scholarly journals Frequent Hospital Readmissions for Clostridium difficile Infection and the Impact on Estimates of Hospital-Associated C. difficile Burden

2012 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Courtney R. Murphy ◽  
Taliser R. Avery ◽  
Erik R. Dubberke ◽  
Susan S. Huang

Objective.Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is associated with hospitalization and may cause readmission following admission for any reason. We aimed to measure the incidence of readmissions due to CDI.Design.Retrospective cohort study.Patients.Adult inpatients in Orange County, California, who presented with new-onset CDI within 12 weeks of discharge.Methods.We assessed mandatory 2000–2007 hospital discharge data for trends in hospital-associated CDI (HA-CDI) incidence, with and without inclusion of postdischarge CDI (PD-CDI) events resulting in rehospitalization within 12 weeks of discharge. We measured the effect of including PD-CDI events on hospital-specific CDI incidence, a mandatory reporting measure in California, and on relative hospital ranks by CDI incidence.Results.From 2000 to 2007, countywide hospital-onset CDI (HO-CDI) incidence increased from 15 per 10,000 to 22 per 10,000 admissions. When including PD-CDI events, HA-CDI incidence doubled (29 per 10,000 in 2000 and 52 per 10,000 in 2007). Overall, including PD-CDI events resulted in significantly higher hospital-specific CDI incidence, although hospitals had disproportionate amounts of HA-CDI occurring postdischarge. This resulted in substantial shifts in some hospitals' rankings by CDI incidence. In multivariate models, both HO and PD-CDI were associated with increasing age, higher length of stay, and select comorbidities. Race and Hispanic ethnicity were predictive of PD-CDI but not HO-CDI.Conclusions.PD-CDI events associated with rehospitalization are increasingly common. The majority of HA-CDI cases may be occurring postdischarge, raising important questions about both accurate reporting and effective prevention strategies. Some risk factors for PD-CDI may be different than those for HO-CDI, allowing additional identification of high-risk groups before discharge.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33(1):20-28

2006 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. 5-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
I Lopes de Carvalho ◽  
M S Núncio

Lyme borreliosis is considered to be an emerging infection in some regions of the world, including Portugal. The first Portuguese human case of Lyme borreliosis was identified in 1989. Since 1999, this disease is considered a notifiable disease (DDO) in Portugal, but only a few cases are reported each year, which does not allow consistent analysis of risk factors and the impact on public health. In this study the authors analyse the data available at the Centre for Vectors and Infectious Diseases Research (CEVDI) laboratory, at the Instituto Nacional de Saúde Dr. Ricardo Jorge (National Institute of Health, INSA) during the past 15 years (1990-2004) and evaluate them against the registry of national reported cases (1999-2004). Serological tests were the basis for laboratory diagnosis. Data on year of diagnosis, sex, age, geographical origin and clinical signs are available for 628 well documented Portuguese positive cases. The number of cases per year varied between 2 and 78, with the highest number of cases reported in 1997. Of the positive cases, 53.5% were female and the age group most affected was 35-44 years old. Neuroborreliosis was the most common clinical manifestation (37.3%). Human cases were detected in 17 of the 20 regions of Portugal, and the highest number of laboratory confirmed cases were from the Lisbon district. The comparison of the number of notified cases and the number of positive cases confirmed by our laboratory show that Lyme borreliosis is clearly an underreported disease. Due to the scattered distribution of the positive cases and the low prevalence of the tick species Ixodes ricinus, the most effective prevention measure for Lyme borreliosis in Portugal is education of the risk groups on how to prevent tick bites.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Bibby

