the general pediatrics floor
SEATTLE – Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego has been doing continuous positive airway pressure for infants with bronchiolitis on the general pediatrics floors safely and with no problems for nearly 20 years, according to a presentation at Pediatric Hospital Medicine.
It’s newsworthy because “very, very few” hospitals do bronchiolitis continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) outside of the ICU. “The perception is that there are complications, and you might miss kids that are really sick if you keep them on the floor.” However, “we have been doing it safely for so long that no one thinks twice about it,” said Christiane Lenzen, MD, a pediatric hospitalist at Rady and an assistant clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego.
It doesn’t matter if children have congenital heart disease, chronic lung disease, or other problems, she said, “if they are stable enough for the floor, we will see if it’s okay.”
Rady’s hand was forced on the issue because it has a large catchment area but limited ICU beds, so for practical reasons and within certain limits, CPAP moved to the floors. One of Dr. Lenzen’s colleagues noted that, as long as there’s nurse and respiratory leadership buy in, “it’s actually quite easy to pull off in a very safe manner.”
Rady has a significant advantage over community hospitals and other places considering the approach, because it has onsite pediatric ICU services for when things head south. Over the past 3 or so years, 52% of the children the pediatric hospital medicine service started on CPAP (168/324) had to be transferred to the ICU; 17% were ultimately intubated.
Many of those transfers were caused by comorbidities, not CPAP failure, but other times children needed greater respiratory support; in general, the floor CPAP limit is 6 cm H2O and a fraction of inspired oxygen of 50%. Also, sometimes children needed to be sedated for CPAP, which isn’t done on the floor.
With the 52% transfer rate, “I would worry about patients who are sick enough to need CPAP staying” in a hospital without quick access to ICU services, Dr. Lenzen said at the meeting sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.
Even so, among 324 children who at least initially were treated with CPAP on the floor – out of 2,424 admitted to the pediatric hospital medicine service with bronchiolitis – there hasn’t been a single pneumothorax, aspiration event, or CPAP equipment–related injury, she said.
CPAP on the floor has several benefits. ICU resources are conserved, patient handoffs and the work of transfers into and out of the ICU are avoided, families don’t have to get used to a new treatment team, and infants aren’t subjected to the jarring ICU environment.
For it to work, though, staff “really need to be on top of this,” and “it needs to be very tightly controlled” with order sets and other measures, the presenters said. There’s regular training at Rady for nurses, respiratory therapists, and hospitalists on CPAP equipment, airway management, monitoring, troubleshooting, and other essentials.
Almost all children on the pediatric floors have a trial of high-flow nasal cannula with an upper limit of 8 L/min. If the Respiratory Assessment Score hasn’t improved in an hour, CPAP is considered. If a child is admitted with a score above 10 and they seem to be worsening, they go straight to CPAP.
Children alternate between nasal prongs and nasal masks to prevent pressure necrosis, and are kept nil per os while on CPAP. They are on continual pulse oximetry and cardiorespiratory monitoring. Vital signs and respiratory scores are checked frequently, more so for children who are struggling.
The patient-to-nurse ratio drops from the usual 4:1 to 3:1 when a child goes on CPAP, and to 2:1 if necessary. Traveling nurses aren’t allowed to take CPAP cases.
The presenters didn’t report any disclosures.
This article was updated 8/27/19.
SEATTLE – Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego has been doing continuous positive airway pressure for infants with bronchiolitis on the general pediatrics floors safely and with no problems for nearly 20 years, according to a presentation at Pediatric Hospital Medicine.
It’s newsworthy because “very, very few” hospitals do bronchiolitis continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) outside of the ICU. “The perception is that there are complications, and you might miss kids that are really sick if you keep them on the floor.” However, “we have been doing it safely for so long that no one thinks twice about it,” said Christiane Lenzen, MD, a pediatric hospitalist at Rady and an assistant clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego.
It doesn’t matter if children have congenital heart disease, chronic lung disease, or other problems, she said, “if they are stable enough for the floor, we will see if it’s okay.”
Rady’s hand was forced on the issue because it has a large catchment area but limited ICU beds, so for practical reasons and within certain limits, CPAP moved to the floors. One of Dr. Lenzen’s colleagues noted that, as long as there’s nurse and respiratory leadership buy in, “it’s actually quite easy to pull off in a very safe manner.”
Rady has a significant advantage over community hospitals and other places considering the approach, because it has onsite pediatric ICU services for when things head south. Over the past 3 or so years, 52% of the children the pediatric hospital medicine service started on CPAP (168/324) had to be transferred to the ICU; 17% were ultimately intubated.
Many of those transfers were caused by comorbidities, not CPAP failure, but other times children needed greater respiratory support; in general, the floor CPAP limit is 6 cm H2O and a fraction of inspired oxygen of 50%. Also, sometimes children needed to be sedated for CPAP, which isn’t done on the floor.
