Relationship between dental loss and health outcomes among hospitalized patients with and without diabetes

2018 ◽  
Vol 67 (3) ◽  
pp. 669-673
Author(s):  
Kenneth Izuora ◽  
Ammar Yousif ◽  
Gayle Allenback ◽  
Civon Gewelber ◽  
Michael Neubauer

There is mixed evidence regarding the impact of poor dental health on cardiovascular disease and other health outcomes. Our objective was to determine the outcomes associated with poor dental health among hospitalized patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM) at our institution. We enrolled a consecutive sample of adult patients admitted to an academic medical center. We gathered demographic, health and dental information, reviewed their medical records and then examined their teeth. We analyzed data using SPSS V.24. There was a high prevalence of dental loss among all hospitalized patients. Older age (p<0.001), smoking (p=0.034), having DM (p=0.001) and lower frequency of teeth brushing (p<0.001) were predictors of having a lower number of healthy teeth. Among DM and non-DM patients, fewer remaining healthy teeth was associated with presence of heart disease (p=0.025 and 0.003, respectively). Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) had a higher prevalence of stroke (p=0.006) while patients without DM had a higher number of discharge medications (p=0.001) associated with having fewer number of healthy teeth. There was no correlation between number of healthy teeth and the length or frequency of hospitalization. Patients with DM are more likely to have fewer number of healthy teeth compared with non-DM patients. Fewer number of healthy teeth was associated with higher prevalence of heart disease in both DM and non-DM patients and with more discharge medications in non-DM patients.

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. S710-S710
Author(s):  
Minji Kang ◽  
Francesca J Torriani ◽  
Rebecca Sell ◽  
Shira Abeles

Abstract Background Balancing antimicrobial stewardship with sepsis management is a challenge. At our academic medical center, a “Code Sepsis” was implemented as a nursing driven initiative to improve early recognition and management of sepsis. Per protocol, Code Sepsis is activated in patients who meet two or more systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria due to a suspected infection to allow for early implementation of the sepsis bundle, which includes laboratory testing, fluid resuscitation, and antibiotic administration (Figure 1). We analyzed the impact that Code Sepsis had on antimicrobial use among hospitalized patients over a six month period. Methods We reviewed the electronic medical records of hospitalized patients with Code Sepsis activation between January 1, 2018 and June 30, 2018 to determine whether antibiotics were “escalated” or “not escalated.” Among patients who had antibiotic escalation, escalation was classified as “indicated” or “not indicated” (Figure 2). A logistic regression model was used to identify characteristics, SIRS or organ dysfunction criteria predictive of indicated antimicrobial escalation. Results Code Sepsis was activated in 529 patients with antibiotics escalated in 247 (47%) and not escalated in 282 (53%) (Table 1). Among patients whose antibiotics were escalated, 64% (152) had an indication. In 36% (89), escalation was not indicated as Code Sepsis was due to a suspected noninfectious source, known infectious source already on appropriate antimicrobials, or a suspected infectious source in which diagnostic results had already shown the absence of the infection (Figure 2). Odds of indicated antibiotic escalation increased with the number of SIRS and organ dysfunction criteria (Table 2). Conclusion In our efforts to improve sepsis outcomes, we focused on early recognition (Code Sepsis) and intervention (sepsis bundle). However, our Code Sepsis inadvertently led to antibiotic overutilization. By refocusing Code Sepsis on early recognition of severe sepsis and septic shock, we hope to optimize resource utilization and improve patient outcomes. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.


2021 ◽  
pp. 193229682199785
Author(s):  
Sarah C. Haynes ◽  
Tejaswi Kompala ◽  
Aaron Neinstein ◽  
Jennifer Rosenthal ◽  
Stephanie Crossen

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine use rapidly and dramatically increased for management of diabetes mellitus. It is unknown whether access to telemedicine care has been equitable during this time. This study aimed to identify patient-level factors associated with adoption of telemedicine for subspecialty diabetes care during the pandemic. Methods: We conducted an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study using data from a single academic medical center. We used multivariate logistic regression to explore associations between telemedicine use and demographic factors for patients receiving subspecialty diabetes care between March 19 and June 30, 2020. We then surveyed a sample of patients who received in-person care to understand why these patients did not use telemedicine. Results: Among 1292 patients who received subspecialty diabetes care during the study period, those over age 65 were less likely to use telemedicine (OR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.22-0.52, P < .001), as were patients with a primary language other than English (OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.31-0.91, P = .02), and patients with public insurance (OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.49-0.84, P = .001). Perceived quality of care and technological barriers were the most common reasons cited for choosing in-person care during the pandemic. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that, amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been disparities in telemedicine use by age, language, and insurance for patients with diabetes mellitus. We anticipate telemedicine will continue to be an important care modality for chronic conditions in the years ahead. Significant work must therefore be done to ensure that telemedicine services do not introduce or widen population health disparities.


2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s114-s115
Author(s):  
Alexandra Johnson ◽  
Bobby Warren ◽  
Deverick John Anderson ◽  
Melissa Johnson ◽  
Isabella Gamez ◽  
...  

Background: Stethoscopes are a known vector for microbial transmission; however, common strategies used to clean stethoscopes pose certain barriers that prevent routine cleaning after every use. We aimed to determine whether using readily available alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) would effectively reduce bacterial bioburden on stethoscopes in a real-world setting. Methods: We performed a randomized study on inpatient wards of an academic medical center to assess the impact of using ABHR (AlcareExtra; ethyl alcohol, 80%) on the bacterial bioburden of stethoscopes. Stethoscopes were obtained from healthcare providers after routine use during an inpatient examination and were randomized to control (no intervention) or ABHR disinfection (2 pumps applied to tubing and bell or diaphragm by study personnel, then allowed to dry). Cultures of the tubing and bell or diaphragm were obtained with premoistened cellulose sponges. Sponges were combined with 1% Tween20-PBS and mixed in the Seward Stomacher. The homogenate was centrifuged and all but ~5 mL of the supernatant was discarded. Samples were plated on sheep’s blood agar and selective media for clinically important pathogens (CIPs) including S. aureus, Enterococcus spp, and gram-negative bacteria (GNB). CFU count was determined by counting the number of colonies on each plate and using dilution calculations to calculate the CFU of the original ~5 mL homogenate. Results: In total, 80 stethoscopes (40 disinfection, 40 control) were sampled from 46 physicians (MDs) and MD students (57.5%), 13 advanced practice providers (16.3%), and 21 nurses (RNs) and RN students (26.3%). The median CFU count was ~30-fold lower in the disinfection arm compared to control (106 [IQR, 50–381] vs 3,320 [986–4,834]; P < .0001). The effect was consistent across provider type, frequency of recent usual stethoscope cleaning, age, and status of pet ownership (Fig. 1). Overall, 26 of 80 (33%) of stethoscopes harbored CIP. The presence of CIP was lower but not significantly different for stethoscopes that underwent disinfection versus controls: S. aureus (25% vs 32.5%), Enterococcus (2.5% vs 10%), and GNB (2.5% vs 5%). Conclusions: Stethoscopes may serve as vectors for clean hands to become recontaminated immediately prior to performing patient care activities. Using ABHR to clean stethoscopes after every use is a practical and effective strategy to reduce overall bacterial contamination that can be easily incorporated into clinical workflow. Larger studies are needed to determine the efficacy of ABHR at removing CIP from stethoscopes as stethoscopes in both arms were frequently contaminated with CIP. Prior cleaning of stethoscopes on the study day did not seem to impact contamination rates, suggesting the impact of alcohol foam disinfection is short-lived and may need to be repeated frequently (ie, after each use).Funding: NoneDisclosures: NoneDisclosures: NoneFunding: None


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S188-S189
Author(s):  
Deepika Sivakumar ◽  
Shelbye R Herbin ◽  
Raymond Yost ◽  
Marco R Scipione

Abstract Background Inpatient antibiotic use early on in the COVID-19 pandemic may have increased due to the inability to distinguish between bacterial and COVID-19 pneumonia. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of COVID-19 on antimicrobial usage during three separate waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods We conducted a retrospective review of patients admitted to Detroit Medical Center between 3/10/19 to 4/24/21. Median days of therapy per 1000 adjusted patient days (DOT/1000 pt days) was evaluated for all administered antibiotics included in our pneumonia guidelines during 4 separate time periods: pre-COVID (3/3/19-4/27/19); 1st wave (3/8/20-5/2/20); 2nd wave (12/6/21-1/30/21); and 3rd wave (3/7/21-4/24/21). Antibiotics included in our pneumonia guidelines include: amoxicillin, azithromycin, aztreonam, ceftriaxone, cefepime, ciprofloxacin, doxycycline, linezolid, meropenem, moxifloxacin, piperacillin-tazobactam, tobramycin, and vancomycin. The percent change in antibiotic use between the separate time periods was also evaluated. Results An increase in antibiotics was seen during the 1st wave compared to the pre-COVID period (2639 [IQR 2339-3439] DOT/1000 pt days vs. 2432 [IQR 2291-2499] DOT/1000 pt days, p=0.08). This corresponded to an increase of 8.5% during the 1st wave. This increase did not persist during the 2nd and 3rd waves of the pandemic, and the use decreased by 8% and 16%, respectively, compared to the pre-COVID period. There was an increased use of ceftriaxone (+6.5%, p=0.23), doxycycline (+46%, p=0.13), linezolid (+61%, p=0.014), cefepime (+50%, p=0.001), and meropenem (+29%, p=0.25) during the 1st wave compared to the pre-COVID period. Linezolid (+39%, p=0.013), cefepime (+47%, p=0.08) and tobramycin (+47%, p=0.05) use remained high during the 3rd wave compared to the pre-COVID period, but the use was lower when compared to the 1st and 2nd waves. Figure 1. Antibiotic Use 01/2019 to 04/2019 Conclusion Antibiotics used to treat bacterial pneumonia during the 1st wave of the pandemic increased and there was a shift to broader spectrum agents during that period. The increased use was not sustained during the 2nd and 3rd waves of the pandemic, possibly due to the increased awareness of the differences between patients who present with COVID-19 pneumonia and bacterial pneumonia. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures


Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Merilyn S Varghese ◽  
Jordan B Strom ◽  
Sarah Fostello ◽  
Warren J Manning

Introduction: COVID-19 has significantly impacted hospital systems worldwide. The impact of statewide stay-at-home mandates on echocardiography volumes is unclear. Methods: We queried our institutional echocardiography database from 6/1/2018 to 6/13/2020 to examine rates of transthoracic (TTE), stress (SE), and transesophageal echocardiograms (TEE) prior to and following the COVID-19 Massachusetts stay-at-home order on March 15, 2020. Results: Among 36,377 total studies performed during the study period, mean weekly study volume dropped from 332 + 3 TTEs/week, 30 + 1 SEs/week, and 21 + 1 TEEs/week prior to the stay-at-home order (6/1/2018-3/15/2020) to 158 + 13 TTEs/week, 8 + 2 SEs/week, and 8 + 1 TEEs/week after (% change, -52%, -73%, and -62% respectively, all p < 0.001 when comparing volume prior to March 15 versus after). Weekly TTEs correlated strongly with hospital admissions throughout the study period (r = 0.93, 95% CI 0.89-0.95, p < 0.001) ( Figure ). Outpatient TTEs declined more than inpatient TTEs (% change, -74% vs. -39%, p <0.001). As of 3 weeks following the cessation of the stay-at-home order, TTE, SE, and TEE weekly volumes have increased to 73%, 66%, and 81% of pre-pandemic levels, respectively. Conclusions: Echocardiography volumes fell precipitously following the Massachusetts stay-at-home order, strongly paralleling declines in overall hospitalizations. Outpatient TTEs declined more than inpatient TTEs. Despite lifting of the order, echocardiography volumes remain substantially below pre-pandemic levels. The impact of the decreased use of echocardiographic services on patient outcomes remains to be determined.


Author(s):  
Ji Yeon Kim ◽  
Irina K. Kamis ◽  
Balaji Singh ◽  
Shalini Batra ◽  
Roberta H. Dixon ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 583-586 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Gorgone ◽  
Brian McNichols ◽  
Valerie J. Lang ◽  
William Novak ◽  
Alec B. O'Connor

ABSTRACT Background  Training residents to become competent in common bedside procedures can be challenging. Some hospitals have attending physician–led procedure teams with oversight of all procedures to improve procedural training, but these teams require significant resources to establish and maintain. Objective  We sought to improve resident procedural training by implementing a resident-run procedure team without routine attending involvement. Methods  We created the role of a resident procedure coordinator (RPC). Interested residents on less time-intensive rotations voluntarily served as RPC. Medical providers in the hospital contacted the RPC through a designated pager when a bedside procedure was needed. A structured credentialing process, using direct observation and a procedure-specific checklist, was developed to determine residents' competence for completing procedures independently. Checklists were developed by the residency program and approved by institutional subspecialists. The service was implemented in June 2016 at an 850-bed academic medical center with 70 internal medicine and 32 medicine-pediatrics residents. The procedure service functioned without routine attending involvement. The impact was evaluated through resident procedure logs and surveys of residents and attending physicians. Results  Compared with preimplementation procedure logs, there were substantial increases postimplementation in resident-performed procedures and the number of residents credentialed in paracenteses, thoracenteses, and lumbar punctures. Fifty-nine of 102 (58%) residents responded to the survey, with 42 (71%) reporting the initiative increased their ability to obtain procedural experience. Thirty-one of 36 (86%) attending respondents reported preferentially using the service. Conclusions  The RPC model increased resident procedural training opportunities using a structured sign-off process and an operationalized service.


2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (9) ◽  
pp. 1056-1058
Author(s):  
Jacob W. Pierce ◽  
Andrew Kirk ◽  
Kimberly B. Lee ◽  
John D. Markley ◽  
Amy Pakyz ◽  
...  

AbstractAntipseudomonal carbapenems are an important target for antimicrobial stewardship programs. We evaluated the impact of formulary restriction and preauthorization on relative carbapenem use for medical and surgical intensive care units at a large, urban academic medical center using interrupted time-series analysis.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 1036-1043 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ankur Segon ◽  
Yogita Segon ◽  
Vivek Kumar ◽  
Hirotaka Kato

Patient’s perception of their inpatient experience is measured by the Center for Medical Services’ (CMS) administered Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers & Systems (HCAHPS) survey. There is scant existing literature on physicians’ perceptions toward the HCAHPS scoring system. Understanding hospitalist knowledge and attitude toward the HCAHPS survey can help guide efforts to impact HCAHPS survey scores by improving the patient’s perception of their hospital experience. The goal of this study is to explore hospitalists’ knowledge and perspective of the physician communication domain of the HCAHPS survey at an academic medical center. Seven hospitalists at an academic medical center were interviewed for this report using a semistructured interview. Thematic analysis approach was used to analyze data. Open, line-by-line coding was performed on all 7 transcripts. Categories were derived in an inductive fashion. Categories were refined using the techniques of constant comparison and axial coding. We generated themes reflecting hospitalists’ knowledge of the HCAHPS scoring system, their perception of the HCAHPS scoring system and the impact of the HCAHPS scoring system on their practice. While hospitalists acknowledged physician–patient communication is a challenging area to study, they are unlikely to embrace the feedback provided by HCAHPS surveys. There is a need to deploy tactics that provide timely and actionable feedback to providers on their bedside communication skills.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document