How to screen for at-risk alcohol use in transplant patients? From instrument selection to implementation of the AUDIT-C.

BACKGROUND: Given that drinking >2-3 units of alcohol daily might already have adverse health effects, regular screening of at-risk drinking is warranted. We aimed to select and pilot a short instrument to accurately screen for at-risk drinking in transplant patients. METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS: Five consecutive steps were completed: A comprehensive literature review identified 24 possible self-report instruments (step 1). These instruments were scored on six yes/no criteria (ie, length, concept measured, diagnostic accuracy, population, manual available, cost) (step 2). Four nurses piloted three instruments with the highest score and were interviewed on their experiences with using the AUDIT-C, TWEAK, and Five Shot. The AUDIT-C was the easiest to use and score, and items were clear. Cognitive debriefings with 16 patients were conducted to verify clarity of instructions and items, and suggestions were incorporated into a modified version of the AUDIT-C (step 4). A convenience sample of 130 Dutch-speaking heart transplant patients completed the modified AUDIT-C during a scheduled visit (Step 5), revealing that 27.6% of patients showed at-risk drinking. CONCLUSION: The AUDIT-C might be a suitable instrument to identify at-risk drinking in routine post-transplant follow-up. Further validation, however, is indicated.

Variability in practice patterns regarding protective isolation measures after heart transplantation: A secondary analysis of the international BRIGHT study.

BACKGROUND: Infection control is a cornerstone of post-heart transplantation (HTx) in-hospital management when immunosuppression is highest. The use of protective isolation persists despite its questionable effectiveness. We describe and compare practice patterns internationally and assessed correlates of protective isolation. METHODS: Using the BRIGHT-study data, a cross-sectional intercontinental study, we assessed 12 protective isolation measures in 4 continents, 11 countries, and 36 HTx centers. Data were summarized descriptively, as appropriate. Comparisons between countries and continents and association testing between center characteristics and number of isolation measures used were also explored by general linear modeling. RESULTS: A total of 89% (32/36) of HTx centers used protective isolation measures with an average of 4.5 protective isolation measures per center (SD, 2.6; range 1-10). Most often applied were disinfecting high-touch surfaces (n = 27/34; 79.4%), use of private room (n = 27/36; 75.0%), and changing linen daily (n = 25/36; 69.4%). Least applied were wearing a cap (n = 6/35; 17.1%) and high-efficiency particulate air filtration (N = 5/32; 15.6 %). Larger centers and those with dedicated beds for HTx applied more isolation measures. CONCLUSIONS: Protective isolation measures are still widely applied within heart transplant centers across the world persists notwithstanding its doubtful effectiveness. Future clinical guidelines for heart transplant management should include a statement of the need for strict adherence to standard infection prevention measures.