Dataset Information

Stop orders to reduce inappropriate urinary catheterization in hospitalized patients: a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Hospitalized patients frequently have urinary catheters inserted for inappropriate reasons. This can lead to urinary tract infections and other complications.To assess whether stop orders for indwelling urinary catheters reduces the duration of inappropriate urinary catheterization and the incidence of urinary tract infections.A randomized controlled trial was conducted in three tertiary-care hospitals in Ontario, Canada. Patients with indwelling urinary catheters were randomized to prewritten orders for the removal of urinary catheters if specified criteria were not present or to usual care.Six hundred ninety-two hospitalized patients admitted to hospital with indwelling urinary catheters inserted for < or = 48 h.The main outcomes included days of inappropriate indwelling catheter use, total days of catheter use, frequency of urinary tract infection, and catheter reinsertions.There were fewer days of inappropriate and total urinary catheter use in the stop-order group than in the usual care group (difference -1.69 [95% CI -1.23 to -2.15], P < 0.001 and -1.34 days, [95% CI, -0.64 to -2.05 days], P < 0.001, respectively). Urinary tract infections occurred in 19.0% of the stop-order group and 20.2% of the usual care group, relative risk 0.94 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.33), P = 0.71. Catheter reinsertion occurred in 8.6% of the stop-order group and 7.0% in the usual care group, relative risk 1.23 (95% CI, 0.72 to 2.11), P = 0.45.Stop orders for urinary catheterization safely reduced duration of inappropriate urinary catheterization in hospitalized patients but did not reduce urinary tract infections.

SUBMITTER: Loeb M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2517898 | biostudies-literature | 2008 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Stop orders to reduce inappropriate urinary catheterization in hospitalized patients: a randomized controlled trial.

Loeb Mark M Hunt Derek D O'Halloran Kelly K Carusone Soo Chan SC Dafoe Nancy N Walter Stephen D SD

Journal of general internal medicine 20080418 6

<h4>Background</h4>Hospitalized patients frequently have urinary catheters inserted for inappropriate reasons. This can lead to urinary tract infections and other complications.<h4>Objective</h4>To assess whether stop orders for indwelling urinary catheters reduces the duration of inappropriate urinary catheterization and the incidence of urinary tract infections.<h4>Design</h4>A randomized controlled trial was conducted in three tertiary-care hospitals in Ontario, Canada. Patients with indwelli ...[more]

PMID: 18421507

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundClinicians frequently prescribe antibiotics inappropriately for acute respiratory infections (ARIs). Our objective was to test information technology-enabled behavioral interventions to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in a randomized controlled pilot test trial.MethodsPrimary care clinicians were randomized in a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial experiment with 3 interventions: 1) Accountable Justifications; 2) Suggested Alternatives; and 3) Peer Comparison. Beforehand, participants completed an educational module. Measures included: rates of antibiotic prescribing for: non-antibiotic-appropriate ARI diagnoses, acute sinusitis/pharyngitis, all other diagnoses/symptoms of respiratory infection, and all three ARI categories combined.ResultsWe examined 3,276 visits in the pre-intervention year and 3,099 in the intervention year. The antibiotic prescribing rate fell for non-antibiotic-appropriate ARIs (24.7 % in the pre-intervention year to 5.2 % in the intervention year); sinusitis/pharyngitis (50.3 to 44.7 %); all other diagnoses/symptoms of respiratory infection (40.2 to 25.3 %); and all categories combined (38.7 to 24.2 %; all p < 0.001). There were no significant relationships between any intervention and antibiotic prescribing for non-antibiotic-appropriate ARI diagnoses or sinusitis/pharyngitis. Suggested Alternatives was associated with reduced antibiotic prescribing for other diagnoses or symptoms of respiratory infection (odds ratio [OR], 0.62; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.89) and for all ARI categories combined (OR, 0.72; 95 % CI, 0.54-0.96). Peer Comparison was associated with reduced prescribing for all ARI categories combined (OR, 0.73; 95 % CI, 0.53-0.995).ConclusionsWe observed large reductions in antibiotic prescribing regardless of whether or not study participants received an intervention, suggesting an overriding Hawthorne effect or possibly clinician-to-clinician contamination. Low baseline inappropriate prescribing may have led to floor effects.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01454960 .

