The Intensive Care Unit Bundle Board: A Novel Real-Time Data Visualization Tool to Improve Maintenance Care for Invasive Catheters.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients are at greater risk of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). The use of maintenance bundles helps to reduce this risk but also generates a rapid accumulation of complex data that is difficult to aggregate and subsequently act upon. OBJECTIVES: We hypothesized that a digital display summarizing nursing documentation of invasive catheters (including central venous access devices, arterial catheters, and urinary catheters) would improve invasive device maintenance care and documentation. Our secondary objectives were to see if this summary would reduce the duration of problematic conditions, that is, characteristics associated with increased risk of infection. METHODS: We developed and implemented a data visualization tool called the "Bundle Board" to display nursing observations on invasive devices. The intervention was studied in a 28-bed medical intensive care unit (MICU). The Bundle Board was piloted for 6 weeks in June 2022 and followed by a comparison phase, where one MICU had Bundle Board access and another MICU at the same center did not. We retrospectively applied tile color coding logic to prior nursing documentation from 2021 until the pilot phase to facilitate comparison pre- and post-Bundle Board release. RESULTS: After adjusting for time, other quality improvement efforts, and nursing shift, multiple linear regression demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in the completion of catheter care and documentation during the pilot phase (p < 0.0001) and comparison phase (p = 0.002). The median duration of documented problematic conditions was significantly reduced during the pilot phase (p < 0.0001) and in the MICU with the Bundle Board (comparison phase, p = 0.027). CONCLUSION: We successfully developed a data visualization tool that changed ICU provider behavior, resulting in increased completion and documentation of maintenance care and reduced duration of problematic conditions for invasive catheters in MICU patients.

Early Empiric Antibiotic Use in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate temporal trends and outcomes associated with early antibiotic prescribing in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective propensity-matched cohort study using the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) database. SETTING: Sixty-six health systems throughout the United States that were contributing to the N3C database. Centers that had fewer than 500 admissions in their dataset were excluded. PATIENTS: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were included. Patients were defined to have early antibiotic use if they received at least 3 calendar days of intravenous antibiotics within the first 5 days of admission. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 322,867 qualifying first hospitalizations, 43,089 patients received early empiric antibiotics. Antibiotic use declined across all centers in the data collection period, from March 2020 (23%) to June 2022 (9.6%). Average rates of early empiric antibiotic use (EEAU) also varied significantly between centers (deviance explained 7.33% vs 20.0%, p < 0.001). Antibiotic use decreased slightly by day 2 of hospitalization and was significantly reduced by day 5. Mechanical ventilation before day 2 (odds ratio [OR] 3.57; 95% CI, 3.42-3.72), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation before day 2 (OR 2.14; 95% CI, 1.75-2.61), and early vasopressor use (OR 1.85; 95% CI, 1.78-1.93) but not region of residence was associated with EEAU. After propensity matching, EEAU was associated with an increased risk for in-hospital mortality (OR 1.27; 95% CI, 1.23-1.33), prolonged mechanical ventilation (OR 1.65; 95% CI, 1.50-1.82), late broad-spectrum antibiotic exposure (OR 3.24; 95% CI, 2.99-3.52), and late Clostridium difficile infection (OR 1.60; 95% CI, 1.37-1.87). CONCLUSIONS: Although treatment of COVID-19 patients with empiric antibiotics has declined during the pandemic, the frequency of use remains high. There is significant inter-center variation in antibiotic prescribing practices and evidence of potential harm. Our findings are hypothesis-generating and future work should prospectively compare outcomes and adverse events.