Cargando…
2480. Communication During Patient Transfers: Describing Gaps in the Infectious Status Information Pipeline
BACKGROUND: Fragmented communication of patients’ infectious status across healthcare networks impact regional spread of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO). This study aimed to quantify gaps in communication of patient MDRO status across Utah healthcare facilities and to identify opportunities to...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6809929/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.2158 |
_version_ | 1783462120556331008 |
---|---|
author | Mayer, Jeanmarie Horth, Roberta Todd, Madison Gruninger, Randon Nakashima, Allyn K |
author_facet | Mayer, Jeanmarie Horth, Roberta Todd, Madison Gruninger, Randon Nakashima, Allyn K |
author_sort | Mayer, Jeanmarie |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Fragmented communication of patients’ infectious status across healthcare networks impact regional spread of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO). This study aimed to quantify gaps in communication of patient MDRO status across Utah healthcare facilities and to identify opportunities to improve. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional retrospective mixed-methods study of patient transfers from three purposively selected healthcare facilities: an acute care (ACF), long-term acute care (LTAC), and skilled-nursing facility (SNF). Patients with known MDRO transferred out of these facilities over the previous week were identified in bimonthly samples spanning 2 months. Infection preventionists and admission nurses from facilities receiving these patients were interviewed. RESULTS: Of 293 patients transferred to another facility, 13% (n = 38) had an active infection or colonization with an MDRO. These 38 patients were transferred to 26 healthcare facilities within the state (4 ACF, 3 LTAC, 19 SNF). Gram-negative organisms with resistance to a carbapenem accounted for 15.8% of those transferred with an MDRO. There was no documentation of the state infection control transfer form (ICTF) at the sending facility for 68.5% of MDRO patient transfers. Of 22 admitting nurses interviewed, 19 (86.4%) did not receive an ICTF, 6 (27.3%) received no communication regarding patients’ infectious status, and 11 (50%) had to contact the sending facility for additional information. Moreover, 18.2% of patients had not been put on appropriate precautions. Several nurses expressed confusion with MDRO definitions and lack of guidance regarding care of MDRO colonized patients. Among infection preventionists asked about general MDRO transfers (n = 26), 26.9% reported that communication on infectious status of MDRO patients was received in under 40% of incoming transfers. When asked about a planned statewide MDRO registry, 80.8% felt that such a system would be actively searched at their facility, and 96.2% felt that a system that pushes out alerts would be useful. CONCLUSION: Given the widespread gaps in communication of infectious status of patients with MDROs transferred across the healthcare facilities sampled, efforts to standardize and improve MDRO communication in the region is warranted. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6809929 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-68099292019-10-28 2480. Communication During Patient Transfers: Describing Gaps in the Infectious Status Information Pipeline Mayer, Jeanmarie Horth, Roberta Todd, Madison Gruninger, Randon Nakashima, Allyn K Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts BACKGROUND: Fragmented communication of patients’ infectious status across healthcare networks impact regional spread of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO). This study aimed to quantify gaps in communication of patient MDRO status across Utah healthcare facilities and to identify opportunities to improve. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional retrospective mixed-methods study of patient transfers from three purposively selected healthcare facilities: an acute care (ACF), long-term acute care (LTAC), and skilled-nursing facility (SNF). Patients with known MDRO transferred out of these facilities over the previous week were identified in bimonthly samples spanning 2 months. Infection preventionists and admission nurses from facilities receiving these patients were interviewed. RESULTS: Of 293 patients transferred to another facility, 13% (n = 38) had an active infection or colonization with an MDRO. These 38 patients were transferred to 26 healthcare facilities within the state (4 ACF, 3 LTAC, 19 SNF). Gram-negative organisms with resistance to a carbapenem accounted for 15.8% of those transferred with an MDRO. There was no documentation of the state infection control transfer form (ICTF) at the sending facility for 68.5% of MDRO patient transfers. Of 22 admitting nurses interviewed, 19 (86.4%) did not receive an ICTF, 6 (27.3%) received no communication regarding patients’ infectious status, and 11 (50%) had to contact the sending facility for additional information. Moreover, 18.2% of patients had not been put on appropriate precautions. Several nurses expressed confusion with MDRO definitions and lack of guidance regarding care of MDRO colonized patients. Among infection preventionists asked about general MDRO transfers (n = 26), 26.9% reported that communication on infectious status of MDRO patients was received in under 40% of incoming transfers. When asked about a planned statewide MDRO registry, 80.8% felt that such a system would be actively searched at their facility, and 96.2% felt that a system that pushes out alerts would be useful. CONCLUSION: Given the widespread gaps in communication of infectious status of patients with MDROs transferred across the healthcare facilities sampled, efforts to standardize and improve MDRO communication in the region is warranted. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures. Oxford University Press 2019-10-23 /pmc/articles/PMC6809929/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.2158 Text en © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com |
spellingShingle | Abstracts Mayer, Jeanmarie Horth, Roberta Todd, Madison Gruninger, Randon Nakashima, Allyn K 2480. Communication During Patient Transfers: Describing Gaps in the Infectious Status Information Pipeline |
title | 2480. Communication During Patient Transfers: Describing Gaps in the Infectious Status Information Pipeline |
title_full | 2480. Communication During Patient Transfers: Describing Gaps in the Infectious Status Information Pipeline |
title_fullStr | 2480. Communication During Patient Transfers: Describing Gaps in the Infectious Status Information Pipeline |
title_full_unstemmed | 2480. Communication During Patient Transfers: Describing Gaps in the Infectious Status Information Pipeline |
title_short | 2480. Communication During Patient Transfers: Describing Gaps in the Infectious Status Information Pipeline |
title_sort | 2480. communication during patient transfers: describing gaps in the infectious status information pipeline |
topic | Abstracts |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6809929/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.2158 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mayerjeanmarie 2480communicationduringpatienttransfersdescribinggapsintheinfectiousstatusinformationpipeline AT horthroberta 2480communicationduringpatienttransfersdescribinggapsintheinfectiousstatusinformationpipeline AT toddmadison 2480communicationduringpatienttransfersdescribinggapsintheinfectiousstatusinformationpipeline AT gruningerrandon 2480communicationduringpatienttransfersdescribinggapsintheinfectiousstatusinformationpipeline AT nakashimaallynk 2480communicationduringpatienttransfersdescribinggapsintheinfectiousstatusinformationpipeline |