Project description:BackgroundA small number of patients are disproportionally readmitted to hospitals. The Complex High Admission Management Program (CHAMP) was established as a multidisciplinary program to improve continuity of care and reduce readmissions for frequently hospitalized patients.ObjectiveTo compare hospital utilization metrics among patients enrolled in CHAMP and usual care.DesignPragmatic randomized controlled trial.ParticipantsInclusion criteria were as follows: 3 or more, 30-day inpatient readmissions in the previous year; or 2 inpatient readmissions plus either a referral or 3 observation admissions in previous 6 months.InterventionsPatients randomized to CHAMP were managed by an interdisciplinary team including social work, physicians, and pharmacists. The CHAMP team used comprehensive care planning and inpatient, outpatient, and community visits to address both medical and social needs. Control patients were randomized to usual care and contacted 18 months after initial identification if still eligible.Main measuresPrimary outcome was number of 30-day inpatient readmissions 180 days following enrollment. Secondary outcomes were number of hospital admissions, total hospital days, emergency department visits, and outpatient clinic visits 180 days after enrollment.Key resultsThere were 75 patients enrolled in CHAMP, 76 in control. Groups were similar in demographic characteristics and baseline readmissions. At 180 days following enrollment, CHAMP patients had more inpatient 30-day readmissions [CHAMP incidence rate 1.3 (95% CI 0.9-1.8) vs. control 0.8 (95% CI 0.5-1.1), p=0.04], though both groups had fewer readmissions compared to 180 days prior to enrollment. We found no differences in secondary outcomes.ConclusionsFrequently hospitalized patients experienced reductions in utilization over time. Though most outcomes showed no difference, CHAMP was associated with higher readmissions compared to a control group, possibly due to consolidation of care at a single hospital. Future research should seek to identify subsets of patients with persistently high utilization for whom tailored interventions may be beneficial.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03097640; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03097640.

Project description:BackgroundWe identified that Stanford Health Care had a significant number of patients who after discharge are found by the utilization review committee not to meet Center for Mediare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 2-midnight benchmark for inpatient status. Some of the charges incurred during the care of these patients are written-off and known as Medicare 1-day write-offs. This study which aims to evaluate the use of a Best Practice Alert (BPA) feature on the electronic medical record, EPIC, to ensure appropriate designation of a patient's hospitalization status as either inpatient or outpatient in accordance with Center for Medicare and Medicaid services (CMS) 2 midnight length of stay benchmark thereby reducing the number of associated write-offs.MethodWe incorporated a best practice alert (BPA) into the Epic Electronic Medical Record (EMR) that would prompt the discharging provider and the case manager to review the patients' inpatient designation prior to discharge and change the patient's designation to observation when deemed appropriate. Patients who met the inclusion criteria (Patients must have Medicare fee-for-service insurance, inpatient length of stay (LOS) less than 2 midnights, inpatient designation as hospitalization status at time of discharge, was hospitalized to an acute level of care and belonged to one of 37 listed hospital services at the time of signing of the discharge order) were randomized to have the BPA either silent or active over a three-month period from July 18, 2019, to October 18, 2019.ResultA total of 88 patients were included in this study: 40 in the control arm and 48 in the intervention arm. In the intervention arm, 8 (8/48, 16.7%) had an inpatient status designation despite potentially meeting Medicare guidelines for an observation stay, comparing to 23 patients (23/40, 57.5%) patients in the control group (p = 0.001). The estimated number of write-offs in the control arm was 17 (73.9%, out of 23 inpatient patients) while in the intervention arm was 1 (12.5%, out of 8 inpatient patient) after accounting for patients who may have met inpatient criteria for other reasons based on case manager note review.ConclusionThis is the first time to our knowledge that a BPA has been used in this manner to reduce the number of Medicare 1-day write-offs.