Abstract Serious injuries and fatalities (SIFs) occurring in the workplace have become a significant focus in the field of safety. Over the past 20 years there has been a steady decline in the prevalence of all injuries, however the rates of SIFs have plateaued in recent years, contrary to Heinrich's Triangle. In one of the largest studies of its kind, we set out to identify trends and common factors of SIF incidents to identify strategies to reduce the risk of SIF incidents occurring. We have studied OSHA log records and OSHA recorded fatalities of over 50,000 companies over multiple years broken down by numerous different indicies including industry, age, day of the week, body part affected, type of incident and severity of incident to give a picture of SIF prevalence and trends. This data has also been cross referenced against qualititive information of these companies to identify trends, commonalities and disparities in order to identify causes and opportunities for improvement. The data reported on has shown different risk groups for SIF incidents occurring, that 60% of companies are at low risk of SIF incidents occurring and identifying the highest risk injuries for SIF events occurring (drilling and construction work). In addition, seemingly random factors such as day of the week and month of they year are found to statistically vary, presenting opportunities for targetted outreach based on this data in order to reduce risk. Furthermore, the study reveals companies who work with chemicals, performing welding work and work at heights should be the top targets for SIF prevention intervention, whilst the impact of heavily regulated industries (e.g., PSM facilities) and ensuring organisations have good safety procedures are linked to lower risks of SIF events occuring. This information is of valuable use for all organisations who are interested in truly understanding the root causes of incidents and learning techniques to achieve a Vision Zero of a reduction of incidents, particularly serious injuries and fatalities, to the lowest possible level. A no-blame culture to the accurate reporting of incidents is also vital to a deeper understanding of causation and prevention.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin L. Black ◽  
Courtney Duval

Background: Diabetes is a growing problem in the United States. Increasing hospital admissions for diabetes patients demonstrate the need for evidence-based care of diabetes patients by inpatient providers, as well as the importance of continuity of care when transitioning patients from inpatient to outpatient providers. Methods: A focused literature review of discharge planning and transitions of care in diabetes, conducted in PubMed is presented. Studies were selected for inclusion based on content focusing on transitions of care in diabetes, risk factors for readmission, the impact of inpatient diabetes education on patient outcomes, and optimal medication management of diabetes during care transitions. American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines for care of patients during the discharge process are presented, as well as considerations for designing treatment regimens for a hospitalized patient transitioning to various care settings. Results: Multiple factors may make transitions of care difficult, including poor communication, poor patient education, inappropriate follow-up, and clinically complex patients. ADA recommendations provide guidance, but an individualized approach for medication management is needed. Use of scoring systems may help identify patients at higher risk for readmission. Good communication with patients and outpatient providers is needed to prevent patient harm. A team-based approach is needed, utilizing the skills of inpatient and outpatient providers, diabetes educators, nurses, and pharmacists. Conclusion: Structured discharge planning per guideline recommendations can help improve transitions in care for patients with diabetes. A team based, patient-centered approach can help improve patient outcomes by reducing medication errors, delay of care, and hospital readmissions.


BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e043010
Author(s):  
Jane Lyons ◽  
Ashley Akbari ◽  
Fatemeh Torabi ◽  
Gareth I Davies ◽  
Laura North ◽  
...  

IntroductionThe emergence of the novel respiratory SARS-CoV-2 and subsequent COVID-19 pandemic have required rapid assimilation of population-level data to understand and control the spread of infection in the general and vulnerable populations. Rapid analyses are needed to inform policy development and target interventions to at-risk groups to prevent serious health outcomes. We aim to provide an accessible research platform to determine demographic, socioeconomic and clinical risk factors for infection, morbidity and mortality of COVID-19, to measure the impact of COVID-19 on healthcare utilisation and long-term health, and to enable the evaluation of natural experiments of policy interventions.Methods and analysisTwo privacy-protecting population-level cohorts have been created and derived from multisourced demographic and healthcare data. The C20 cohort consists of 3.2 million people in Wales on the 1 January 2020 with follow-up until 31 May 2020. The complete cohort dataset will be updated monthly with some individual datasets available daily. The C16 cohort consists of 3 million people in Wales on the 1 January 2016 with follow-up to 31 December 2019. C16 is designed as a counterfactual cohort to provide contextual comparative population data on disease, health service utilisation and mortality. Study outcomes will: (a) characterise the epidemiology of COVID-19, (b) assess socioeconomic and demographic influences on infection and outcomes, (c) measure the impact of COVID-19 on short -term and longer-term population outcomes and (d) undertake studies on the transmission and spatial spread of infection.Ethics and disseminationThe Secure Anonymised Information Linkage-independent Information Governance Review Panel has approved this study. The study findings will be presented to policy groups, public meetings, national and international conferences, and published in peer-reviewed journals.


2021 ◽  
pp. 088626052199792
Author(s):  
Kazhan I. Mahmood ◽  
Sherzad A. Shabu ◽  
Karwan M. M-Amen ◽  
Salar S. Hussain ◽  
Diana A. Kako ◽  
...  

There is increasing concern about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the lockdown’s social and economic consequences on gender-based violence. This study aimed to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on gender-based violence by comparing the prevalence of spousal violence against women before and during the COVID-19 related lockdown periods. This study was conducted in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq using a self-administered online questionnaire survey after the COVID-19 lockdown period in June 2020. Data were collected from a sample of 346 married women about the occurrence, frequency, and forms of spousal violence before and during the lockdown period. Significant increases in violence were observed from the pre-lockdown period to the lockdown period for any violence (32.1% to 38.7%, p = .001), emotional abuse (29.5% to 35.0%, p = .005), and physical violence (12.7% to 17.6%, p = .002). Regarding emotional abuse, humiliation (24.6% to 28.3%, p = .041) and scaring or intimidation (14.2% to 21.4%, p < .001) significantly increased during the lockdown. For physical violence, twisting the arm or pulling hair (9.0% to 13.0%, p = .004) and hitting (5.2% to 9.2%, p = .003) significantly increased during the lockdown. Forcing to have sexual intercourse also significantly increased during lockdown (6.6% to 9.5%., p = .021). The concerned authorities and women’s rights organizations should collaborate to enhance the prevention of violence against women. An effective prevention strategy should emphasize recognizing and acknowledging the extent of the problem, raising awareness about the problem and the available resources to address it, and ensuring social and economic stability. Lessons learned about the increased prevalence of spousal violence against women during the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to adopt appropriate strategies to prevent and address it will be valuable for similar future crises.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e039809
Author(s):  
Sharon Dixon ◽  
Claire Duddy ◽  
Gabrielle Harrison ◽  
Chrysanthi Papoutsi ◽  
Sue Ziebland ◽  
...  

ObjectivesLittle is known about the management of female genital mutilation (FGM) in primary care. There have been significant recent statutory changes relevant to general practitioners (GPs) in England, including a mandatory reporting duty. We undertook a realist synthesis to explore what influences how and when GPs discuss FGM with their patients.SettingPrimary care in England.Data sourcesRealist literature synthesis searching 10 databases with terms: GPs, primary care, obstetrics, gynaecology, midwifery and FGM (UK and worldwide). Citation chasing was used, and relevant grey literature was included, including searching FGM advocacy organisation websites for relevant data. Other potentially relevant literature fields were searched for evidence to inform programme theory development. We included all study designs and papers that presented evidence about factors potentially relevant to considering how, why and in what circumstances GPs feel able to discuss FGM with their patients.Primary outcome measureThis realist review developed programme theory, tested against existing evidence, on what influences GPs actions and reactions to FGM in primary care consultations and where, when and why these influences are activated.Results124 documents were included in the synthesis. Our analysis found that GPs need knowledge and training to help them support their patients with FGM, including who may be affected, what needs they may have and how to talk sensitively about FGM. Access to specialist services and guidance may help them with this role. Reporting requirements may complicate these conversations.ConclusionsThere is a pressing need to develop (and evaluate) training to help GPs meet FGM-affected communities’ health needs and to promote the accessibility of primary care. Education and resources should be developed in partnership with community members. The impact of the mandatory reporting requirement and the Enhanced Dataset on healthcare interactions in primary care warrants evaluation.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018091996.


2021 ◽  
pp. 152483802110302
Author(s):  
Caroline Bailey ◽  
Jessica Shaw ◽  
Abril Harris

Adolescents experience alarmingly high rates of sexual violence, higher than any other age-group. This is concerning as sexual violence can have detrimental effects on teens’ personal and relational well-being, causing long-term consequences for the survivor. Still, adolescents are hesitant to report the assault or seek out services and resources. When an adolescent survivor does seek out services, they may interact with a provider who is a mandatory reporter. This scoping review sought to synthesize the current U.S.-based research on the role, challenges, and impact of mandatory reporting (MR) in the context of adolescent sexual assault. Database searches using key words related to MR, sexual assault, and adolescence identified 29 peer-reviewed articles. However, none of these articles reported on empirical investigations of the phenomenon of interest and instead consisted of case studies, commentaries, and position papers. The scoping review was expanded to provide a lay of the land of what we know about the intersection of adolescent sexual assault and MR. Results of the review indicate that though implemented broadly, MR policies vary between individuals, organizations, and states and have historically been challenging to implement due to this variation, conflicts with other laws, tension between these policies and providers’ values, and other factors. Based on the available literature, the impact of MR in the context of adolescent sexual assault is unknown. There is a critical need for research and evaluation on the implementation and impact of MR policies, especially in the context of adolescents and sexual violence.


2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (06) ◽  
pp. 653-658 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sindhu Srinivas ◽  
Katy Kozhimannil ◽  
Peiyin Hung ◽  
Laura Attanasio ◽  
Judy Jou ◽  
...  

Background A recent document by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine introduced the concept of uniform levels of maternal care (LMCs). Objective We assessed LMC across hospitals and measured their association with maternal morbidity, focusing on women with high-risk conditions. Study Design We collected data from hospitals from May to November 2015 and linked survey responses to Statewide Inpatient Databases (SID) hospital discharge data in a retrospective cross-sectional study of 247,383 births admitted to 236 hospitals. Generalized logistic regression models were used to examine the associations between hospitals' LMC and the risk of severe maternal morbidity. Stratified analyses were conducted among women with high-risk conditions. Results High-risk pregnancies were more likely to be managed in hospitals with higher LMC (p < 0.001). Women with cardiac conditions had lower odds of maternal morbidity when delivered in level I compared with level IV units (adjusted odds ratio: 0.29; 95% confidence interval: 0.08–0.99; p = 0.049). There were no other significant associations between the LMC and severe maternal morbidity. Conclusion A higher proportion of high-risk pregnancies were managed within level IV units, although there was no overall evidence that these births had superior outcomes. Further prospective evaluation of LMC designation with patient outcomes is necessary to determine the impact of regionalization on maternal outcomes.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 204209862098569
Author(s):  
Phyo K. Myint ◽  
Ben Carter ◽  
Fenella Barlow-Pay ◽  
Roxanna Short ◽  
Alice G. Einarsson ◽  
...  

Background: Whilst there is literature on the impact of SARS viruses in the severely immunosuppressed, less is known about the link between routine immunosuppressant use and outcome in COVID-19. Consequently, guidelines on their use vary depending on specific patient populations. Methods: The study population was drawn from the COPE Study (COVID-19 in Older People), a multicentre observational cohort study, across the UK and Italy. Data were collected between 27 February and 28 April 2020 by trained data-collectors and included all unselected consecutive admissions with COVID-19. Load (name/number of medications) and dosage of immunosuppressant were collected along with other covariate data. Primary outcome was time-to-mortality from the date of admission (or) date of diagnosis, if diagnosis was five or more days after admission. Secondary outcomes were Day-14 mortality and time-to-discharge. Data were analysed with mixed-effects, Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression models using non-users of immunosuppressants as the reference group. Results: In total 1184 patients were eligible for inclusion. The median (IQR) age was 74 (62–83), 676 (57%) were male, and 299 (25.3%) died in hospital (total person follow-up 15,540 days). Most patients exhibited at least one comorbidity, and 113 (~10%) were on immunosuppressants. Any immunosuppressant use was associated with increased mortality: aHR 1.87, 95% CI: 1.30, 2.69 (time to mortality) and aOR 1.71, 95% CI: 1.01–2.88 (14-day mortality). There also appeared to be a dose–response relationship. Conclusion: Despite possible indication bias, until further evidence emerges we recommend adhering to public health measures, a low threshold to seek medical advice and close monitoring of symptoms in those who take immunosuppressants routinely regardless of their indication. However, it should be noted that the inability to control for the underlying condition requiring immunosuppressants is a major limitation, and hence caution should be exercised in interpretation of the results. Plain Language Summary Regular Use of Immune Suppressing Drugs is Associated with Increased Risk of Death in Hospitalised Patients with COVID-19 Background: We do not have much information on how the COVID-19 virus affects patients who use immunosuppressants, drugs which inhibit or reduce the activity of the immune system. There are various conflicting views on whether immune-suppressing drugs are beneficial or detrimental in patients with the disease. Methods: This study collected data from 10 hospitals in the UK and one in Italy between February and April 2020 in order to identify any association between the regular use of immunosuppressant medicines and survival in patients who were admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Results: 1184 patients were included in the study, and 10% of them were using immunosuppressants. Any immunosuppressant use was associated with increased risk of death, and the risk appeared to increase if the dose of the medicine was higher. Conclusion: We therefore recommend that patients who take immunosuppressant medicines routinely should carefully adhere to social distancing measures, and seek medical attention early during the COVID-19 pandemic.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document