Improving Antibiotic Stewardship for Inpatients with Reported Beta-Lactam Allergies and Limited Access to Penicillin Skin Testing.

BACKGROUND: Penicillin allergy is commonly reported, but true allergy is rare. Inpatients with reported beta-lactam allergy are often treated with alternative antibiotics. Penicillin skin testing (PST) is not universally available for inpatients. METHODS: We designed a four-phase quality improvement project aimed to increase the percentage of inpatients on medical services with reported beta-lactam allergy who safely receive beta-lactam antibiotics at two hospitals with limited access to PST. First, we updated our hospital guideline to allow for cephalosporin graded challenge without antecedent PST. Second, we educated physicians, physician assistants, and nurses about the new guideline and beta-lactam allergy classification and management. Third, we designed a pocket card to reinforce the education. Last, we used antimicrobial stewardship software to screen our daily census to identify opportunities to improve management of patients with reported beta-lactam allergies. RESULTS: We observed a 29.2% increase in the percentage of patients who received beta-lactam antibiotics (excluding carbapenems) among those with reported beta-lactam allergy, from 42.2% (470/1,115) at baseline to 54.5% (379/696), p < 0.001, during the project period. There was a decrease in the use of alternative antibiotics, no change in hospital-onset Clostridioides difficile cases, and no increase in the number of infectious disease or allergy consults. The number of graded challenges increased during the project period, without any anaphylaxis events. CONCLUSION: A multiphase quality improvement project aimed to improve management of beta-lactam allergies and access to graded challenges led to an increase in beta-lactam utilization without an increase in anaphylaxis, even with limited access to PST.

Does Prophylaxis Prevent Recurrent Clostridioides difficile Infection?

Prophylaxis and Recurrent Clostridioides difficileA 68-year-old woman is admitted with pyelonephritis. Two months earlier, she had been treated for pneumonia and subsequently developed Clostridioides difficile colitis, which resolved with 10 days of oral vancomycin. When you start treatment with intravenous ceftriaxone, should you also prescribe prophylaxis to prevent recurrent C. difficile infection?

The Virtual Hospitalist: a Critical Innovation During the COVID-19 Crisis.

A virtual hospitalist program expanded our ability to confront the challenges of the COVID-19 crisis at the epicenter of the pandemic in New York City. In concert with on-site hospitalists and redeployed physicians, virtual hospitalists aimed to expand capacity while maintaining high-quality care and communication. The program addressed multiple challenges created by our first COVID-19 surge: high patient census and acuity; limitations of and due to personal protective equipment; increased communication needs due to visitor restrictions and the uncertain nature of the novel disease, and limitations to in-person work for some physicians. The program created a mechanism to train and support new hospitalists and provide and expand palliative care services. We describe how our virtual hospitalist program operated during our COVID-19 surge in April and May 2020 and reflect on potential roles of virtual hospitalists after the COVID-19 crisis passes.

Measuring Patient Preferences and Clinic Follow-Up Utilizing an Embedded Discharge Appointment Scheduler: A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Scheduling timely outpatient follow-up appointments is part of a high-quality discharge process. In many centers, residents and hospitalists schedule follow-up appointments, often without patient input due to time constraints. METHODS: A needs assessment was conducted to quantify clinician time spent making discharge appointments and to identify barriers to successful appointment scheduling. A four-week pilot intervention subsequently embedded a discharge scheduler responsible for scheduling discharge appointments into five house staff teams. The goals of the pilot were to incorporate patients' scheduling preferences when making appointments, to improve appointment attendance, and to reduce administrative burden on residents. Results were analyzed using chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: Patients expressed a strong preference to be involved in scheduling follow-up appointments. In the intervention, there was a statistically significant increase in successfully scheduled appointments (66.7% vs. 87.7%; p < 0.0001) and attendance at follow-up appointments (43.9% baseline vs. 62.9% intervention; p = 0.011), a statistically significant reduction in rescheduled appointments (16.7% baseline vs. 4.9% intervention; p = 0.008), a nonsignificant trend toward increased number of canceled appointments (7.6% baseline vs. 17.5% intervention; p = 0.088), and no significant difference in no-show rates (18.2% baseline vs. 14.7% intervention; p = 0.544). Of residents involved in the pilot, 100% reported that the scheduler improved their ability to care for patients. CONCLUSION: This pilot suggests that adding a nonclinical team member tasked with scheduling discharge appointments improved alignment of the discharge process with patients' preferences and may be of value to residents, hospitalists, and the health care system.