With the 52% transfer rate, “I would worry about patients who are sick enough to need CPAP staying” in a hospital without quick access to ICU services, Dr. Lenzen said at the meeting sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.
Even so, among 324 children who at least initially were treated with CPAP on the floor – out of 2,424 admitted to the pediatric hospital medicine service with bronchiolitis – there hasn’t been a single pneumothorax, aspiration event, or CPAP equipment–related injury, she said.
CPAP on the floor has several benefits. ICU resources are conserved, patient handoffs and the work of transfers into and out of the ICU are avoided, families don’t have to get used to a new treatment team, and infants aren’t subjected to the jarring ICU environment.
For it to work, though, staff “really need to be on top of this,” and “it needs to be very tightly controlled” with order sets and other measures, the presenters said. There’s regular training at Rady for nurses, respiratory therapists, and hospitalists on CPAP equipment, airway management, monitoring, troubleshooting, and other essentials.
Almost all children on the pediatric floors have a trial of high-flow nasal cannula with an upper limit of 8 L/min. If the Respiratory Assessment Score hasn’t improved in an hour, CPAP is considered. If a child is admitted with a score above 10 and they seem to be worsening, they go straight to CPAP.
Children alternate between nasal prongs and nasal masks to prevent pressure necrosis, and are kept nil per os while on CPAP. They are on continual pulse oximetry and cardiorespiratory monitoring. Vital signs and respiratory scores are checked frequently, more so for children who are struggling.
The patient-to-nurse ratio drops from the usual 4:1 to 3:1 when a child goes on CPAP, and to 2:1 if necessary. Traveling nurses aren’t allowed to take CPAP cases.
The presenters didn’t report any disclosures.
This article was updated 8/27/19.
SEATTLE – Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego has been doing continuous positive airway pressure for infants with bronchiolitis on the general pediatrics floors safely and with no problems for nearly 20 years, according to a presentation at Pediatric Hospital Medicine.
It’s newsworthy because “very, very few” hospitals do bronchiolitis continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) outside of the ICU. “The perception is that there are complications, and you might miss kids that are really sick if you keep them on the floor.” However, “we have been doing it safely for so long that no one thinks twice about it,” said Christiane Lenzen, MD, a pediatric hospitalist at Rady and an assistant clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego.
It doesn’t matter if children have congenital heart disease, chronic lung disease, or other problems, she said, “if they are stable enough for the floor, we will see if it’s okay.”
Rady’s hand was forced on the issue because it has a large catchment area but limited ICU beds, so for practical reasons and within certain limits, CPAP moved to the floors. One of Dr. Lenzen’s colleagues noted that, as long as there’s nurse and respiratory leadership buy in, “it’s actually quite easy to pull off in a very safe manner.”
Rady has a significant advantage over community hospitals and other places considering the approach, because it has onsite pediatric ICU services for when things head south. Over the past 3 or so years, 52% of the children the pediatric hospital medicine service started on CPAP (168/324) had to be transferred to the ICU; 17% were ultimately intubated.
Many of those transfers were caused by comorbidities, not CPAP failure, but other times children needed greater respiratory support; in general, the floor CPAP limit is 6 cm H2O and a fraction of inspired oxygen of 50%. Also, sometimes children needed to be sedated for CPAP, which isn’t done on the floor.
With the 52% transfer rate, “I would worry about patients who are sick enough to need CPAP staying” in a hospital without quick access to ICU services, Dr. Lenzen said at the meeting sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.
Even so, among 324 children who at least initially were treated with CPAP on the floor – out of 2,424 admitted to the pediatric hospital medicine service with bronchiolitis – there hasn’t been a single pneumothorax, aspiration event, or CPAP equipment–related injury, she said.
CPAP on the floor has several benefits. ICU resources are conserved, patient handoffs and the work of transfers into and out of the ICU are avoided, families don’t have to get used to a new treatment team, and infants aren’t subjected to the jarring ICU environment.
For it to work, though, staff “really need to be on top of this,” and “it needs to be very tightly controlled” with order sets and other measures, the presenters said. There’s regular training at Rady for nurses, respiratory therapists, and hospitalists on CPAP equipment, airway management, monitoring, troubleshooting, and other essentials.
Almost all children on the pediatric floors have a trial of high-flow nasal cannula with an upper limit of 8 L/min. If the Respiratory Assessment Score hasn’t improved in an hour, CPAP is considered. If a child is admitted with a score above 10 and they seem to be worsening, they go straight to CPAP.
Children alternate between nasal prongs and nasal masks to prevent pressure necrosis, and are kept nil per os while on CPAP. They are on continual pulse oximetry and cardiorespiratory monitoring. Vital signs and respiratory scores are checked frequently, more so for children who are struggling.
The patient-to-nurse ratio drops from the usual 4:1 to 3:1 when a child goes on CPAP, and to 2:1 if necessary. Traveling nurses aren’t allowed to take CPAP cases.
The presenters didn’t report any disclosures.
This article was updated 8/27/19.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM PHM 2019