Gender differences in career progress and satisfaction in an academic medical center

Background Obtaining wrist radiographs prior to surgeon evaluation may be wasteful for patients ultimately diagnosed with de Quervain tendinopathy (DQT). Questions/Purpose Our primary question was whether radiographs directly influence treatment of patients presenting with DQT. A secondary question was whether radiographs influence the frequency of injection and surgical release between cohorts with and without radiographs evaluated within the same practice. Patients and Methods Patients diagnosed with DQT by fellowship-trained hand surgeons at an urban academic medical center were identified retrospectively. Basic demographics and radiographic findings were tabulated. Clinical records were studied to determine whether radiographic findings corroborated history or physical examination findings, and whether management was directly influenced by radiographic findings. Frequencies of treatment with injection and surgery were separately tabulated and compared between cohorts with and without radiographs. Results We included 181 patients (189 wrists), with no differences in demographics between the 58% (110 wrists) with and 42% (79 wrists) without radiographs. Fifty (45%) of imaged wrists demonstrated one or more abnormalities; however, even for the 13 (12%) with corroborating history and physical examination findings, wrist radiography did not directly influence a change in management for any patient in this series. No difference was observed in rates of injection or surgical release either upon initial presentation, or at most recent documented follow-up, between those with and without radiographs. No differences in frequency, types, or total number of additional simultaneous surgical procedures were observed for those treated surgically. Conclusion Wrist radiography does not influence management of patients presenting DQT. Level of Evidence This is a level III, diagnostic study.

Download Full-text

Clinical Team Distribution and Antibiotic Use Patterns at a Tertiary-Care Academic Medical Center

Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology ◽

10.1017/ice.2020.695 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 41 (S1) ◽

pp. s168-s169

Author(s):

Rebecca Choudhury ◽

Ronald Beaulieu ◽

Thomas Talbot ◽

George Nelson

Keyword(s):

Medical Center ◽

Academic Medical Center ◽

Tertiary Care ◽

Antibiotic Use ◽

Care Hospital ◽

Hospital Units ◽

Antibiotic Utilization ◽

Academic Medical ◽

Level Data ◽

Utilization Data

Background: As more US hospitals report antibiotic utilization to the CDC, standardized antimicrobial administration ratios (SAARs) derived from patient care unit-based antibiotic utilization data will increasingly be used to guide local antibiotic stewardship interventions. Location-based antibiotic utilization surveillance data are often utilized given the relative ease of ascertainment. However, aggregating antibiotic use data on a unit basis may have variable effects depending on the number of clinical teams providing care. In this study, we examined antibiotic utilization from units at a tertiary-care hospital to illustrate the potential challenges of using unit-based antibiotic utilization to change individual prescribing. Methods: We used inpatient pharmacy antibiotic use administration records at an adult tertiary-care academic medical center over a 6-month period from January 2019 through June 2019 to describe the geographic footprints and AU of medical, surgical, and critical care teams. All teams accounting for at least 1 patient day present on each unit during the study period were included in the analysis, as were all teams prescribing at least 1 antibiotic day of therapy (DOT). Results: The study population consisted of 24 units: 6 ICUs (25%) and 18 non-ICUs (75%). Over the study period, the average numbers of teams caring for patients in ICU and non-ICU wards were 10.2 (range, 3.2–16.9) and 13.7 (range, 10.4–18.9), respectively. Units were divided into 3 categories by the number of teams, accounting for ≥70% of total patient days present (Fig. 1): “homogenous” (≤3), “pauciteam” (4–7 teams), and “heterogeneous” (>7 teams). In total, 12 (50%) units were “pauciteam”; 7 (29%) were “homogeneous”; and 5 (21%) were “heterogeneous.” Units could also be classified as “homogenous,” “pauciteam,” or “heterogeneous” based on team-level antibiotic utilization or DOT for specific antibiotics. Different patterns emerged based on antibiotic restriction status. Classifying units based on vancomycin DOT (unrestricted) exhibited fewer “heterogeneous” units, whereas using meropenem DOT (restricted) revealed no “heterogeneous” units. Furthermore, the average number of units where individual clinical teams prescribed an antibiotic varied widely (range, 1.4–12.3 units per team). Conclusions: Unit-based antibiotic utilization data may encounter limitations in affecting prescriber behavior, particularly on units where a large number of clinical teams contribute to antibiotic utilization. Additionally, some services prescribing antibiotics across many hospital units may be minimally influenced by unit-level data. Team-based antibiotic utilization may allow for a more targeted metric to drive individual team prescribing.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

Download Full-text

164. Avoiding Complacency: Assessing the Perceived Impact and Value of Antimicrobial Stewardship at a Academic Medical Center

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.209 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S90-S91

Author(s):

Matthew S Lee ◽

Christopher McCoy

Keyword(s):

Antimicrobial Stewardship ◽

Medical Center ◽

Academic Medical Center ◽

Clinical Decision ◽

Team Members ◽

Academic Medical ◽

Support Tools ◽

Educational Engagement ◽

Similar Survey ◽

Perceived Impact

Abstract Background Multi-disciplinary engagement and education remain key measures for Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs (ASPs). Over 3 years, our ASP has undergone key changes to pre-authorization review, post-prescriptive activities, and core team members, coinciding with a 30% increase in stewardship interventions. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the familiarity of Nursing, Pharmacy and Prescribers at our academic medical center regarding ASP activities and services, as well as perceived impact on patient care and value. Secondary objectives were to determine what resources are currently utilized and areas for improvement. Methods Distinct surveys were distributed to three participant groups: Nurses, Pharmacists, and Prescribers (Housestaff, Advanced Practice Providers, and staff physicians). Questions were developed to assess familiarity, perceived value, and overall satisfaction with the ASP. Additional items included questions on the current use of ASP resources and educational engagement. Survey results were compared to a similar survey conducted 3 years amongst the same participant groups. Results The survey was delivered electronically to 3367 Prescribers, Nurses and Pharmacists. 403 responders completed the survey (208 Nurses, 181 Prescribers, and 18 Pharmacists). Familiarity was lowest amongst Nurses, but almost doubled compared to 2016 (Figure). Prescribers cited “restricted antibiotic approval”, “de-escalation”, and “alternative therapies relative to allergies” as the three most common interaction types, similar to 2016. ASP interactions continued to be rated “moderate” or “high” value (88.4% vs 89.15% in 2016), however, face-to-face interactions were preferred by only 4% of responders (unchanged compared to 2016). Prescribers also responded uncommon use of ASP online resources (20%) and clinical decision support tools (34%). 78% of responders expressed desire for increased ASP-related education. Conclusion As ASPs evolve, it is important to constantly evaluate impact and value, and identify areas for growth. Despite ASP familiarity being high and interactions valued, we need to further optimize ASP provided resources, clinical support tools, and educational offerings. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Download Full-text