Project description:Study questionIn women with threatened miscarriage, does progesterone supplementation until the completion of the first trimester of pregnancy increase the probability of live birth?Summary answerIn women with threatened miscarriage, 400 mg vaginal progesterone nightly, from onset of bleeding until 12 weeks, did not increase live birth rates.What is known alreadyLimited evidence has indicated that vaginal micronized progesterone may make little or no difference to the live birth rate when compared with placebo in women with threatened miscarriage. Subgroup analysis of one recent randomized trial reported that in women with bleeding and at least one previous miscarriage, progesterone might be of benefit.Study design, size, durationWe performed a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial between February 2012 and April 2019. Eligible pregnant women under 10 weeks gestation, experiencing a threatened miscarriage as apparent from vaginal bleeding were randomized into two groups in a 1:1 ratio: the intervention group received 400 mg progesterone as vaginal pessaries, the control group received placebo vaginal pessaries, both until 12 weeks gestation. The primary endpoint was live birth. We planned to randomize 386 women (193 per group). The study was stopped at a planned interim analysis for futility after randomization of 278 women.Participants/materials, setting, methodsThis trial was conducted at the Mater Mothers' Hospital, a tertiary centre for maternity care in South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. We randomized 139 women to the intervention group and 139 women to the placebo group. Primary outcome data were available for 136 women in the intervention group and 133 women in the placebo group.Main results and the role of chanceThe live birth rates were 82.4% (112/136) and 84.2% (112/133) in the intervention group and placebo group, respectively (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.09; risk difference -0.02, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.07; P = 0.683). Among women with at least one previous miscarriage, live birth rates were 80.6% (54/67) and 84.4% (65/77) (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82-1.11; P = 0.550). No significant effect was seen from progesterone in women with two (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.96-1.72; P = 0.096) or more (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.53-1.19; P = 0.267) previous miscarriages. Preterm birth rates were 12.9% and 9.3%, respectively (RR 1.38; 95% CI 0.69 to 2.78; P = 0.361). Median birth weight was 3310 vs 3300 g (P = 0.992). There were also no other significant differences in obstetric and perinatal outcomes.Limitations, reasons for cautionOur study was single centre and did not reach the planned sample size because it was stopped prematurely at an interim analysis.Wider implications of the findingsWe did not find evidence supporting the treatment effect of vaginal progesterone in women with threatened miscarriage. Progesterone in this setting should not be routinely used for threatened miscarriage. The treatment effect in women with threatened miscarriage after previous miscarriages warrants further research.Study funding/competing interest(s)Mothers' and babies Golden Casket Clinical Fellowship (L.A.M.). Progesterone and placebo pessaries were provided by Perrigo Australia.B.W.J.M. reports grants from NHMRC, personal fees from ObsEva, personal fees from Merck KGaA, personal fees from Guerbet, personal fees from iGenomix, outside the submitted work.Trial registration numberACTRN12611000405910.Trial registration date19 April 2011.Date of first patient’s enrolment06 February 2012.

Project description:BackgroundPolypharmacy and the use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) are prevalent among older patients admitted to hospitals, posing a heightened risk of adverse drug events. This trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a pharmacist-led deprescribing intervention in reducing medications, PIM and improving clinical outcomes, using the locally developed Malaysian Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing Screening tool in Older Adults (MALPIP).MethodsThis is an 18-month cluster-randomized, open-label, parallel-arm controlled trial conducted at 14 public hospitals in the Perak state of Malaysia. Patients aged 60 and above, who have at least one medication and one comorbidity are eligible. A stratified-cluster randomization design is employed, with 7 hospitals assigned to the control arm and 7 hospitals assigned to the intervention arm. The MALPIP screening tool will be used in the intervention group to review the medications. If PIM is detected, the pharmacists will discuss with doctors and decide whether to stop or reduce the dose. The primary outcomes of this trial are the total number of medications and number of PIM. The secondary outcomes include fall, emergency department visits, readmissions, quality of life and mortality. Outcomes will be measured during enrolment, discharge, 6, 12, and 18 months.DiscussionThis REVMED trial aims to test the hypothesis that a pharmacist-led deprescribing intervention initiated in the hospital will reduce the total number of medications and PIM 18 months after hospital discharge, reducing fall, emergency department visits, readmissions, mortality and lead to improvement in quality of life. Trial findings will quantify the clinical outcomes associated with reducing medications and PIM for hospitalized older adults with polypharmacy.Trial registration numberThis trial was prospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05875623) on the 25th of May 2023. NCT05875623 Clinicaltrials.gov URL: NCT05875623 registered on 25th July 2023.

Dataset Information

Stop orders to reduce inappropriate urinary catheterization in hospitalized patients: a randomized controlled trial.

Publications

Stop orders to reduce inappropriate urinary catheterization in hospitalized patients: a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets