From Tampa General Hospital, Tampa, FL.

Abstract

• Objective: To decrease insertion-related catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) attributed to the emergency department (ED) as well as facility-wide within a large teaching hospital.
• Methods: Recommendations from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) toolkit for reducing CAUTIs in hospital units were used to implement both technical and socioadaptive changes focused on prevention of insertion-related CAUTIs in the ED through a trial that required 2 licensed personnel for insertion of all urinary catheters. The process would include a safety time-out to confirm catheter appropriateness and review of the proper steps for insertion as a means to encompass and hardwire both the technical and socioadaptive aspects of the Comprehensive Unit-based Safety Project methodology into ED practice.
• Results: There was a 75% decrease in CAUTI rates following the intervention (P = 0.05). This reduction was sustained for at least 1 year following implementation.
• Conclusion: Using AHRQ recommendations to implement socioadaptive and technical changes through 2-person insertion of urinary catheters yielded a significant and sustainable decrease in insertion-related CAUTI rates and utilization of indwelling urinary catheters in the ED at Tampa General Hospital.

Key words: catheter-associated urinary tract infections; infection prevention; quality improvement; change model.

Each year an estimated 721,800 health care–associated infections occur in U.S. acute care hospitals, resulting in approximately 75,000 deaths [1]. Catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) account for an estimated 449,334 of health care–associated infections s annually [2]. The direct medical cost per CAUTI ranges from $749 to $1007, resulting in direct costs to U.S. facilities of over $340 million annually [2]. Although CAUTIs are one of the most common health care–associated infections, the literature has shown that following well established prevention guidelines can greatly reduce their incidence.

Since most health care–associated infections are preventable and cause unnecessary patient harm, there is pressure from regulatory bodies to prevent such events during a patient’s hospitalization. Prevention of CAUTIs is a Joint Commission National Patient Safety Goal, and as of 2008 the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) does not reimburse hospitals for the cost of additional care as a result of a CAUTI. Additionally, facility CAUTI data is included in the CMS value-based purchasing program, which can withhold payments to hospitals based on performance, as well as the inpatient quality reporting program, which requires public reporting of CAUTI to receive a higher annual payment.

Even before the external pressures of regulatory bodies, Tampa General Hospital has strived to protect patients by preventing infections through implementing best practices via multidisciplinary committees to maximize impact. Tampa General Hospital, a private not-for-profit level 1 trauma center located in downtown Tampa, Florida, is a teaching facility affiliated with the University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine. It is licensed for more than 1000 beds and serves 12 surrounding counties with a population in excess of 4 million.

Background

CAUTI data had been collected in all of the intensive care units at the hospital for several years, benchmarked against national unit-specific rates, with feedback provided to committees and the hospital board. However, in 2006, a multidisciplinary committee chaired by the chief operating officer known as Committee Targeting Zero (CTZ) was formed to review best practices and analyze all device-associated infection rates in an effort to reduce hospital-acquired infections. To target reduction of the CAUTI rate, a Foley stabilization device and renewed focus on hand hygiene were implemented, and CAUTI rates were reduced by over 50% by the end of 2007.

When CAUTI rates began to climb in 2008, additional interventions were implemented under the direction of CTZ, including a literature review for CAUTI prevention for any new or novel prevention strategies, reporting of each CAUTI to leadership of the attributed unit at the time of identification, ongoing surveillance of the appropriateness of indwelling urinary catheters at the unit level with feedback to CTZ, and mandatory education focused on infection of CAUTI and proper insertion for all staff inserting indwelling urinary catheters. Additionally, in 2009 an evaluation of an antibiotic-coated Foley catheter was implemented to further decrease rates, resulting in a statistically significant 42% reduction in the CAUTI rate as compared to 2008. Other prevention strategies instituted between 2010 and 2012 included increased availability of condom catheters, a closed system urine culture collection kit, and computer-based learning module for all staff inserting indwelling urinary catheters.

In 2013, the hospital included CAUTI prevention as part of a facility-wide initiative to decrease patient harm. A CAUTI committee led by senior leadership was convened to address CAUTI rates that exceeded national benchmarks. The multidisciplinary team began as a subcommittee of CTZ and was chaired by the chief nursing officer with the support of the chief operations officer and included representation from the infection prevention department and nursing unit leadership. After reviewing the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee’s (HICPAC) guideline for prevention of CAUTIs [3], the committee focused its efforts on appropriate indications for insertion and timely removal, aseptic insertion, and proper maintenance of indwelling urinary catheters.

The key accomplishments of the CAUTI committee during 2014 included development of a comprehensive genitourinary management policy, incorporation of CAUTI prevention into new employee orientation for all patient care staff, aseptic indwelling urinary catheter insertion competency check-off with return demonstration (teachback methodology) for all nursing staff, and reinforcement of insertion criteria and daily assessment for necessity with documentation of indications, and removal via nurse-driven protocol when necessary. Additionally, a requirement to document indications for ordering urine cultures and a pop-up reminder in the electronic medical record for patients with an indwelling urinary catheter requiring indications to continue, both targeted towards physicians and advanced practice providers, were implemented.

In conjunction with the technical changes, additional strategies were executed with the intent of facilitating a culture of patient safety and reinforcing the aforementioned technical changes. In 2014, the hospital implemented Franklin Covey’s “The Speed of Trust” methodology [4] and its associated 13 behaviors hospital-wide. Additionally, several of the inpatient units participated in a quality improvement project with either the Florida Hospital Engagement Network (HEN) [5] or the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Comprehensive Unit-based Safety Program (CUSP) [6] national project. Physician engagement and education was accomplished through a white paper written by the infection prevention department, summarizing the current state of CAUTI within the facility and highlighting strategies to reduce infection, including evidence-based guidelines on ordering urine cultures.

In an attempt to target ongoing improvement strategies, CAUTIs were categorized as either insertion-related, occurring within 7 days of insertion, or maintenance-related, occurring greater than 7 days of insertion; the date of insertion was considered day 1. A review of the facility CAUTI data demonstrated that an opportunity to reduce insertion-related CAUTIs existed and a high volume of urinary catheters were inserted in the emergency department (ED). Therefore, ED leadership agreed to participate in the CUSP initiative for EDs beginning April 2014. The goals of the CUSP initiative include using best practices for CAUTI prevention through the implementation of both technical and socioadaptive changes.

Methods

CUSP Initiative

The CUSP initiative focuses specifically on improving processes for determining catheter appropriateness and promoting proper insertion techniques in addition to changes in culture to facilitate teamwork and communication amongst frontline staff and improve collaboration between the ED and inpatient units. To participate in the project, a multidisciplinary team that included ED leadership, infection prevention department, and nursing clinical quality and research specialists was established.

The team designed an intervention that required 2 licensed personnel for insertion of all urinary catheters. The process would include a safety time-out consisting of a pause before inserting the indwelling urinary catheter to confirm catheter appropriateness and review of the proper steps for insertion as a means to encompass and hardwire both the technical and socioadaptive aspects of the CUSP methodology into ED practice.

Rollout Using 4Es

January through March 2015 was the implementation period during which education and validation of practices were conducted. The 4Es model created by the Johns Hopkins University Quality and Safety Research Group was used to roll out the changes in practice to the ED staff; the 4Es are Engagement, Education, Execution, and Evaluation [7]. To engage staff, the scope of CAUTIs, including the implications to both patients and to the health care system as a whole, were presented from a local (hospital) and a national perspective. Education was achieved by outlining the new process in ED staff education sessions, as well as through handouts, emails, and during shift change huddles. The content included a checklist (Figure 1) staff would use to follow proper aseptic technique as well as reminders of the intent of the project.

The process was executed through the use of a safety time-out completed by the 2 personnel (nurses) involved in the procedure prior to insertion of an indwelling urinary catheter. The time-out consisted of reviewing the insertion criteria to determine appropriateness for placement and the proper steps for insertion per hospital policy. The catheter was then inserted by one person while the second was solely responsible to assure compliance with proper aseptic technique. The procedure was stopped if aseptic technique was compromised. The indications for insertion and/or maintaining the urinary catheter are based on the HICPAC guidelines [3] and include the following:

• Acute urinary retention/obstruction
• Urologic, urethral or extensive abdominal surgical procedure
• Critically ill patient with unstable vital signs and requires close urine output monitoring (ICU patient receiving aggressive diuretic therapy, vasopressor/inotropic therapy, paralytic therapy, aggressive fluid management or titrated vasoactive medications)
• Stage 3 or 4 sacral or perineal pressure ulcer in a patient with incontinence
• End of life comfort
• Prevention of further trauma due to a difficult insertion
• Prolonged immobility due to unstable spinal fracture or pelvic fracture and inability to use bedpan.

During the implementation period, a process measure was used to evaluate the rollout. The compliance rate of returned insertion checklists versus the total number of insertions was calculated weekly and tracked over time. Although compliance was low at first, through several Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles conducted on a weekly basis, compliance steadily increased during the implementation period. Staff were also kept abreast of the compliance rates and progress of the project with weekly email updates and periodically in daily huddles during shift change.

Rollout Using 4Es

In parallel to the CUSP framework, the ED leadership team discretely used 6 of “The Speed of Trust” behaviors most relevant to the project to help drive the new process including get better, practice accountability, keep commitments, clarify expectations, deliver results, and create transparency. Get better was used to motivate staff to action in order to deliver the highest quality of care to our patients. Practice accountability was exercised by having the staff sign the checklist used in the new process. Deliver results was supported by the timely feedback of data to frontline staff to show whether the goal was being met. Clarifying expectations was demonstrated through feedback from weekly PDSA rapid cycles and constant reinforcement that all insertions must involve 2 personnel. Keeping commitments was established with an agreement amongst the staff and leadership to keep patients safe and deliver high quality care. Creating transparency was exemplified by explaining the initiative clearly to each patient and their family and allowing for any questions.

Outcomes Measurement

During the post-intervention period, progress was evaluated using 2 outcome measures: the insertion-related CAUTI rate and the catheter utilization ratio. National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) 2014 and 2015 criteria was used to identify any CAUTI [8] and for the purposes of this project, the insertion-related CAUTI rate was defined as the number of CAUTIs occurring ≤ 7 days after insertion, with the date of insertion being day 1, per 1000 catheters inserted in the ED. The utilization ratio was calculated from the number of catheters inserted per patient ED visits. The insertion-related CAUTI rates for the pre- and post-intervention periods were compared after excluding 2014 yeast CAUTIs to adjust for changes in the 2015 National Healthcare Safety Network CAUTI criteria, which removed yeast as an organism for CAUTI. The utilization ratio was also calculated and compared between pre- and post-intervention periods. All statistical analysis was done using the NHSN statistics calculator.

Results

During the pre-intervention period (April–December 2014) there were 10 infections and 1450 catheters inserted, which equates to an insertion-related CAUTI rate of 6.9/1,000 catheters. In the post-intervention period (April–December 2015), there were 2 infections and 1180 catheters placed, or an insertion-related CAUTI rate of 1.7/1000 catheters (Table 1)—a 75% decrease from the pre-intervention rate (P = 0.05).

Additionally, the utilization ratio was calculated for 2014 and 2015 based on the number of catheter insertions per total patient ED visits in each year (Table 2). In 2014 the utilization ratio was 2.2 and in 2015 the utilization ratio was 1.7, representing a 23% reduction (P < 0.01).

Discussion

As highlighted in the AHRQ toolkit [5], the project confirmed that using both technical and socioadaptive methodologies yielded a significant and sustainable impact on CAUTIs and utilization of indwelling urinary catheters. Prior to initiating the project, a review of the literature did not show any previous studies involving the insertion of urinary catheters by 2 licensed personnel. Since then, an acute care facility published data demonstrating a sustainable 39% reduction of CAUTI rates in an inpatient post-surgical unit within 6 months after the implementation of 2-person urinary catheter insertion [9]. The facility had also done extensive education and training on the CAUTI prevention best-practices prior to implementing the new insertion practices.

A key measure of success in regards to implementing cultural and technical changes is the sustainability of the results yielded after implementation. According to the AHRQ CAUTI toolkit, several specific strategies are necessary to successfully sustain prevention efforts. Implementing changes in the ED at our hospital in alignment with the goal of creating a culture of safety, incorporating the changes into daily work flow, employing both technical and socioadaptive interventions, empowering staff to stop the procedure if there are any concerns, and monitoring and communicating outcomes all ensure that the changes in practice will be sustained. Additionally, there is an engaged interdisciplinary CAUTI committee that continues to meet regularly as well as required yearly computer-based education for all frontline staff, and a “Safety Day” education session for all newly hired nurses where competency is assessed and validated for proper insertion and maintenance of a urinary catheter.

Initially, barriers for implementation included limited staff to ensure the presence of 2 licensed personnel for every urinary catheter insertion, lack of ability to collect checklist data in the electronic medical record and run compliance reports, and availability of the checklists at the onset of implementation. The staffing limitation seemed to work in favor of meeting the goals of the project, as staff were less likely to insert indwelling urinary catheters for inappropriate indications. In regards to the checklists, the barriers identified via the PDSA rapid cycles included inadequate locations to obtain checklists for use during insertion and drop-off locations for checklists after use. To increase availability and convenience, brightly colored folders labeled “FOLEY!” containing the checklists were placed both on the outside of the supply management stations and on the doors exiting the supply rooms where indwelling urinary catheter kits were located. Rounds were made on these folders approximately 1 to 2 times per week to be sure they remained full. In addition, more locations for dropping off completed forms were placed at all nursing stations as opposed to a single drop off location.

A limitation of the project is that there are not established metrics for infection rates in any outpatient setting nor are there established criteria to differentiate between insertion- and maintenance-related infections. While the metrics were created for the purposes of the project, they are easily reproducible within other health care facilities to track infection rates associated with outpatient areas. Additionally, by ensuring indications are met and proper insertion occurs in ED patients, the overall hospital’s CAUTI infection rate and standardized infection ratio are impacted, which are comparable across facilities. The criteria for differentiating between insertion and maintenance related infections was established in an attempt to define where the biggest vulnerabilities were with insertion versus maintenance. Days from insertion to infection were tracked for all infections, and arbitrarily a 7-day cutoff was used to consider the infection potentially insertion-related, as no evidence has been published to define this previously.

The lessons learned both during implementation of the changes in practice and the impact it can have on infection rates are valuable. Moving forward, Tampa General Hospital plans to spread dual personnel indwelling urinary catheter insertion as a best practice, first targeting inpatient units identified with the highest number of insertion-related infections as well as high device utilization ratios.

From Tampa General Hospital, Tampa, FL.

Abstract

• Objective: To decrease insertion-related catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) attributed to the emergency department (ED) as well as facility-wide within a large teaching hospital.
• Methods: Recommendations from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) toolkit for reducing CAUTIs in hospital units were used to implement both technical and socioadaptive changes focused on prevention of insertion-related CAUTIs in the ED through a trial that required 2 licensed personnel for insertion of all urinary catheters. The process would include a safety time-out to confirm catheter appropriateness and review of the proper steps for insertion as a means to encompass and hardwire both the technical and socioadaptive aspects of the Comprehensive Unit-based Safety Project methodology into ED practice.
• Results: There was a 75% decrease in CAUTI rates following the intervention (P = 0.05). This reduction was sustained for at least 1 year following implementation.
• Conclusion: Using AHRQ recommendations to implement socioadaptive and technical changes through 2-person insertion of urinary catheters yielded a significant and sustainable decrease in insertion-related CAUTI rates and utilization of indwelling urinary catheters in the ED at Tampa General Hospital.

Key words: catheter-associated urinary tract infections; infection prevention; quality improvement; change model.

Each year an estimated 721,800 health care–associated infections occur in U.S. acute care hospitals, resulting in approximately 75,000 deaths [1]. Catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) account for an estimated 449,334 of health care–associated infections s annually [2]. The direct medical cost per CAUTI ranges from $749 to $1007, resulting in direct costs to U.S. facilities of over $340 million annually [2]. Although CAUTIs are one of the most common health care–associated infections, the literature has shown that following well established prevention guidelines can greatly reduce their incidence.

Since most health care–associated infections are preventable and cause unnecessary patient harm, there is pressure from regulatory bodies to prevent such events during a patient’s hospitalization. Prevention of CAUTIs is a Joint Commission National Patient Safety Goal, and as of 2008 the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) does not reimburse hospitals for the cost of additional care as a result of a CAUTI. Additionally, facility CAUTI data is included in the CMS value-based purchasing program, which can withhold payments to hospitals based on performance, as well as the inpatient quality reporting program, which requires public reporting of CAUTI to receive a higher annual payment.

Even before the external pressures of regulatory bodies, Tampa General Hospital has strived to protect patients by preventing infections through implementing best practices via multidisciplinary committees to maximize impact. Tampa General Hospital, a private not-for-profit level 1 trauma center located in downtown Tampa, Florida, is a teaching facility affiliated with the University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine. It is licensed for more than 1000 beds and serves 12 surrounding counties with a population in excess of 4 million.

Background

CAUTI data had been collected in all of the intensive care units at the hospital for several years, benchmarked against national unit-specific rates, with feedback provided to committees and the hospital board. However, in 2006, a multidisciplinary committee chaired by the chief operating officer known as Committee Targeting Zero (CTZ) was formed to review best practices and analyze all device-associated infection rates in an effort to reduce hospital-acquired infections. To target reduction of the CAUTI rate, a Foley stabilization device and renewed focus on hand hygiene were implemented, and CAUTI rates were reduced by over 50% by the end of 2007.

When CAUTI rates began to climb in 2008, additional interventions were implemented under the direction of CTZ, including a literature review for CAUTI prevention for any new or novel prevention strategies, reporting of each CAUTI to leadership of the attributed unit at the time of identification, ongoing surveillance of the appropriateness of indwelling urinary catheters at the unit level with feedback to CTZ, and mandatory education focused on infection of CAUTI and proper insertion for all staff inserting indwelling urinary catheters. Additionally, in 2009 an evaluation of an antibiotic-coated Foley catheter was implemented to further decrease rates, resulting in a statistically significant 42% reduction in the CAUTI rate as compared to 2008. Other prevention strategies instituted between 2010 and 2012 included increased availability of condom catheters, a closed system urine culture collection kit, and computer-based learning module for all staff inserting indwelling urinary catheters.

In 2013, the hospital included CAUTI prevention as part of a facility-wide initiative to decrease patient harm. A CAUTI committee led by senior leadership was convened to address CAUTI rates that exceeded national benchmarks. The multidisciplinary team began as a subcommittee of CTZ and was chaired by the chief nursing officer with the support of the chief operations officer and included representation from the infection prevention department and nursing unit leadership. After reviewing the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee’s (HICPAC) guideline for prevention of CAUTIs [3], the committee focused its efforts on appropriate indications for insertion and timely removal, aseptic insertion, and proper maintenance of indwelling urinary catheters.

The key accomplishments of the CAUTI committee during 2014 included development of a comprehensive genitourinary management policy, incorporation of CAUTI prevention into new employee orientation for all patient care staff, aseptic indwelling urinary catheter insertion competency check-off with return demonstration (teachback methodology) for all nursing staff, and reinforcement of insertion criteria and daily assessment for necessity with documentation of indications, and removal via nurse-driven protocol when necessary. Additionally, a requirement to document indications for ordering urine cultures and a pop-up reminder in the electronic medical record for patients with an indwelling urinary catheter requiring indications to continue, both targeted towards physicians and advanced practice providers, were implemented.

In conjunction with the technical changes, additional strategies were executed with the intent of facilitating a culture of patient safety and reinforcing the aforementioned technical changes. In 2014, the hospital implemented Franklin Covey’s “The Speed of Trust” methodology [4] and its associated 13 behaviors hospital-wide. Additionally, several of the inpatient units participated in a quality improvement project with either the Florida Hospital Engagement Network (HEN) [5] or the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Comprehensive Unit-based Safety Program (CUSP) [6] national project. Physician engagement and education was accomplished through a white paper written by the infection prevention department, summarizing the current state of CAUTI within the facility and highlighting strategies to reduce infection, including evidence-based guidelines on ordering urine cultures.

In an attempt to target ongoing improvement strategies, CAUTIs were categorized as either insertion-related, occurring within 7 days of insertion, or maintenance-related, occurring greater than 7 days of insertion; the date of insertion was considered day 1. A review of the facility CAUTI data demonstrated that an opportunity to reduce insertion-related CAUTIs existed and a high volume of urinary catheters were inserted in the emergency department (ED). Therefore, ED leadership agreed to participate in the CUSP initiative for EDs beginning April 2014. The goals of the CUSP initiative include using best practices for CAUTI prevention through the implementation of both technical and socioadaptive changes.

Methods

CUSP Initiative

The CUSP initiative focuses specifically on improving processes for determining catheter appropriateness and promoting proper insertion techniques in addition to changes in culture to facilitate teamwork and communication amongst frontline staff and improve collaboration between the ED and inpatient units. To participate in the project, a multidisciplinary team that included ED leadership, infection prevention department, and nursing clinical quality and research specialists was established.

The team designed an intervention that required 2 licensed personnel for insertion of all urinary catheters. The process would include a safety time-out consisting of a pause before inserting the indwelling urinary catheter to confirm catheter appropriateness and review of the proper steps for insertion as a means to encompass and hardwire both the technical and socioadaptive aspects of the CUSP methodology into ED practice.

Rollout Using 4Es

January through March 2015 was the implementation period during which education and validation of practices were conducted. The 4Es model created by the Johns Hopkins University Quality and Safety Research Group was used to roll out the changes in practice to the ED staff; the 4Es are Engagement, Education, Execution, and Evaluation [7]. To engage staff, the scope of CAUTIs, including the implications to both patients and to the health care system as a whole, were presented from a local (hospital) and a national perspective. Education was achieved by outlining the new process in ED staff education sessions, as well as through handouts, emails, and during shift change huddles. The content included a checklist (Figure 1) staff would use to follow proper aseptic technique as well as reminders of the intent of the project.

The process was executed through the use of a safety time-out completed by the 2 personnel (nurses) involved in the procedure prior to insertion of an indwelling urinary catheter. The time-out consisted of reviewing the insertion criteria to determine appropriateness for placement and the proper steps for insertion per hospital policy. The catheter was then inserted by one person while the second was solely responsible to assure compliance with proper aseptic technique. The procedure was stopped if aseptic technique was compromised. The indications for insertion and/or maintaining the urinary catheter are based on the HICPAC guidelines [3] and include the following:

• Acute urinary retention/obstruction
• Urologic, urethral or extensive abdominal surgical procedure
• Critically ill patient with unstable vital signs and requires close urine output monitoring (ICU patient receiving aggressive diuretic therapy, vasopressor/inotropic therapy, paralytic therapy, aggressive fluid management or titrated vasoactive medications)
• Stage 3 or 4 sacral or perineal pressure ulcer in a patient with incontinence
• End of life comfort
• Prevention of further trauma due to a difficult insertion
• Prolonged immobility due to unstable spinal fracture or pelvic fracture and inability to use bedpan.

During the implementation period, a process measure was used to evaluate the rollout. The compliance rate of returned insertion checklists versus the total number of insertions was calculated weekly and tracked over time. Although compliance was low at first, through several Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles conducted on a weekly basis, compliance steadily increased during the implementation period. Staff were also kept abreast of the compliance rates and progress of the project with weekly email updates and periodically in daily huddles during shift change.

Rollout Using 4Es

In parallel to the CUSP framework, the ED leadership team discretely used 6 of “The Speed of Trust” behaviors most relevant to the project to help drive the new process including get better, practice accountability, keep commitments, clarify expectations, deliver results, and create transparency. Get better was used to motivate staff to action in order to deliver the highest quality of care to our patients. Practice accountability was exercised by having the staff sign the checklist used in the new process. Deliver results was supported by the timely feedback of data to frontline staff to show whether the goal was being met. Clarifying expectations was demonstrated through feedback from weekly PDSA rapid cycles and constant reinforcement that all insertions must involve 2 personnel. Keeping commitments was established with an agreement amongst the staff and leadership to keep patients safe and deliver high quality care. Creating transparency was exemplified by explaining the initiative clearly to each patient and their family and allowing for any questions.

Outcomes Measurement

During the post-intervention period, progress was evaluated using 2 outcome measures: the insertion-related CAUTI rate and the catheter utilization ratio. National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) 2014 and 2015 criteria was used to identify any CAUTI [8] and for the purposes of this project, the insertion-related CAUTI rate was defined as the number of CAUTIs occurring ≤ 7 days after insertion, with the date of insertion being day 1, per 1000 catheters inserted in the ED. The utilization ratio was calculated from the number of catheters inserted per patient ED visits. The insertion-related CAUTI rates for the pre- and post-intervention periods were compared after excluding 2014 yeast CAUTIs to adjust for changes in the 2015 National Healthcare Safety Network CAUTI criteria, which removed yeast as an organism for CAUTI. The utilization ratio was also calculated and compared between pre- and post-intervention periods. All statistical analysis was done using the NHSN statistics calculator.

Results

During the pre-intervention period (April–December 2014) there were 10 infections and 1450 catheters inserted, which equates to an insertion-related CAUTI rate of 6.9/1,000 catheters. In the post-intervention period (April–December 2015), there were 2 infections and 1180 catheters placed, or an insertion-related CAUTI rate of 1.7/1000 catheters (Table 1)—a 75% decrease from the pre-intervention rate (P = 0.05).

Additionally, the utilization ratio was calculated for 2014 and 2015 based on the number of catheter insertions per total patient ED visits in each year (Table 2). In 2014 the utilization ratio was 2.2 and in 2015 the utilization ratio was 1.7, representing a 23% reduction (P < 0.01).

Discussion

As highlighted in the AHRQ toolkit [5], the project confirmed that using both technical and socioadaptive methodologies yielded a significant and sustainable impact on CAUTIs and utilization of indwelling urinary catheters. Prior to initiating the project, a review of the literature did not show any previous studies involving the insertion of urinary catheters by 2 licensed personnel. Since then, an acute care facility published data demonstrating a sustainable 39% reduction of CAUTI rates in an inpatient post-surgical unit within 6 months after the implementation of 2-person urinary catheter insertion [9]. The facility had also done extensive education and training on the CAUTI prevention best-practices prior to implementing the new insertion practices.

A key measure of success in regards to implementing cultural and technical changes is the sustainability of the results yielded after implementation. According to the AHRQ CAUTI toolkit, several specific strategies are necessary to successfully sustain prevention efforts. Implementing changes in the ED at our hospital in alignment with the goal of creating a culture of safety, incorporating the changes into daily work flow, employing both technical and socioadaptive interventions, empowering staff to stop the procedure if there are any concerns, and monitoring and communicating outcomes all ensure that the changes in practice will be sustained. Additionally, there is an engaged interdisciplinary CAUTI committee that continues to meet regularly as well as required yearly computer-based education for all frontline staff, and a “Safety Day” education session for all newly hired nurses where competency is assessed and validated for proper insertion and maintenance of a urinary catheter.

Initially, barriers for implementation included limited staff to ensure the presence of 2 licensed personnel for every urinary catheter insertion, lack of ability to collect checklist data in the electronic medical record and run compliance reports, and availability of the checklists at the onset of implementation. The staffing limitation seemed to work in favor of meeting the goals of the project, as staff were less likely to insert indwelling urinary catheters for inappropriate indications. In regards to the checklists, the barriers identified via the PDSA rapid cycles included inadequate locations to obtain checklists for use during insertion and drop-off locations for checklists after use. To increase availability and convenience, brightly colored folders labeled “FOLEY!” containing the checklists were placed both on the outside of the supply management stations and on the doors exiting the supply rooms where indwelling urinary catheter kits were located. Rounds were made on these folders approximately 1 to 2 times per week to be sure they remained full. In addition, more locations for dropping off completed forms were placed at all nursing stations as opposed to a single drop off location.

A limitation of the project is that there are not established metrics for infection rates in any outpatient setting nor are there established criteria to differentiate between insertion- and maintenance-related infections. While the metrics were created for the purposes of the project, they are easily reproducible within other health care facilities to track infection rates associated with outpatient areas. Additionally, by ensuring indications are met and proper insertion occurs in ED patients, the overall hospital’s CAUTI infection rate and standardized infection ratio are impacted, which are comparable across facilities. The criteria for differentiating between insertion and maintenance related infections was established in an attempt to define where the biggest vulnerabilities were with insertion versus maintenance. Days from insertion to infection were tracked for all infections, and arbitrarily a 7-day cutoff was used to consider the infection potentially insertion-related, as no evidence has been published to define this previously.

The lessons learned both during implementation of the changes in practice and the impact it can have on infection rates are valuable. Moving forward, Tampa General Hospital plans to spread dual personnel indwelling urinary catheter insertion as a best practice, first targeting inpatient units identified with the highest number of insertion-related infections as well as high device utilization ratios.

From Tampa General Hospital, Tampa, FL.

Abstract

• Objective: To decrease insertion-related catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) attributed to the emergency department (ED) as well as facility-wide within a large teaching hospital.
• Methods: Recommendations from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) toolkit for reducing CAUTIs in hospital units were used to implement both technical and socioadaptive changes focused on prevention of insertion-related CAUTIs in the ED through a trial that required 2 licensed personnel for insertion of all urinary catheters. The process would include a safety time-out to confirm catheter appropriateness and review of the proper steps for insertion as a means to encompass and hardwire both the technical and socioadaptive aspects of the Comprehensive Unit-based Safety Project methodology into ED practice.
• Results: There was a 75% decrease in CAUTI rates following the intervention (P = 0.05). This reduction was sustained for at least 1 year following implementation.
• Conclusion: Using AHRQ recommendations to implement socioadaptive and technical changes through 2-person insertion of urinary catheters yielded a significant and sustainable decrease in insertion-related CAUTI rates and utilization of indwelling urinary catheters in the ED at Tampa General Hospital.

Key words: catheter-associated urinary tract infections; infection prevention; quality improvement; change model.

Each year an estimated 721,800 health care–associated infections occur in U.S. acute care hospitals, resulting in approximately 75,000 deaths [1]. Catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) account for an estimated 449,334 of health care–associated infections s annually [2]. The direct medical cost per CAUTI ranges from $749 to $1007, resulting in direct costs to U.S. facilities of over $340 million annually [2]. Although CAUTIs are one of the most common health care–associated infections, the literature has shown that following well established prevention guidelines can greatly reduce their incidence.

Since most health care–associated infections are preventable and cause unnecessary patient harm, there is pressure from regulatory bodies to prevent such events during a patient’s hospitalization. Prevention of CAUTIs is a Joint Commission National Patient Safety Goal, and as of 2008 the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) does not reimburse hospitals for the cost of additional care as a result of a CAUTI. Additionally, facility CAUTI data is included in the CMS value-based purchasing program, which can withhold payments to hospitals based on performance, as well as the inpatient quality reporting program, which requires public reporting of CAUTI to receive a higher annual payment.

Even before the external pressures of regulatory bodies, Tampa General Hospital has strived to protect patients by preventing infections through implementing best practices via multidisciplinary committees to maximize impact. Tampa General Hospital, a private not-for-profit level 1 trauma center located in downtown Tampa, Florida, is a teaching facility affiliated with the University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine. It is licensed for more than 1000 beds and serves 12 surrounding counties with a population in excess of 4 million.

Background

CAUTI data had been collected in all of the intensive care units at the hospital for several years, benchmarked against national unit-specific rates, with feedback provided to committees and the hospital board. However, in 2006, a multidisciplinary committee chaired by the chief operating officer known as Committee Targeting Zero (CTZ) was formed to review best practices and analyze all device-associated infection rates in an effort to reduce hospital-acquired infections. To target reduction of the CAUTI rate, a Foley stabilization device and renewed focus on hand hygiene were implemented, and CAUTI rates were reduced by over 50% by the end of 2007.

When CAUTI rates began to climb in 2008, additional interventions were implemented under the direction of CTZ, including a literature review for CAUTI prevention for any new or novel prevention strategies, reporting of each CAUTI to leadership of the attributed unit at the time of identification, ongoing surveillance of the appropriateness of indwelling urinary catheters at the unit level with feedback to CTZ, and mandatory education focused on infection of CAUTI and proper insertion for all staff inserting indwelling urinary catheters. Additionally, in 2009 an evaluation of an antibiotic-coated Foley catheter was implemented to further decrease rates, resulting in a statistically significant 42% reduction in the CAUTI rate as compared to 2008. Other prevention strategies instituted between 2010 and 2012 included increased availability of condom catheters, a closed system urine culture collection kit, and computer-based learning module for all staff inserting indwelling urinary catheters.

In 2013, the hospital included CAUTI prevention as part of a facility-wide initiative to decrease patient harm. A CAUTI committee led by senior leadership was convened to address CAUTI rates that exceeded national benchmarks. The multidisciplinary team began as a subcommittee of CTZ and was chaired by the chief nursing officer with the support of the chief operations officer and included representation from the infection prevention department and nursing unit leadership. After reviewing the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee’s (HICPAC) guideline for prevention of CAUTIs [3], the committee focused its efforts on appropriate indications for insertion and timely removal, aseptic insertion, and proper maintenance of indwelling urinary catheters.

The key accomplishments of the CAUTI committee during 2014 included development of a comprehensive genitourinary management policy, incorporation of CAUTI prevention into new employee orientation for all patient care staff, aseptic indwelling urinary catheter insertion competency check-off with return demonstration (teachback methodology) for all nursing staff, and reinforcement of insertion criteria and daily assessment for necessity with documentation of indications, and removal via nurse-driven protocol when necessary. Additionally, a requirement to document indications for ordering urine cultures and a pop-up reminder in the electronic medical record for patients with an indwelling urinary catheter requiring indications to continue, both targeted towards physicians and advanced practice providers, were implemented.

In conjunction with the technical changes, additional strategies were executed with the intent of facilitating a culture of patient safety and reinforcing the aforementioned technical changes. In 2014, the hospital implemented Franklin Covey’s “The Speed of Trust” methodology [4] and its associated 13 behaviors hospital-wide. Additionally, several of the inpatient units participated in a quality improvement project with either the Florida Hospital Engagement Network (HEN) [5] or the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Comprehensive Unit-based Safety Program (CUSP) [6] national project. Physician engagement and education was accomplished through a white paper written by the infection prevention department, summarizing the current state of CAUTI within the facility and highlighting strategies to reduce infection, including evidence-based guidelines on ordering urine cultures.

In an attempt to target ongoing improvement strategies, CAUTIs were categorized as either insertion-related, occurring within 7 days of insertion, or maintenance-related, occurring greater than 7 days of insertion; the date of insertion was considered day 1. A review of the facility CAUTI data demonstrated that an opportunity to reduce insertion-related CAUTIs existed and a high volume of urinary catheters were inserted in the emergency department (ED). Therefore, ED leadership agreed to participate in the CUSP initiative for EDs beginning April 2014. The goals of the CUSP initiative include using best practices for CAUTI prevention through the implementation of both technical and socioadaptive changes.

Methods

CUSP Initiative

The CUSP initiative focuses specifically on improving processes for determining catheter appropriateness and promoting proper insertion techniques in addition to changes in culture to facilitate teamwork and communication amongst frontline staff and improve collaboration between the ED and inpatient units. To participate in the project, a multidisciplinary team that included ED leadership, infection prevention department, and nursing clinical quality and research specialists was established.

The team designed an intervention that required 2 licensed personnel for insertion of all urinary catheters. The process would include a safety time-out consisting of a pause before inserting the indwelling urinary catheter to confirm catheter appropriateness and review of the proper steps for insertion as a means to encompass and hardwire both the technical and socioadaptive aspects of the CUSP methodology into ED practice.

Rollout Using 4Es

January through March 2015 was the implementation period during which education and validation of practices were conducted. The 4Es model created by the Johns Hopkins University Quality and Safety Research Group was used to roll out the changes in practice to the ED staff; the 4Es are Engagement, Education, Execution, and Evaluation [7]. To engage staff, the scope of CAUTIs, including the implications to both patients and to the health care system as a whole, were presented from a local (hospital) and a national perspective. Education was achieved by outlining the new process in ED staff education sessions, as well as through handouts, emails, and during shift change huddles. The content included a checklist (Figure 1) staff would use to follow proper aseptic technique as well as reminders of the intent of the project.

The process was executed through the use of a safety time-out completed by the 2 personnel (nurses) involved in the procedure prior to insertion of an indwelling urinary catheter. The time-out consisted of reviewing the insertion criteria to determine appropriateness for placement and the proper steps for insertion per hospital policy. The catheter was then inserted by one person while the second was solely responsible to assure compliance with proper aseptic technique. The procedure was stopped if aseptic technique was compromised. The indications for insertion and/or maintaining the urinary catheter are based on the HICPAC guidelines [3] and include the following:

• Acute urinary retention/obstruction
• Urologic, urethral or extensive abdominal surgical procedure
• Critically ill patient with unstable vital signs and requires close urine output monitoring (ICU patient receiving aggressive diuretic therapy, vasopressor/inotropic therapy, paralytic therapy, aggressive fluid management or titrated vasoactive medications)
• Stage 3 or 4 sacral or perineal pressure ulcer in a patient with incontinence
• End of life comfort
• Prevention of further trauma due to a difficult insertion
• Prolonged immobility due to unstable spinal fracture or pelvic fracture and inability to use bedpan.

During the implementation period, a process measure was used to evaluate the rollout. The compliance rate of returned insertion checklists versus the total number of insertions was calculated weekly and tracked over time. Although compliance was low at first, through several Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles conducted on a weekly basis, compliance steadily increased during the implementation period. Staff were also kept abreast of the compliance rates and progress of the project with weekly email updates and periodically in daily huddles during shift change.

Rollout Using 4Es

In parallel to the CUSP framework, the ED leadership team discretely used 6 of “The Speed of Trust” behaviors most relevant to the project to help drive the new process including get better, practice accountability, keep commitments, clarify expectations, deliver results, and create transparency. Get better was used to motivate staff to action in order to deliver the highest quality of care to our patients. Practice accountability was exercised by having the staff sign the checklist used in the new process. Deliver results was supported by the timely feedback of data to frontline staff to show whether the goal was being met. Clarifying expectations was demonstrated through feedback from weekly PDSA rapid cycles and constant reinforcement that all insertions must involve 2 personnel. Keeping commitments was established with an agreement amongst the staff and leadership to keep patients safe and deliver high quality care. Creating transparency was exemplified by explaining the initiative clearly to each patient and their family and allowing for any questions.

Outcomes Measurement

During the post-intervention period, progress was evaluated using 2 outcome measures: the insertion-related CAUTI rate and the catheter utilization ratio. National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) 2014 and 2015 criteria was used to identify any CAUTI [8] and for the purposes of this project, the insertion-related CAUTI rate was defined as the number of CAUTIs occurring ≤ 7 days after insertion, with the date of insertion being day 1, per 1000 catheters inserted in the ED. The utilization ratio was calculated from the number of catheters inserted per patient ED visits. The insertion-related CAUTI rates for the pre- and post-intervention periods were compared after excluding 2014 yeast CAUTIs to adjust for changes in the 2015 National Healthcare Safety Network CAUTI criteria, which removed yeast as an organism for CAUTI. The utilization ratio was also calculated and compared between pre- and post-intervention periods. All statistical analysis was done using the NHSN statistics calculator.

Results

During the pre-intervention period (April–December 2014) there were 10 infections and 1450 catheters inserted, which equates to an insertion-related CAUTI rate of 6.9/1,000 catheters. In the post-intervention period (April–December 2015), there were 2 infections and 1180 catheters placed, or an insertion-related CAUTI rate of 1.7/1000 catheters (Table 1)—a 75% decrease from the pre-intervention rate (P = 0.05).

Additionally, the utilization ratio was calculated for 2014 and 2015 based on the number of catheter insertions per total patient ED visits in each year (Table 2). In 2014 the utilization ratio was 2.2 and in 2015 the utilization ratio was 1.7, representing a 23% reduction (P < 0.01).

Discussion

As highlighted in the AHRQ toolkit [5], the project confirmed that using both technical and socioadaptive methodologies yielded a significant and sustainable impact on CAUTIs and utilization of indwelling urinary catheters. Prior to initiating the project, a review of the literature did not show any previous studies involving the insertion of urinary catheters by 2 licensed personnel. Since then, an acute care facility published data demonstrating a sustainable 39% reduction of CAUTI rates in an inpatient post-surgical unit within 6 months after the implementation of 2-person urinary catheter insertion [9]. The facility had also done extensive education and training on the CAUTI prevention best-practices prior to implementing the new insertion practices.

A key measure of success in regards to implementing cultural and technical changes is the sustainability of the results yielded after implementation. According to the AHRQ CAUTI toolkit, several specific strategies are necessary to successfully sustain prevention efforts. Implementing changes in the ED at our hospital in alignment with the goal of creating a culture of safety, incorporating the changes into daily work flow, employing both technical and socioadaptive interventions, empowering staff to stop the procedure if there are any concerns, and monitoring and communicating outcomes all ensure that the changes in practice will be sustained. Additionally, there is an engaged interdisciplinary CAUTI committee that continues to meet regularly as well as required yearly computer-based education for all frontline staff, and a “Safety Day” education session for all newly hired nurses where competency is assessed and validated for proper insertion and maintenance of a urinary catheter.

Initially, barriers for implementation included limited staff to ensure the presence of 2 licensed personnel for every urinary catheter insertion, lack of ability to collect checklist data in the electronic medical record and run compliance reports, and availability of the checklists at the onset of implementation. The staffing limitation seemed to work in favor of meeting the goals of the project, as staff were less likely to insert indwelling urinary catheters for inappropriate indications. In regards to the checklists, the barriers identified via the PDSA rapid cycles included inadequate locations to obtain checklists for use during insertion and drop-off locations for checklists after use. To increase availability and convenience, brightly colored folders labeled “FOLEY!” containing the checklists were placed both on the outside of the supply management stations and on the doors exiting the supply rooms where indwelling urinary catheter kits were located. Rounds were made on these folders approximately 1 to 2 times per week to be sure they remained full. In addition, more locations for dropping off completed forms were placed at all nursing stations as opposed to a single drop off location.

A limitation of the project is that there are not established metrics for infection rates in any outpatient setting nor are there established criteria to differentiate between insertion- and maintenance-related infections. While the metrics were created for the purposes of the project, they are easily reproducible within other health care facilities to track infection rates associated with outpatient areas. Additionally, by ensuring indications are met and proper insertion occurs in ED patients, the overall hospital’s CAUTI infection rate and standardized infection ratio are impacted, which are comparable across facilities. The criteria for differentiating between insertion and maintenance related infections was established in an attempt to define where the biggest vulnerabilities were with insertion versus maintenance. Days from insertion to infection were tracked for all infections, and arbitrarily a 7-day cutoff was used to consider the infection potentially insertion-related, as no evidence has been published to define this previously.

The lessons learned both during implementation of the changes in practice and the impact it can have on infection rates are valuable. Moving forward, Tampa General Hospital plans to spread dual personnel indwelling urinary catheter insertion as a best practice, first targeting inpatient units identified with the highest number of insertion-related infections as well as high device utilization ratios.

SAN DIEGO – By standardizing antibiotic treatment for simple and uncomplicated staphylococcal bloodstream infections (BSI), an algorithm effectively shortens therapy and simplifies decision making, according to results of a multinational randomized trial.

“The data from the study confirm that the algorithm achieves more with less and verify that shorter antibiotic courses are sufficient,” reported Thomas L. Holland, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Duke University Hospital in Durham, N.C.

CDC/Janice Haney Carr

IDP@frontlinemedcom.com

SAN DIEGO – By standardizing antibiotic treatment for simple and uncomplicated staphylococcal bloodstream infections (BSI), an algorithm effectively shortens therapy and simplifies decision making, according to results of a multinational randomized trial.

“The data from the study confirm that the algorithm achieves more with less and verify that shorter antibiotic courses are sufficient,” reported Thomas L. Holland, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Duke University Hospital in Durham, N.C.

CDC/Janice Haney Carr

IDP@frontlinemedcom.com

SAN DIEGO – By standardizing antibiotic treatment for simple and uncomplicated staphylococcal bloodstream infections (BSI), an algorithm effectively shortens therapy and simplifies decision making, according to results of a multinational randomized trial.

“The data from the study confirm that the algorithm achieves more with less and verify that shorter antibiotic courses are sufficient,” reported Thomas L. Holland, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Duke University Hospital in Durham, N.C.

CDC/Janice Haney Carr

IDP@frontlinemedcom.com

Poorer-performing hospitals have higher readmission rates than better-performing hospitals for patients with similar diagnoses, a study shows.

Lead author Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and his colleagues analyzed Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services hospital-wide readmission data and divided data from July 2014 through June 2015 into two random samples. Researchers used the first sample to calculate the risk-standardized readmission rate within 30 days for each hospital and classified hospitals into performance quartiles, with a lower readmission rate indicating better performance. The second study sample included patients who had two admissions for similar diagnoses at different hospitals that occurred more than 1 month and less than 1 year apart. Researchers compared the observed readmission rates among patients who had been admitted to hospitals in different performance quartiles. The analysis included all discharges occurring from July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015, from short-term acute care or critical access hospitals in the United States involving Medicare patients who were aged 65 years or older.

Copyright Kimberly Pack/Thinkstock

“This study addresses a persistent concern that national readmission measures may reflect differences in unmeasured factors rather than in hospital performance,” they said. “The findings suggest that hospital quality contributes at least in part to readmission rates, independent of patient factors. By studying patients who were admitted twice within 1 year with similar diagnoses to different hospitals, this study design was able to isolate hospital signals of performance while minimizing differences among the patients. In these cases, because the same patients had similar admissions at two hospitals, the characteristics of the patients, including their level of social disadvantage, level of education, or degree of underlying illness, were broadly the same. The alignment of the differences that we observed with the results of the CMS hospital-wide readmission measure also adds to evidence that the readmission measure classifies true differences in performance.”

Dr. Krumholz and seven coauthors reported receiving support from contracts with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to develop and reevaluate performance measures that are used for public reporting.

agallegos@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @legal_med

Poorer-performing hospitals have higher readmission rates than better-performing hospitals for patients with similar diagnoses, a study shows.

Lead author Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and his colleagues analyzed Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services hospital-wide readmission data and divided data from July 2014 through June 2015 into two random samples. Researchers used the first sample to calculate the risk-standardized readmission rate within 30 days for each hospital and classified hospitals into performance quartiles, with a lower readmission rate indicating better performance. The second study sample included patients who had two admissions for similar diagnoses at different hospitals that occurred more than 1 month and less than 1 year apart. Researchers compared the observed readmission rates among patients who had been admitted to hospitals in different performance quartiles. The analysis included all discharges occurring from July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015, from short-term acute care or critical access hospitals in the United States involving Medicare patients who were aged 65 years or older.

Copyright Kimberly Pack/Thinkstock

“This study addresses a persistent concern that national readmission measures may reflect differences in unmeasured factors rather than in hospital performance,” they said. “The findings suggest that hospital quality contributes at least in part to readmission rates, independent of patient factors. By studying patients who were admitted twice within 1 year with similar diagnoses to different hospitals, this study design was able to isolate hospital signals of performance while minimizing differences among the patients. In these cases, because the same patients had similar admissions at two hospitals, the characteristics of the patients, including their level of social disadvantage, level of education, or degree of underlying illness, were broadly the same. The alignment of the differences that we observed with the results of the CMS hospital-wide readmission measure also adds to evidence that the readmission measure classifies true differences in performance.”

Dr. Krumholz and seven coauthors reported receiving support from contracts with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to develop and reevaluate performance measures that are used for public reporting.

agallegos@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @legal_med

Poorer-performing hospitals have higher readmission rates than better-performing hospitals for patients with similar diagnoses, a study shows.

Lead author Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and his colleagues analyzed Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services hospital-wide readmission data and divided data from July 2014 through June 2015 into two random samples. Researchers used the first sample to calculate the risk-standardized readmission rate within 30 days for each hospital and classified hospitals into performance quartiles, with a lower readmission rate indicating better performance. The second study sample included patients who had two admissions for similar diagnoses at different hospitals that occurred more than 1 month and less than 1 year apart. Researchers compared the observed readmission rates among patients who had been admitted to hospitals in different performance quartiles. The analysis included all discharges occurring from July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015, from short-term acute care or critical access hospitals in the United States involving Medicare patients who were aged 65 years or older.

Copyright Kimberly Pack/Thinkstock

“This study addresses a persistent concern that national readmission measures may reflect differences in unmeasured factors rather than in hospital performance,” they said. “The findings suggest that hospital quality contributes at least in part to readmission rates, independent of patient factors. By studying patients who were admitted twice within 1 year with similar diagnoses to different hospitals, this study design was able to isolate hospital signals of performance while minimizing differences among the patients. In these cases, because the same patients had similar admissions at two hospitals, the characteristics of the patients, including their level of social disadvantage, level of education, or degree of underlying illness, were broadly the same. The alignment of the differences that we observed with the results of the CMS hospital-wide readmission measure also adds to evidence that the readmission measure classifies true differences in performance.”

Dr. Krumholz and seven coauthors reported receiving support from contracts with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to develop and reevaluate performance measures that are used for public reporting.

agallegos@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @legal_med

More than 40% of adults have either experienced a medical error or been involved in the care of someone who did, according to a recent national survey.

Specifically, 21% of American adults said that they have personally experienced a medical error and 31% said that they have been involved in the care of another person who experienced an error. The combined total, which includes some overlap, was 41% in the survey conducted by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI)/National Patient Safety Foundation (NPSF) and National Opinion Research Center (NORC), a nonpartisan research institution at the University of Chicago, .

Medical errors were defined for respondents as “mistakes [that] sometimes result in no harm, while other times they may result in additional or prolonged treatment, emotional distress, disability, or death,” investigators at IHI/NPSF and NORC said in their report.

A misdiagnosed medical problem was the most common type of medical error, reported by 59% of those with error experience. The next most common type of error was a mistake during a test, surgery, or treatment, which was mentioned by 46% of those with error experience, followed by a diagnosis that didn’t make sense (42%), lack of respect (39%), and incorrect instructions about follow-up care (29%), the IHI/HPSF and NORC report indicated.

Feelings of disrespect were more common among younger respondents: 46% of those aged 18-44 years said they were not treated with respect by a health care provider, compared with 34% of those aged 45 years and older. No differences in disrespect were seen with regard to socioeconomic status, health literacy, or English language proficiency. Those who spoke a language other than English at home, however, were more than twice as likely to get the wrong medication from a physician (34%) than were those who did not (15%), the report showed.

The survey, which had a sampling error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points, was conducted between May 12, 2017, and June 26, 2017, and involved 2,536 respondents. It was conducted with support from Medtronic.

rfranki@frontlinemedcom.com

More than 40% of adults have either experienced a medical error or been involved in the care of someone who did, according to a recent national survey.

Specifically, 21% of American adults said that they have personally experienced a medical error and 31% said that they have been involved in the care of another person who experienced an error. The combined total, which includes some overlap, was 41% in the survey conducted by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI)/National Patient Safety Foundation (NPSF) and National Opinion Research Center (NORC), a nonpartisan research institution at the University of Chicago, .

Medical errors were defined for respondents as “mistakes [that] sometimes result in no harm, while other times they may result in additional or prolonged treatment, emotional distress, disability, or death,” investigators at IHI/NPSF and NORC said in their report.

A misdiagnosed medical problem was the most common type of medical error, reported by 59% of those with error experience. The next most common type of error was a mistake during a test, surgery, or treatment, which was mentioned by 46% of those with error experience, followed by a diagnosis that didn’t make sense (42%), lack of respect (39%), and incorrect instructions about follow-up care (29%), the IHI/HPSF and NORC report indicated.

Feelings of disrespect were more common among younger respondents: 46% of those aged 18-44 years said they were not treated with respect by a health care provider, compared with 34% of those aged 45 years and older. No differences in disrespect were seen with regard to socioeconomic status, health literacy, or English language proficiency. Those who spoke a language other than English at home, however, were more than twice as likely to get the wrong medication from a physician (34%) than were those who did not (15%), the report showed.

The survey, which had a sampling error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points, was conducted between May 12, 2017, and June 26, 2017, and involved 2,536 respondents. It was conducted with support from Medtronic.

rfranki@frontlinemedcom.com

More than 40% of adults have either experienced a medical error or been involved in the care of someone who did, according to a recent national survey.

Specifically, 21% of American adults said that they have personally experienced a medical error and 31% said that they have been involved in the care of another person who experienced an error. The combined total, which includes some overlap, was 41% in the survey conducted by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI)/National Patient Safety Foundation (NPSF) and National Opinion Research Center (NORC), a nonpartisan research institution at the University of Chicago, .

Medical errors were defined for respondents as “mistakes [that] sometimes result in no harm, while other times they may result in additional or prolonged treatment, emotional distress, disability, or death,” investigators at IHI/NPSF and NORC said in their report.

A misdiagnosed medical problem was the most common type of medical error, reported by 59% of those with error experience. The next most common type of error was a mistake during a test, surgery, or treatment, which was mentioned by 46% of those with error experience, followed by a diagnosis that didn’t make sense (42%), lack of respect (39%), and incorrect instructions about follow-up care (29%), the IHI/HPSF and NORC report indicated.

Feelings of disrespect were more common among younger respondents: 46% of those aged 18-44 years said they were not treated with respect by a health care provider, compared with 34% of those aged 45 years and older. No differences in disrespect were seen with regard to socioeconomic status, health literacy, or English language proficiency. Those who spoke a language other than English at home, however, were more than twice as likely to get the wrong medication from a physician (34%) than were those who did not (15%), the report showed.

The survey, which had a sampling error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points, was conducted between May 12, 2017, and June 26, 2017, and involved 2,536 respondents. It was conducted with support from Medtronic.

rfranki@frontlinemedcom.com

Visit the NAMS annual meetings website

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Visit the NAMS annual meetings website

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Visit the NAMS annual meetings website

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

After nearly 2 months of negotiations, key senators said on Oct. 17 that they have reached a bipartisan deal on a proposal intended to stabilize the Affordable Care Act’s insurance market, which has been rocked by recent actions by President Donald Trump.

Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.), respectively the chairman and the top Democrat of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, negotiated the emerging deal. The milestone agreement, they said, would guarantee payment of cost-sharing reduction subsidies that help some policyholders with low incomes afford their deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs for 2 years, 2018 and 2019.

President Trump announced on Oct. 12 that he would stop funding the subsidies, which also have been the subject of a long-running lawsuit.

Even if it fails to become law, the deal marks a singular achievement that has been almost completely missing in Congress for the past 8 years – a bipartisan compromise on how to make the nation’s health insurance system work.

“This is an agreement I am proud to support,” Sen. Murray said on the Senate floor, “because of the message it sends about how to get things done.”

The proposal – which will require 60 votes to pass the Senate and agreement from a still-dubious House of Representatives – also would restore $110 million in ACA outreach funding cut by the Trump administration. That funding would help guide eligible individuals to sign up for coverage on the health insurance exchanges during the open enrollment period that runs from Nov. 1 to Dec. 15.

In exchange for those provisions, urged by Democrats and state officials, Republicans would win some changes to make it easier for states to apply for waivers that would let them experiment with alternative ways to provide and subsidize health insurance. The deal also would allow the sale of less comprehensive catastrophic plans in the health exchanges. Currently, such plans can be sold only to those under age 30 years.

On the Senate floor, Sen. Alexander said, “This agreement avoids chaos. I don’t know a Democrat or a Republican who benefits from chaos.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) reserved judgment about the deal.

Both parties still have some major disagreements when it comes to health care, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters on Oct. 17, but “I think there’s a growing consensus that in the short term we need stability in the markets. So we’ve achieved stability if this agreement becomes law.”

More than 60 senators have already participated in the meetings that led to the deal, Sen. Alexander said on the Senate floor. But the path to passage in the House is uncertain – with many conservatives vehemently opposed to anything that could be construed as helping the ACA succeed.

Rep. Mark Walker (R-N.C.), chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, tweeted on Oct. 17: “The GOP should focus on repealing & replacing Obamacare, not trying to save it. This bailout is unacceptable.”

Both Sen. Murray and Sen. Alexander said that they were still struggling over language to make sure that if the cost-sharing payments are resumed, insurers would not receive a windfall by keeping both those payments and the higher premiums that many states are allowing in anticipation of the payments being ended.

“We want to make sure that the cost-sharing payments go to the benefit of consumers, not the insurance companies,” Sen. Alexander said.

President Trump, who as recently as Oct. 16 called the cost-sharing subsidies “a payoff” to insurance companies, took credit for the negotiations. “If I didn’t cut the CSRs, they wouldn’t be meeting,” he said. That was not, in fact, the case. The negotiations had picked up some weeks ago after being called off earlier in September while the Senate tried for one last-ditch repeal vote.

On Oct. 13, White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney told Politico that the president would not allow a short-term fix, calling a restoration of the cost-sharing reduction funds “corporate welfare and bailouts for the insurance companies.”

But on Oct. 17 the president hailed the deal. “We think it’s going to not only save money, but give people much better health care with a very, very much smaller premium spike,” he told reporters.
 

Kaiser Health News is a national health policy news service that is part of the nonpartisan Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

After nearly 2 months of negotiations, key senators said on Oct. 17 that they have reached a bipartisan deal on a proposal intended to stabilize the Affordable Care Act’s insurance market, which has been rocked by recent actions by President Donald Trump.

Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.), respectively the chairman and the top Democrat of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, negotiated the emerging deal. The milestone agreement, they said, would guarantee payment of cost-sharing reduction subsidies that help some policyholders with low incomes afford their deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs for 2 years, 2018 and 2019.

President Trump announced on Oct. 12 that he would stop funding the subsidies, which also have been the subject of a long-running lawsuit.

Even if it fails to become law, the deal marks a singular achievement that has been almost completely missing in Congress for the past 8 years – a bipartisan compromise on how to make the nation’s health insurance system work.

“This is an agreement I am proud to support,” Sen. Murray said on the Senate floor, “because of the message it sends about how to get things done.”

The proposal – which will require 60 votes to pass the Senate and agreement from a still-dubious House of Representatives – also would restore $110 million in ACA outreach funding cut by the Trump administration. That funding would help guide eligible individuals to sign up for coverage on the health insurance exchanges during the open enrollment period that runs from Nov. 1 to Dec. 15.

In exchange for those provisions, urged by Democrats and state officials, Republicans would win some changes to make it easier for states to apply for waivers that would let them experiment with alternative ways to provide and subsidize health insurance. The deal also would allow the sale of less comprehensive catastrophic plans in the health exchanges. Currently, such plans can be sold only to those under age 30 years.

On the Senate floor, Sen. Alexander said, “This agreement avoids chaos. I don’t know a Democrat or a Republican who benefits from chaos.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) reserved judgment about the deal.

Both parties still have some major disagreements when it comes to health care, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters on Oct. 17, but “I think there’s a growing consensus that in the short term we need stability in the markets. So we’ve achieved stability if this agreement becomes law.”

More than 60 senators have already participated in the meetings that led to the deal, Sen. Alexander said on the Senate floor. But the path to passage in the House is uncertain – with many conservatives vehemently opposed to anything that could be construed as helping the ACA succeed.

Rep. Mark Walker (R-N.C.), chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, tweeted on Oct. 17: “The GOP should focus on repealing & replacing Obamacare, not trying to save it. This bailout is unacceptable.”

Both Sen. Murray and Sen. Alexander said that they were still struggling over language to make sure that if the cost-sharing payments are resumed, insurers would not receive a windfall by keeping both those payments and the higher premiums that many states are allowing in anticipation of the payments being ended.

“We want to make sure that the cost-sharing payments go to the benefit of consumers, not the insurance companies,” Sen. Alexander said.

President Trump, who as recently as Oct. 16 called the cost-sharing subsidies “a payoff” to insurance companies, took credit for the negotiations. “If I didn’t cut the CSRs, they wouldn’t be meeting,” he said. That was not, in fact, the case. The negotiations had picked up some weeks ago after being called off earlier in September while the Senate tried for one last-ditch repeal vote.

On Oct. 13, White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney told Politico that the president would not allow a short-term fix, calling a restoration of the cost-sharing reduction funds “corporate welfare and bailouts for the insurance companies.”

But on Oct. 17 the president hailed the deal. “We think it’s going to not only save money, but give people much better health care with a very, very much smaller premium spike,” he told reporters.
 

Kaiser Health News is a national health policy news service that is part of the nonpartisan Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

After nearly 2 months of negotiations, key senators said on Oct. 17 that they have reached a bipartisan deal on a proposal intended to stabilize the Affordable Care Act’s insurance market, which has been rocked by recent actions by President Donald Trump.

Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.), respectively the chairman and the top Democrat of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, negotiated the emerging deal. The milestone agreement, they said, would guarantee payment of cost-sharing reduction subsidies that help some policyholders with low incomes afford their deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs for 2 years, 2018 and 2019.

President Trump announced on Oct. 12 that he would stop funding the subsidies, which also have been the subject of a long-running lawsuit.

Even if it fails to become law, the deal marks a singular achievement that has been almost completely missing in Congress for the past 8 years – a bipartisan compromise on how to make the nation’s health insurance system work.

“This is an agreement I am proud to support,” Sen. Murray said on the Senate floor, “because of the message it sends about how to get things done.”

The proposal – which will require 60 votes to pass the Senate and agreement from a still-dubious House of Representatives – also would restore $110 million in ACA outreach funding cut by the Trump administration. That funding would help guide eligible individuals to sign up for coverage on the health insurance exchanges during the open enrollment period that runs from Nov. 1 to Dec. 15.

In exchange for those provisions, urged by Democrats and state officials, Republicans would win some changes to make it easier for states to apply for waivers that would let them experiment with alternative ways to provide and subsidize health insurance. The deal also would allow the sale of less comprehensive catastrophic plans in the health exchanges. Currently, such plans can be sold only to those under age 30 years.

On the Senate floor, Sen. Alexander said, “This agreement avoids chaos. I don’t know a Democrat or a Republican who benefits from chaos.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) reserved judgment about the deal.

Both parties still have some major disagreements when it comes to health care, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters on Oct. 17, but “I think there’s a growing consensus that in the short term we need stability in the markets. So we’ve achieved stability if this agreement becomes law.”

More than 60 senators have already participated in the meetings that led to the deal, Sen. Alexander said on the Senate floor. But the path to passage in the House is uncertain – with many conservatives vehemently opposed to anything that could be construed as helping the ACA succeed.

Rep. Mark Walker (R-N.C.), chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, tweeted on Oct. 17: “The GOP should focus on repealing & replacing Obamacare, not trying to save it. This bailout is unacceptable.”

Both Sen. Murray and Sen. Alexander said that they were still struggling over language to make sure that if the cost-sharing payments are resumed, insurers would not receive a windfall by keeping both those payments and the higher premiums that many states are allowing in anticipation of the payments being ended.

“We want to make sure that the cost-sharing payments go to the benefit of consumers, not the insurance companies,” Sen. Alexander said.

President Trump, who as recently as Oct. 16 called the cost-sharing subsidies “a payoff” to insurance companies, took credit for the negotiations. “If I didn’t cut the CSRs, they wouldn’t be meeting,” he said. That was not, in fact, the case. The negotiations had picked up some weeks ago after being called off earlier in September while the Senate tried for one last-ditch repeal vote.

On Oct. 13, White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney told Politico that the president would not allow a short-term fix, calling a restoration of the cost-sharing reduction funds “corporate welfare and bailouts for the insurance companies.”

But on Oct. 17 the president hailed the deal. “We think it’s going to not only save money, but give people much better health care with a very, very much smaller premium spike,” he told reporters.
 

Kaiser Health News is a national health policy news service that is part of the nonpartisan Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Older and younger patients benefited from varicose vein procedures, a finding that calls into question the use of compression therapy as the primary treatment for patients aged 65 years and older, according to the results of a prospectively maintained database study of all patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative Varicose Vein Registry–participating centers.

Procedures for varicose veins in 1,068 patients aged 65 years or older showed similar improvement in Clinical, Etiology, Anatomy, and Pathophysiology class and Venous Clinical Severity Score, compared with a group of 2,691 younger patients, according to a report published in Journal of Vascular Surgery: Venous and Lymphatic Disorders. Among patients younger than 65 years, 57.4% had an improvement, compared with 52% of patients aged 65 years or older.

copyright iStock /Thinkstock

mlesney@frontlinemedcom.com

Older and younger patients benefited from varicose vein procedures, a finding that calls into question the use of compression therapy as the primary treatment for patients aged 65 years and older, according to the results of a prospectively maintained database study of all patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative Varicose Vein Registry–participating centers.

Procedures for varicose veins in 1,068 patients aged 65 years or older showed similar improvement in Clinical, Etiology, Anatomy, and Pathophysiology class and Venous Clinical Severity Score, compared with a group of 2,691 younger patients, according to a report published in Journal of Vascular Surgery: Venous and Lymphatic Disorders. Among patients younger than 65 years, 57.4% had an improvement, compared with 52% of patients aged 65 years or older.

copyright iStock /Thinkstock

mlesney@frontlinemedcom.com

Older and younger patients benefited from varicose vein procedures, a finding that calls into question the use of compression therapy as the primary treatment for patients aged 65 years and older, according to the results of a prospectively maintained database study of all patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative Varicose Vein Registry–participating centers.

Procedures for varicose veins in 1,068 patients aged 65 years or older showed similar improvement in Clinical, Etiology, Anatomy, and Pathophysiology class and Venous Clinical Severity Score, compared with a group of 2,691 younger patients, according to a report published in Journal of Vascular Surgery: Venous and Lymphatic Disorders. Among patients younger than 65 years, 57.4% had an improvement, compared with 52% of patients aged 65 years or older.

copyright iStock /Thinkstock

mlesney@frontlinemedcom.com

ORLANDO – Vedolizumab therapy was associated with significant improvements in social satisfaction scores and steroid-free remission rates in biologic-naive patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) in a large prospective cohort.

The Internet-based cohort – Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation of America (CCFA) Partners – includes more than 15,000 IBD patients. For the current study, researchers evaluated 348 participants with Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who initiated vedolizumab therapy between 2014 and 2017 and who had at least 6 months’ follow-up.

sworcester@frontlinemedcom.com

ORLANDO – Vedolizumab therapy was associated with significant improvements in social satisfaction scores and steroid-free remission rates in biologic-naive patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) in a large prospective cohort.

The Internet-based cohort – Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation of America (CCFA) Partners – includes more than 15,000 IBD patients. For the current study, researchers evaluated 348 participants with Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who initiated vedolizumab therapy between 2014 and 2017 and who had at least 6 months’ follow-up.

sworcester@frontlinemedcom.com

ORLANDO – Vedolizumab therapy was associated with significant improvements in social satisfaction scores and steroid-free remission rates in biologic-naive patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) in a large prospective cohort.

The Internet-based cohort – Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation of America (CCFA) Partners – includes more than 15,000 IBD patients. For the current study, researchers evaluated 348 participants with Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who initiated vedolizumab therapy between 2014 and 2017 and who had at least 6 months’ follow-up.

sworcester@frontlinemedcom.com

In late August, the President signed legislation that provided $2.1 billion to extend a program that gives veterans enrolled in the VHA a “Choice” in where they receive care. In the next few months, Congress will consider various plans to redesign the Veterans Choice Program. As policy makers consider these options, they should assess not only the plan’s ability to remedy any problems in veterans’ access to care, but also its broader impact. Congress must ensure that the next Choice Program does not compromise VHA’s overall quality of health care services delivered to veterans—care that has been demonstrated, with geographic variations, to be equal to, and often superior to, non-VA care.

Launched in 2014 as part of the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act, the temporary Choice Program was meant to remedy a crisis of limited capacity, access, and excessive delays reported at many VHA facilities. The program offered non-VA options to veterans who had to wait long or travel far for their care. To date, the program has provided health care services to more than 1.6 million veterans.

As Senate and House VA committees began to draft new authorizing language for the program, many have spoken out about these issues and highlighted the unique importance of the VHA’s comprehensive, integrated model of care—one that is focused on the specific problems of veterans. NOVA, alongside its partners—Association of VA Psychologist Leaders, Association of VA Social Workers, and the organization Fighting for Veterans Healthcare—has provided their thoughts on the best solution to continue providing veterans timely access to this type of high-quality health care.

Congress must ensure far more than simply preserving the VHA’s innovative, integrated-care model. It must guarantee that the VHA’s system for clinically training the majority of U.S. health care professionals is maintained. The program funding must include a robust research department whose mission not only benefits veterans, but also the health care provided to every American. It must ensure that the community has the capacity to absorb an influx of veterans in a timely manner.

Community providers must be required to meet VHA’s elevated standards, use evidence-based treatments driven by measurement-based care, have knowledge of military culture and competence in veteran-specific problems, perform needed screenings, and be subject to the same training and continuing education requirements as VHA providers.

Given that non-VA care is more expensive than VHA care, Congress must ensure that any Choice care that veterans are offered is done so judiciously. Otherwise, the cost of Choice could wind up eroding VHA’s level of services. Finally, Congress also must ensure that the VHA is improved, not dismantled. As surveys and studies have shown, this is what the majority of veterans prefer and what they have been promised by administration and congressional leaders.

As VA nurses providing and coordinating care for veterans, we have a stake in how Choice and all community care is provided. As an organization, NOVA understands that community providers are a crucial part of an integrated network set up to provide care where there are shortages, but VHA must remain the first point of access and coordinator of that care.

Any new legislation addressing community-integrated care must include measures that hold providers accountable for performance and timeliness of care and services. It also must take into account the VHA’s unparalleled integration of primary and mental health care and the many wraparound services that are offered veterans.

Finally, the congressional budgeting process must include adequate funding for both VHA services and its integrated-community care accounts. The practice of reallocating funds from VHA health care accounts to pay for non-VA care cannot continue.

Making significant, lasting improvements in how VHA provides health care within its facilities and with partners in the community is unquestionably the right thing to do. It honors the sacred obligation we owe to veterans. Congress must be willing to invest in the VHA and provide veterans with the type of high-quality, veteran-centered care that serves their complex needs.

In late August, the President signed legislation that provided $2.1 billion to extend a program that gives veterans enrolled in the VHA a “Choice” in where they receive care. In the next few months, Congress will consider various plans to redesign the Veterans Choice Program. As policy makers consider these options, they should assess not only the plan’s ability to remedy any problems in veterans’ access to care, but also its broader impact. Congress must ensure that the next Choice Program does not compromise VHA’s overall quality of health care services delivered to veterans—care that has been demonstrated, with geographic variations, to be equal to, and often superior to, non-VA care.

Launched in 2014 as part of the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act, the temporary Choice Program was meant to remedy a crisis of limited capacity, access, and excessive delays reported at many VHA facilities. The program offered non-VA options to veterans who had to wait long or travel far for their care. To date, the program has provided health care services to more than 1.6 million veterans.

As Senate and House VA committees began to draft new authorizing language for the program, many have spoken out about these issues and highlighted the unique importance of the VHA’s comprehensive, integrated model of care—one that is focused on the specific problems of veterans. NOVA, alongside its partners—Association of VA Psychologist Leaders, Association of VA Social Workers, and the organization Fighting for Veterans Healthcare—has provided their thoughts on the best solution to continue providing veterans timely access to this type of high-quality health care.

Congress must ensure far more than simply preserving the VHA’s innovative, integrated-care model. It must guarantee that the VHA’s system for clinically training the majority of U.S. health care professionals is maintained. The program funding must include a robust research department whose mission not only benefits veterans, but also the health care provided to every American. It must ensure that the community has the capacity to absorb an influx of veterans in a timely manner.

Community providers must be required to meet VHA’s elevated standards, use evidence-based treatments driven by measurement-based care, have knowledge of military culture and competence in veteran-specific problems, perform needed screenings, and be subject to the same training and continuing education requirements as VHA providers.

Given that non-VA care is more expensive than VHA care, Congress must ensure that any Choice care that veterans are offered is done so judiciously. Otherwise, the cost of Choice could wind up eroding VHA’s level of services. Finally, Congress also must ensure that the VHA is improved, not dismantled. As surveys and studies have shown, this is what the majority of veterans prefer and what they have been promised by administration and congressional leaders.

As VA nurses providing and coordinating care for veterans, we have a stake in how Choice and all community care is provided. As an organization, NOVA understands that community providers are a crucial part of an integrated network set up to provide care where there are shortages, but VHA must remain the first point of access and coordinator of that care.

Any new legislation addressing community-integrated care must include measures that hold providers accountable for performance and timeliness of care and services. It also must take into account the VHA’s unparalleled integration of primary and mental health care and the many wraparound services that are offered veterans.

Finally, the congressional budgeting process must include adequate funding for both VHA services and its integrated-community care accounts. The practice of reallocating funds from VHA health care accounts to pay for non-VA care cannot continue.

Making significant, lasting improvements in how VHA provides health care within its facilities and with partners in the community is unquestionably the right thing to do. It honors the sacred obligation we owe to veterans. Congress must be willing to invest in the VHA and provide veterans with the type of high-quality, veteran-centered care that serves their complex needs.

In late August, the President signed legislation that provided $2.1 billion to extend a program that gives veterans enrolled in the VHA a “Choice” in where they receive care. In the next few months, Congress will consider various plans to redesign the Veterans Choice Program. As policy makers consider these options, they should assess not only the plan’s ability to remedy any problems in veterans’ access to care, but also its broader impact. Congress must ensure that the next Choice Program does not compromise VHA’s overall quality of health care services delivered to veterans—care that has been demonstrated, with geographic variations, to be equal to, and often superior to, non-VA care.

Launched in 2014 as part of the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act, the temporary Choice Program was meant to remedy a crisis of limited capacity, access, and excessive delays reported at many VHA facilities. The program offered non-VA options to veterans who had to wait long or travel far for their care. To date, the program has provided health care services to more than 1.6 million veterans.

As Senate and House VA committees began to draft new authorizing language for the program, many have spoken out about these issues and highlighted the unique importance of the VHA’s comprehensive, integrated model of care—one that is focused on the specific problems of veterans. NOVA, alongside its partners—Association of VA Psychologist Leaders, Association of VA Social Workers, and the organization Fighting for Veterans Healthcare—has provided their thoughts on the best solution to continue providing veterans timely access to this type of high-quality health care.

Congress must ensure far more than simply preserving the VHA’s innovative, integrated-care model. It must guarantee that the VHA’s system for clinically training the majority of U.S. health care professionals is maintained. The program funding must include a robust research department whose mission not only benefits veterans, but also the health care provided to every American. It must ensure that the community has the capacity to absorb an influx of veterans in a timely manner.

Community providers must be required to meet VHA’s elevated standards, use evidence-based treatments driven by measurement-based care, have knowledge of military culture and competence in veteran-specific problems, perform needed screenings, and be subject to the same training and continuing education requirements as VHA providers.

Given that non-VA care is more expensive than VHA care, Congress must ensure that any Choice care that veterans are offered is done so judiciously. Otherwise, the cost of Choice could wind up eroding VHA’s level of services. Finally, Congress also must ensure that the VHA is improved, not dismantled. As surveys and studies have shown, this is what the majority of veterans prefer and what they have been promised by administration and congressional leaders.

As VA nurses providing and coordinating care for veterans, we have a stake in how Choice and all community care is provided. As an organization, NOVA understands that community providers are a crucial part of an integrated network set up to provide care where there are shortages, but VHA must remain the first point of access and coordinator of that care.

Any new legislation addressing community-integrated care must include measures that hold providers accountable for performance and timeliness of care and services. It also must take into account the VHA’s unparalleled integration of primary and mental health care and the many wraparound services that are offered veterans.

Finally, the congressional budgeting process must include adequate funding for both VHA services and its integrated-community care accounts. The practice of reallocating funds from VHA health care accounts to pay for non-VA care cannot continue.

Making significant, lasting improvements in how VHA provides health care within its facilities and with partners in the community is unquestionably the right thing to do. It honors the sacred obligation we owe to veterans. Congress must be willing to invest in the VHA and provide veterans with the type of high-quality, veteran-centered care that serves their complex needs.

ORLANDO – A large percentage of U.S. gastroenterologists said that they don’t routinely order genetic testing for Lynch syndrome for patients with early-onset colorectal cancer, often because the physicians believe that the test is too expensive, or because they are unfamiliar with interpreting or applying the results, according to survey replies from 442 gastroenterologists.

Another factor hindering broader screening for Lynch syndrome (also known as hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer) is that many of the surveyed gastroenterologists did not see themselves as having primary responsibility for ordering Lynch syndrome testing in patients who develop colorectal cancer before reaching age 50 years, Jordan J. Karlitz, MD, and his associates reported in a poster at the World Congress of Gastroenterology at ACG 2017.

The survey results showed that only a third of the survey respondents believed it primarily was the attending gastroenterologist’s responsibility to order testing for Lynch syndrome using either a microsatellite DNA instability test or by immunohistochemistry. A larger percentage, 38%, said that ordering one of these tests was something that a pathologist should arrange, 15% said it was primarily the responsibility of the attending medical oncologist, and the remaining respondents cited a surgeon or genetic counselor as having primary responsibility for ordering the test.

This absence of a clear consensus on who orders the test shows a “diffusion of responsibility” that often means testing is never ordered, Dr. Karlitz said in a video interview. What’s needed instead is “reflex testing” that’s done automatically for appropriate patients, an approach that has become standard at several U.S. medical centers, he noted.

The survey Dr. Karlitz and his associates ran stemmed from a report they published in 2015 that focused on management of the 274 patients diagnosed with early-onset colorectal cancer in Louisiana during 2011, defined as cancers diagnosed in patients aged 50 years or younger. Data collected in the Louisiana Tumor Registry showed that Lynch syndrome testing occurred for only 23% of these patients, the researchers reported (Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 Jul;110[7]:948-55).

To better understand the underpinnings of this low testing rate they sent a survey about Lynch syndrome testing by email in March 2017 to nearly 12,000 physicians on the membership roster of the American College of Gastroenterology. They received 455 replies, with 442 (97%) of the responses from gastroenterologists. When asked why they might not order Lynch syndrome testing for patients with early-onset colorectal cancer, 22% said the cost of testing was prohibitive, 18% blamed their lack of familiarity with the Lynch syndrome tests and how to properly interpret their results, and 15% attributed their decision to a lack of easy access to genetic counseling for their patients, with additional reasons cited by fewer respondents.

Dr. Karlitz noted that current recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network call for Lynch syndrome testing for all patients who develop colorectal cancer regardless of their age at diagnosis.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

ORLANDO – A large percentage of U.S. gastroenterologists said that they don’t routinely order genetic testing for Lynch syndrome for patients with early-onset colorectal cancer, often because the physicians believe that the test is too expensive, or because they are unfamiliar with interpreting or applying the results, according to survey replies from 442 gastroenterologists.

Another factor hindering broader screening for Lynch syndrome (also known as hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer) is that many of the surveyed gastroenterologists did not see themselves as having primary responsibility for ordering Lynch syndrome testing in patients who develop colorectal cancer before reaching age 50 years, Jordan J. Karlitz, MD, and his associates reported in a poster at the World Congress of Gastroenterology at ACG 2017.

The survey results showed that only a third of the survey respondents believed it primarily was the attending gastroenterologist’s responsibility to order testing for Lynch syndrome using either a microsatellite DNA instability test or by immunohistochemistry. A larger percentage, 38%, said that ordering one of these tests was something that a pathologist should arrange, 15% said it was primarily the responsibility of the attending medical oncologist, and the remaining respondents cited a surgeon or genetic counselor as having primary responsibility for ordering the test.

This absence of a clear consensus on who orders the test shows a “diffusion of responsibility” that often means testing is never ordered, Dr. Karlitz said in a video interview. What’s needed instead is “reflex testing” that’s done automatically for appropriate patients, an approach that has become standard at several U.S. medical centers, he noted.

The survey Dr. Karlitz and his associates ran stemmed from a report they published in 2015 that focused on management of the 274 patients diagnosed with early-onset colorectal cancer in Louisiana during 2011, defined as cancers diagnosed in patients aged 50 years or younger. Data collected in the Louisiana Tumor Registry showed that Lynch syndrome testing occurred for only 23% of these patients, the researchers reported (Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 Jul;110[7]:948-55).

To better understand the underpinnings of this low testing rate they sent a survey about Lynch syndrome testing by email in March 2017 to nearly 12,000 physicians on the membership roster of the American College of Gastroenterology. They received 455 replies, with 442 (97%) of the responses from gastroenterologists. When asked why they might not order Lynch syndrome testing for patients with early-onset colorectal cancer, 22% said the cost of testing was prohibitive, 18% blamed their lack of familiarity with the Lynch syndrome tests and how to properly interpret their results, and 15% attributed their decision to a lack of easy access to genetic counseling for their patients, with additional reasons cited by fewer respondents.

Dr. Karlitz noted that current recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network call for Lynch syndrome testing for all patients who develop colorectal cancer regardless of their age at diagnosis.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

ORLANDO – A large percentage of U.S. gastroenterologists said that they don’t routinely order genetic testing for Lynch syndrome for patients with early-onset colorectal cancer, often because the physicians believe that the test is too expensive, or because they are unfamiliar with interpreting or applying the results, according to survey replies from 442 gastroenterologists.

Another factor hindering broader screening for Lynch syndrome (also known as hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer) is that many of the surveyed gastroenterologists did not see themselves as having primary responsibility for ordering Lynch syndrome testing in patients who develop colorectal cancer before reaching age 50 years, Jordan J. Karlitz, MD, and his associates reported in a poster at the World Congress of Gastroenterology at ACG 2017.

The survey results showed that only a third of the survey respondents believed it primarily was the attending gastroenterologist’s responsibility to order testing for Lynch syndrome using either a microsatellite DNA instability test or by immunohistochemistry. A larger percentage, 38%, said that ordering one of these tests was something that a pathologist should arrange, 15% said it was primarily the responsibility of the attending medical oncologist, and the remaining respondents cited a surgeon or genetic counselor as having primary responsibility for ordering the test.

This absence of a clear consensus on who orders the test shows a “diffusion of responsibility” that often means testing is never ordered, Dr. Karlitz said in a video interview. What’s needed instead is “reflex testing” that’s done automatically for appropriate patients, an approach that has become standard at several U.S. medical centers, he noted.

The survey Dr. Karlitz and his associates ran stemmed from a report they published in 2015 that focused on management of the 274 patients diagnosed with early-onset colorectal cancer in Louisiana during 2011, defined as cancers diagnosed in patients aged 50 years or younger. Data collected in the Louisiana Tumor Registry showed that Lynch syndrome testing occurred for only 23% of these patients, the researchers reported (Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 Jul;110[7]:948-55).

To better understand the underpinnings of this low testing rate they sent a survey about Lynch syndrome testing by email in March 2017 to nearly 12,000 physicians on the membership roster of the American College of Gastroenterology. They received 455 replies, with 442 (97%) of the responses from gastroenterologists. When asked why they might not order Lynch syndrome testing for patients with early-onset colorectal cancer, 22% said the cost of testing was prohibitive, 18% blamed their lack of familiarity with the Lynch syndrome tests and how to properly interpret their results, and 15% attributed their decision to a lack of easy access to genetic counseling for their patients, with additional reasons cited by fewer respondents.

Dr. Karlitz noted that current recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network call for Lynch syndrome testing for all patients who develop colorectal cancer regardless of their age at diagnosis.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler