Penicillin Allergy Testing and Delabeling for Patients Who Are Prescribed Penicillin: A Systematic Review for a World Health Organization Guideline.

Secondary prevention with penicillin aims to prevent further episodes of acute rheumatic fever and subsequent development of rheumatic heart disease (RHD). Penicillin allergy, self-reported by 10% of the population, can affect secondary prevention programs. We aimed to assess the role for (i) routine penicillin allergy testing and the (ii) safety of penicillin allergy delabeling approaches in this context. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, ISRCTN, and CPCI-S to identify the relevant reports. We found 2419 records, but no studies addressed our initial question. Following advice from the WHO-Guideline committee and experts, we identified 6 manuscripts on allergy testing focusing on other populations showing that the prevalence of allergy confirmed by testing was low and the incidence of life-threatening reactions to BPG was very low (< 1-3/1000 individuals treated). A subsequent search addressed penicillin allergy delabeling. This found 516 records, and 5 studies addressing the safety of direct oral drug challenge vs. skin testing followed by drug administration in patients with suspected penicillin allergy. Immediate allergic reactions of minor severity were observed for a minority of patients and occurred less frequently in the direct drug challenge group: 2.3% vs. 11.5%; RR = 0.25, 95%CI 0.15-0.45, P < 0.00001, I2 = 0%. No anaphylaxis or deaths were observed. Severe allergic reactions to penicillin are extremely rare and can be recognized and dealt by trained healthcare workers. Confirmation of penicillin allergy diagnosis or delabeling using direct oral drug challenge or penicillin skin testing seems to be safe and is associated with a low rate of adverse reactions.

Impact of a Hospital Evidence-Based Practice Center (EPC) on Nursing Policy and Practice.

BACKGROUND: In 2006, our healthcare system created a hospital Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) to support the local delivery of high-quality, safe and high value patient care. Since then, the importance of healthcare staff work life has also been highlighted, and together these four elements form the Quadruple Aim framework. Synergistic to this Aim, the Magnet® program promotes and recognizes organizational nursing excellence. OBJECTIVE: To examine the EPC's work to inform nursing policy and practice in support of the goals of the Quadruple Aim framework and Magnet® designation. METHODS: Methods used included the following: (1) descriptive analysis of the hospital EPC's database of rapid reviews; and (2) administration of a 40-item electronic questionnaire to nurses who requested an EPC review during fiscal years (FY) 2015 and 2016. RESULTS: Of 308 rapid reviews completed in the EPC's first 10 years, 59 (19%) addressed nursing topics. The proportion of reviews relevant to nursing increased from 5% (2/39) in the center's first 2 years to 44% (25/60) in FY 2015-2016. The majority of nursing reviews (39/59) examined processes of care. Of 23 nurses eligible to participate in the survey, 21 responded (91%). Nurses with administrative or managerial responsibilities requested 70% of reviews; clinical nurse specialists and bedside nurses requested 17% and 9%, respectively. Reviews were used to support clinical program development (48%), provide clinical guidance (33%), update nursing policies or procedures (24%) and develop training and curricula (24%). Nurses were satisfied with the hospital EPC reviews (mean; 4.7/5), and 95% indicated they were likely to request a future review. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: A dedicated hospital EPC in partnership with nursing offers a unique mechanism for promoting a culture of evidence-based practice. Nurses at all organizational levels use the services of a hospital EPC to inform nursing policy and practice and are highly satisfied with the process, supporting the Quadruple Aim and Magnet® designation.

Using a 10-step framework to support the implementation of an evidence-based clinical pathways programme.

BACKGROUND: Integration of evidence into practice is suboptimal. Clinical pathways, defined as multidisciplinary care plans, are a method for translating evidence into local settings and have been shown to improve the value of patient care. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development of a clinical pathways programme across a large academic healthcare system. METHODS: We use a 10-step framework (grounded in the Knowledge-to-Action framework and ADAPTE Collaboration methodology for guideline adaptation) to support pathway development and dissemination, including facilitating clinical owner and stakeholder engagement, developing pathway prototypes based on rapid reviews of the existing literature, developing tools for dissemination and impact assessment. We use a cloud-based technology platform (Dorsata, Washington, DC) to assist with development and dissemination across our geographically distributed care settings and providers. Content is viewable through desktop and mobile applications. We measured programme adoption and penetration by examining number of pathways developed as well as mobile application use and pathway views. RESULTS: From 1 February 2016 to 30 April 2018, a total of 202 pathways were disseminated. The three most common clinical domains represented were oncology (46.5%, n=94), pulmonary/critical care (8.9%, n=18) and cardiovascular medicine (7.4%, n=15). Users opting to register for a personal account totalled 1279; the three largest groups were physicians (45.1%, n=504), advanced practice providers (19.5%, n=245) and nurses (19.1%, n=240). Pathway views reached an average of 2150 monthly views during the last 3 months of the period. The majority of pathways reference at least one evidence-based source (93.6%, n=180). CONCLUSIONS: A healthcare system can successfully use a framework and technology platform to support the development and dissemination of pathways across a multisite institution.

Effectiveness of indoor allergen reduction in asthma management: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: This review will inform updated National Asthma Education and Prevention Program clinical practice guidelines. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of allergen reduction interventions on asthma outcomes. METHODS: We systematically searched the "gray literature" and 5 bibliographic databases. Eligible studies included systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and nonrandomized interventional studies. Risk of bias was assessed by using the Cochrane Risk of Bias instrument and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The evidence base was assessed by using the approach of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Evidence-based Practice Center program. RESULTS: Fifty-nine randomized and 8 nonrandomized trials addressed 8 interventions: acaricide, air purification, carpet removal, high-efficiency particulate air filtration (HEPA) vacuums, mattress covers, mold removal, pest control, and pet removal. Thirty-seven studies evaluated single-component interventions, and 30 studies assessed multicomponent interventions. Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. For most interventions and outcomes, the evidence base was inconclusive or showed no effect. No interventions were associated with improvement in validated asthma control measures or pulmonary physiology. Exacerbations were diminished in multicomponent studies that included HEPA vacuums or pest control (moderate strength of evidence [SOE] for both). Quality of life improved in studies of air purifiers (SOE: low) and in multicomponent studies that included HEPA vacuums (SOE: moderate) or pest control (SOE: low). CONCLUSIONS: Single interventions were generally not associated with improvement in asthma measures, with most strategies showing inconclusive results or no effect. Multicomponent interventions improved various outcomes, but no combination of specific interventions appears to be more effective. The evidence was often inconclusive because of a lack of studies. Further research is needed comparing the effect of indoor allergen reduction interventions on validated asthma measures, with sufficient population sizes to detect clinically meaningful differences.

Neonatal Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 Infection and Jewish Ritual Circumcision With Oral Suction: A Systematic Review.

Jewish ritual circumcision rarely but occasionally includes a procedure involving direct oral suction of the wound, which can expose an infant to infection with herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1). This practice has provoked international controversy in recent years, but no systematic review of the clinical literature has previously been published. We designed this review to identify and synthesize all published studies examining the association between circumcision with direct oral suction and HSV-1 infection. Our search strategy identified 6 published case series or case reports, documenting 30 cases between 1988 and 2012. Clinical findings were consistent with transmission of infection during circumcision, although the evidence base is limited by the small number of infections and incomplete case data. Published evidence suggests that circumcision with direct oral suction has resulted in severe neonatal illness and death from HSV-1 transmission, but further research is necessary to clarify the risk of infection.

Cleaning Hospital Room Surfaces to Prevent Health Care-Associated Infections: A Technical Brief.

The cleaning of hard surfaces in hospital rooms is critical for reducing health care-associated infections. This review describes the evidence examining current methods of cleaning, disinfecting, and monitoring cleanliness of patient rooms, as well as contextual factors that may affect implementation and effectiveness. Key informants were interviewed, and a systematic search for publications since 1990 was done with the use of several bibliographic and gray literature resources. Studies examining surface contamination, colonization, or infection with Clostridium difficile, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or vancomycin-resistant enterococci were included. Eighty studies were identified-76 primary studies and 4 systematic reviews. Forty-nine studies examined cleaning methods, 14 evaluated monitoring strategies, and 17 addressed challenges or facilitators to implementation. Only 5 studies were randomized, controlled trials, and surface contamination was the most commonly assessed outcome. Comparative effectiveness studies of disinfecting methods and monitoring strategies were uncommon. Future research should evaluate and compare newly emerging strategies, such as self-disinfecting coatings for disinfecting and adenosine triphosphate and ultraviolet/fluorescent surface markers for monitoring. Studies should also assess patient-centered outcomes, such as infection, when possible. Other challenges include identifying high-touch surfaces that confer the greatest risk for pathogen transmission; developing standard thresholds for defining cleanliness; and using methods to adjust for confounders, such as hand hygiene, when examining the effect of disinfecting methods.

Quality measurement in diabetes care.

This study aimed to evaluate diabetes quality measurement efforts, assess their strengths and areas for improvement, and identify gaps not adequately addressed by these measures. We conducted an environmental scan of diabetes quality measures, focusing on metrics included in the National Quality Measures Clearinghouse or promulgated by leading measurement organizations. Key informant interviews were also completed with thought leaders who develop, promote, and use quality measures. The environmental scan identified 146 distinct measures spanning 31 clinical processes or outcomes. This suggests a measurement system that is both redundant and inconsistent, with many different measures assessing the same clinical indicators. Interviewees believe that current diabetes measurement efforts are excessively broad and complex and expressed a need for better harmonization of these measures. Several gaps were also found, including a lack of measures focusing on population health, structural elements of health care, and prevention of diabetes.

Ambulatory quality improvement in academic medical centers: a changing landscape.

Efforts to improve the quality of ambulatory care have received tremendous attention as bold new initiatives aimed at influencing the environment of care through financial incentives, public transparency, and information technology rapidly spread. Academic medical centers, which represent a long tradition of excellence and innovation in medical care, might be expected to lead the charge in these new arenas, but motivation for change may be mitigated by the unique complexity and multiple goals of these institutions. A survey conducted in the fall of 2006 examined the early impact of these major new influences on faculty practice plans. Respondents reported that many institutions have begun to develop key components of a quality infrastructure, but much work remains before a robust model emerges at most sites. Some academic medical centers have also embraced pay-for-performance and public reporting efforts, but many are not equipped or eager to engage in these new initiatives.

Assessing quality of care for migraineurs: a model health plan measurement set.

Quality of care measures are increasingly important to health plans, purchasers, physicians, and patients. Appropriate measures can be used to assess quality and evaluate improvement and are necessary components of pay-for-performance programs. Despite the broad scope of activity in the development of quality measures, migraine headache has received little attention. Given the enormous costs associated with migraine, especially in terms of lost productivity and preventable health care utilization, health plans could gain from a structured approach to measuring the quality of migraine care their beneficiaries receive. A potential migraine quality measurement set was developed through a review of migraine care literature and guidelines, interviews with leaders in migraine care, health care purchasing, and managed care, and the assembly of an advisory board. The board discussed candidate measures and established consensus on a testable measurement set. Twenty measures were developed, focused primarily on diagnosis and utilization. Areas of utilization include physician visits, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and imaging. Use of both acute and preventive medications is included. More complex aspects of migraine care are also addressed, including triptan overuse, the relationship between acute and preventive medications, and follow-up after emergency department visits. The measures are currently being tested in health plans to assess their feasibility and value. A compelling case can be made for the development of migraine-specific quality measures for health plans. This effort to develop and test a starter set of measures should lead to new and innovative efforts to assess and improve quality of care for migraineurs.

In chronic disease, nationwide data show poor adherence by patients to medication and by physicians to guidelines.

PURPOSE: It is widely acknowledged in small studies that provider variation from evidence-based care guidelines and patient medication nonadherence lead to less than optimal health outcomes, increasing costs, and higher utilization. The research presented here aims to determine the prevalence of patient adherence to a medication regimen and provider adherence to guidelines for a variety of chronic conditions, using nationally representative data. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of administrative claims data from a large national insurer was conducted. METHODOLOGY: The study examined multiple quality indicators exemplifying evidence-based medicine and medication adherence for several chronic conditions. Medication possession ratio (MPR) determined patient adherence. Using EBM Connect software created by Ingenix, we measured adherence to guidelines by applying a series of clinical rules and algorithms. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Adherence to the evidence-based practice guidelines examined in this study averaged approximately 59 percent, while patient medication nonadherence rates for all the conditions studied averaged 26.2 percent, with a range of 11 percent to 42 percent. Physician adherence to guidelines was highest in the prescribing of inhaled corticosteroids for persistent asthma. Ironically, medication adherence rates for inhaled corticosteroids were the worst identified. The best medication adherence rate was observed in patients with hypertension. CONCLUSION: Like earlier studies, this analysis finds that poor adherence is common across the nation and across common chronic conditions.