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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mayer, Jeanmarie, Horth, Roberta, Todd, Madison, Gruninger, Randon, Nakashima, Allyn K
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