Overdiagnosis of urinary tract infection linked to overdiagnosis of pneumonia: a multihospital cohort study

Urinary tract infection (UTI) and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) are the most common infections treated in hospitals. UTI and CAP are also commonly overdiagnosed, resulting in unnecessary antibiotic use and diagnostic delays. While much is known individually about overdiagnosis of UTI and CAP, it is not known whether hospitals with higher overdiagnosis of one also have higher overdiagnosis of the other. Correlation of overdiagnosis of these two conditions may indicate underlying hospital-level contributors, which in turn may represent targets for intervention. To evaluate the association of overdiagnosis of UTI and CAP, we first determined the proportion of hospitalised patients treated for CAP or UTI at 46 hospitals in Michigan who were overdiagnosed according to national guideline definitions. Then, we used Pearson’s correlation coefficient to compare hospital proportions of overdiagnosis of CAP and UTI. Finally, we assessed for ‘diagnostic momentum’ (ie, accepting a previous diagnosis without sufficient scepticism) by determining how often overdiagnosed patients remained on antibiotics on day 3 of hospitalisation. We included 14 085 patients treated for CAP (11.4% were overdiagnosed) and 10 398 patients treated for UTI (27.8% were overdiagnosed) across 46 hospitals. Within hospitals, the proportion of patients overdiagnosed with UTI was moderately correlated with the proportion of patients overdiagnosed with CAP (r=0.53, p<0.001). Over 80% (81.8% (n=952/1164) of UTI; 89.9% (n=796/885) of CAP) of overdiagnosed patients started on antibiotics by an emergency medicine clinician remained on antibiotics on day 3 of hospitalisation. In conclusion, we found overdiagnosis of UTI and CAP to be correlated at the hospital level. Reducing overdiagnosis of these two common infections may benefit from systematic interventions.

Using a dark logic model to explore adverse effects in audit and feedback: a qualitative study of gaming in colonoscopy

BackgroundAudit and feedback (A&F) interventions improve patient care but may result in unintended consequences. To evaluate plausible harms and maximise benefits, theorisation using logic models can be useful. We aimed to explore the adverse effects of colonoscopy A&F using a feedback intervention theory (FIT) dark logic model before the National Endoscopy Database Automated Performance Reports to Improve Quality Outcomes Trial study.MethodsWe undertook a qualitative study exploring A&F practices in colonoscopy. Interviews were undertaken with endoscopists from six English National Health Service endoscopy centres, purposively sampled for professional background and experience. A thematic framework analysis was performed, mapping paradoxical effects and harms using FIT and the theory of planned behaviour.ResultsData saturation was achieved on the 19th participant, with participants from nursing, surgical and medical backgrounds and a median of 7 years’ experience.When performance was below aspirational targets participants were falsely reassured by social comparisons. Participants described confidence as a requirement for colonoscopy. Negative feedback without a plan to improve risked reducing confidence and impeding performance (cognitive interference). Unmet targets increased anxiety and prompted participants to question messages’ motives and consider gaming.Participants described inaccurate documentation of subjective measures, including patient comfort, to achieve targets perceived as important. Participants described causing harm from persevering to complete procedures despite patient discomfort and removing insignificant polyps to improve detection rates without benefiting the patient.ConclusionOur dark logic model highlighted that A&F interventions may create both desired and adverse effects. Without a priori theorisation evaluations may disregard potential harms. In colonoscopy, improved patient experience measures may reduce harm. To address cognitive interference the motivation of feedback to support improvement should always be clear, with plans targeting specific behaviours and offering face-to-face support for confidence.Trial registration numberISRCTN11126923.

Impact of Statewide Prevention and Reduction of Clostridioides difficile (SPARC), a Maryland public health–academic collaborative: an evaluation of a quality improvement intervention

To evaluate changes in Clostridioides difficile incidence rates for Maryland hospitals that participated in the Statewide Prevention and Reduction of C. difficile (SPARC) collaborative. Pre-post, difference-in-difference analysis of non-randomised intervention using four quarters of preintervention and six quarters of postintervention National Healthcare Safety Network data for SPARC hospitals (April 2017 to March 2020) and 10 quarters for control hospitals (October 2017 to March 2020). Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to assess changes over time. Process evaluation using hospital intervention implementation plans, assessments and interviews with staff at eight SPARC hospitals. Maryland, USA. All Maryland acute care hospitals; 12 intervention and 36 control hospitals. Participation in SPARC, a public health–academic collaborative made available to Maryland hospitals, with staggered enrolment between June 2018 and August 2019. Hospitals with higher C. difficile rates were recruited via email and phone. SPARC included assessments, feedback reports and ongoing technical assistance. Primary outcomes were C. difficile incidence rate measured as the quarterly number of C. difficile infections per 10 000 patient-days (outcome measure) and SPARC intervention hospitals’ experiences participating in the collaborative (process measures). SPARC invited 13 hospitals to participate in the intervention, with 92% (n=12) participating. The 36 hospitals that did not participate served as control hospitals. SPARC hospitals were associated with 45% greater C. difficile reduction as compared with control hospitals (incidence rate ratio=0.55, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.88, p=0.012). Key SPARC activities, including access to trusted external experts, technical assistance, multidisciplinary collaboration, an accountability structure, peer-to-peer learning opportunities and educational resources, were associated with hospitals reporting positive experiences with SPARC. SPARC intervention hospitals experienced 45% greater reduction in C. difficile rates than control hospitals. A public health–academic collaborative might help reduce C. difficile and other hospital-acquired infections in individual hospitals and at state or regional levels.

Economic evaluation of quality improvement interventions to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections in the hospital setting: a systematic review

BackgroundHospitals have implemented diverse quality improvement (QI) interventions to reduce rates of catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs). The economic value of these QI interventions is uncertain.ObjectiveTo systematically review economic evaluations of QI interventions designed to prevent CAUTI in acute care hospitals.MethodsA search of Ovid MEDLINE, Econlit, Centre for Reviews & Dissemination, New York Academy of Medicine’s Grey Literature Report, WorldCat, IDWeek conference abstracts and prior systematic reviews was conducted from January 2000 to October 2020.We included English-language studies of any design that evaluated organisational or structural changes to prevent CAUTI in acute care hospitals, and reported programme and infection-related costs.Dual reviewers assessed study design, effectiveness, costs and study quality. For each eligible study, we performed a cost-consequences analysis from the hospital perspective, estimating the incidence rate ratio (IRR) and incremental net cost/savings per hospital over 3 years. Unadjusted weighted regression analyses tested predictors of these measures, weighted by catheter days per study.ResultsFifteen unique economic evaluations were eligible, encompassing 74 hospitals. Across 12 studies amenable to standardisation, QI interventions were associated with a 43% decline in infections (mean IRR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.70) and wide ranges of net costs (mean US$52 000, 95% CI −$288 000 to $392 000), relative to usual care.ConclusionsQI interventions were associated with large declines in infection rates and net costs to hospitals that varied greatly but that, on average, were not significantly different from zero over 3 years. Future research should examine specific practices associated with cost-savings and clinical effectiveness, and examine whether or not more comprehensive interventions offer hospitals and patients the best value.

Socioeconomic deprivation and ethnicity inequalities in disruption to NHS hospital admissions during the COVID-19 pandemic: a national observational study

IntroductionHospital admissions in many countries fell dramatically at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Less is known about how care patterns differed by patient groups. We sought to determine whether areas with higher levels of socioeconomic deprivation or larger ethnic minority populations saw larger falls in emergency and planned admissions in England.MethodsWe conducted a national observational study of hospital care in the English National Health Service (NHS) in 2019–2020. Weekly volumes of elective (planned) and emergency admissions in 2020 compared with 2019 were calculated for each census area. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to estimate the reductions in volumes for areas in different quintiles of socioeconomic deprivation and ethnic minority populations after controlling for national time trends and local area composition.ResultsBetween March and December 2020, there were 35.5% (3.0 million) fewer elective admissions and 22.0% (1.2 million) fewer emergency admissions with a non-COVID-19 primary diagnosis than in 2019. Areas with the largest share of ethnic minority populations experienced a 36.7% (95% CI 24.1% to 49.3%) larger reduction in non-primary COVID-19 emergency admissions compared with those with the smallest. The most deprived areas experienced a 10.1% (95% CI 2.6% to 17.7%) smaller reduction in non-COVID-19 emergency admissions compared with the least deprived. These patterns are not explained by differential prevalence of COVID-19 cases by area.ConclusionsEven in a healthcare system founded on the principle of equal access for equal need, the impact of COVID-19 on NHS hospital care for non-COVID patients has not been spread evenly by ethnicity and deprivation in England. While we cannot conclusively determine the mechanisms behind these differences, they risk exacerbating prepandemic health inequalities.