The Safety of Midline Catheters for Intravenous Therapy at a Large Academic Medical Center

2019 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 232-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hangil Seo ◽  
Diana Altshuler ◽  
Yanina Dubrovskaya ◽  
Mark E. Nunnally ◽  
Catherine Nunn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antimicrobial Therapy ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Intravenous Therapy ◽  
Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy ◽  
Medication Therapy ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Outpatient Group ◽  
Days Of Therapy

Background: Midline catheters (MCs) have arisen as alternatives to peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) for both general intravenous therapy and extended outpatient parenteral therapy. However, there is a lack of data concerning the safety of medication therapy through midline for extended durations. Objective: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety of MCs for extended intravenous use. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study evaluating patients who received intravenous therapy through an MC at a tertiary care academic medical center. The primary end point was the incidence of composite catheter-related adverse events that included local events, catheter dislodgment, infiltration, catheter occlusion, catheter-related venous thromboembolism, extravasation, and line-associated infection. Results: A total of 82 MC placements and 50 PICC placements were included; 50 MCs were for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy, and 32 were for inpatient intravenous use. There were 21 complications per 1000 catheter-days in the outpatient group and 7 complications per 1000 catheter-days in the PICC group ( P = 0.91). The median time to complication in both groups was 8 days. The antimicrobial classes commonly associated with complications were cephalosporins, carbapenems, and penicillins. Conclusion and Relevance: Our results suggest that intravenous therapy with MCs is generally safe for prolonged courses that do not exceed 14 days as compared with PICC lines, which can be placed for months. There is still limited evidence for the use of MCs between 14 and 28 days of therapy. This study can help guide our selection of intravenous catheters for the purpose of outpatient antimicrobial therapy.

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

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

scholarly journals Financial Impact of Tertiary Care in an Academic Medical Center

2000 ◽  
Vol 231 (6) ◽  
pp. 860-868 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas S. Huber ◽  
Lori M. Carlton ◽  
Donna G. O’Hern ◽  
Nancy S. Hardt ◽  
C. Keith Ozaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Financial Impact ◽  
Academic Medical

scholarly journals 421. Effect of SARs-Cov-2 mRNA Vaccination in Healthcare Workers with Household COVID Exposure

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S311-S311
Author(s):  
Laura Selby ◽  
Richard Starlin
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Severe Disease ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Limited Data ◽  
Viral Shedding ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Significant Burden

Abstract Background Healthcare workers have experienced a significant burden of COVID-19 disease. COVID mRNA vaccines have shown great efficacy in prevention of severe disease and hospitalization due to COVID infection, but limited data is available about acquisition of infection and asymptomatic viral shedding. Methods Fully vaccinated healthcare workers at a tertiary-care academic medical center in Omaha Nebraska who reported a household exposure to COVID-19 infection are eligible for a screening program in which they are serially screened with PCR but allowed to work if negative on initial test and asymptomatic. Serial screening by NP swab was completed every 5-7 days, and workers became excluded from work if testing was positive or became symptomatic. Results Of the 94 employees who were fully vaccinated at the time of the household exposure to COVID-19 infection, 78 completed serial testing and were negative. Sixteen were positive on initial or subsequent screening. Vaccine failure rate of 17.0% (16/94). Healthcare workers exposed to household COVID positive contact Conclusion High risk household exposures to COVID-19 infection remains a significant potential source of infections in healthcare workers even after workers are fully vaccinated with COVID mRNA vaccines especially those with contact to positive domestic partners. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

scholarly journals 154. Antibiotic Use During Three Separate Waves of the COVID-19 Pandemic at a Large Academic Medical Center in Detroit, MI

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S188-S189
Author(s):  
Deepika Sivakumar ◽  
Shelbye R Herbin ◽  
Raymond Yost ◽  
Marco R Scipione
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Review ◽  
Bacterial Pneumonia ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Percent Change ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Days Of Therapy ◽  
Time Periods ◽  
The Impact

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

scholarly journals 183. Optimization of an Outpatient Antimicrobial Stewardship Process for Patients Discharged from the Emergency Department at an Academic Medical Center

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S98-S98
Author(s):  
Hannah Kafisheh ◽  
Matthew Hinton ◽  
Amanda Binkley ◽  
Christo Cimino ◽  
Christopher Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Antimicrobial Stewardship ◽  
Antimicrobial Therapy ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Positive Culture ◽  
Culture Result ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Positive Culture Result ◽  
Therapy Modification

Abstract Background Suboptimal antimicrobial therapy has resulted in the emergence of multi-drug resistant organisms. The objective of this study was to optimize the time to antimicrobial therapy modification for patients discharged from the emergency department (ED) of an academic medical center through implementation of a pharmacist-driven outpatient antimicrobial stewardship initiative (ASI). Methods This was a pre-post, quasi-experimental study that evaluated the impact of a pharmacist-driven outpatient antimicrobial stewardship initiative at a single academic medical center. The pre-cohort was evaluated through manual electronic medical record (EMR) review, while the post-cohort involved a real-time notification alert system through an electronic clinical surveillance application. The difference in time from positive culture result to antimicrobial therapy optimization before and after implementation of the pharmacist-driven ASI was collected and analyzed. Results A total of 166 cultures were included in the analysis. Of these, 12/72 (16%) in the pre-cohort and 11/94 (12%) in the post-cohort required antimicrobial therapy modification, with a 21.9-hour reduction in median time from positive culture result to antimicrobial optimization in the post-cohort (43 h vs. 21.1 h; p < 0.01). Similarly, the median time from positive culture result to review was reduced by 20 hours with pharmacist-driven intervention (21.1 h vs. 1.4 h; p < 0.01). Conclusion The implementation of a pharmacist-driven outpatient antimicrobial stewardship initiative resulted in a significant reduction in time to positive culture review and therapy optimization for patients discharged from the ED of an academic medical center set in Philadelphia, PA. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

scholarly journals Evaluation of Perioperative Medication Errors and Adverse Drug Events

2016 ◽  
Vol 124 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen C. Nanji ◽  
Amit Patel ◽  
Sofia Shaikh ◽  
Diane L. Seger ◽  
David W. Bates
Keyword(s):  
Medication Errors ◽  
Adverse Drug Events ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Study Staff ◽  
Chart Abstraction ◽  
Life Threatening ◽  
Perioperative Medication

Abstract Background The purpose of this study is to assess the rates of perioperative medication errors (MEs) and adverse drug events (ADEs) as percentages of medication administrations, to evaluate their root causes, and to formulate targeted solutions to prevent them. Methods In this prospective observational study, anesthesia-trained study staff (anesthesiologists/nurse anesthetists) observed randomly selected operations at a 1,046-bed tertiary care academic medical center to identify MEs and ADEs over 8 months. Retrospective chart abstraction was performed to flag events that were missed by observation. All events subsequently underwent review by two independent reviewers. Primary outcomes were the incidence of MEs and ADEs. Results A total of 277 operations were observed with 3,671 medication administrations of which 193 (5.3%; 95% CI, 4.5 to 6.0) involved a ME and/or ADE. Of these, 153 (79.3%) were preventable and 40 (20.7%) were nonpreventable. The events included 153 (79.3%) errors and 91 (47.2%) ADEs. Although 32 (20.9%) of the errors had little potential for harm, 51 (33.3%) led to an observed ADE and an additional 70 (45.8%) had the potential for patient harm. Of the 153 errors, 99 (64.7%) were serious, 51 (33.3%) were significant, and 3 (2.0%) were life-threatening. Conclusions One in 20 perioperative medication administrations included an ME and/or ADE. More than one third of the MEs led to observed ADEs, and the remaining two thirds had the potential for harm. These rates are markedly higher than those reported by retrospective surveys. Specific solutions exist that have the potential to decrease the incidence of perioperative MEs.

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD) Comes to America: Preliminary Experience with Colorectal ESD At An American Tertiary Care Academic Medical Center

2008 ◽  
Vol 67 (5) ◽  
pp. AB147
Author(s):  
Mainor R. Antillon ◽  
Wilson P. Pais ◽  
Christopher R. Bartalos ◽  
Alberto a. Diaz-Arias ◽  
Ghassan M. Hammoud ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Submucosal Dissection ◽  
Academic Medical
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document