Original Article
Impact of Evidence-Based Guidelines on Outcomes of Hospitalized Patients With Clostridium difficile Infection
Abstract
Objectives: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is the most common healthcare-associated infection in the United States. Clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of CDI were updated in 2010 by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. An institutional guideline for the classification and management of CDI in accordance with the 2010 Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America/Infectious Diseases Society of America guideline was developed and provided to attending physicians and medical residents in multiple formats.Methods: We sought to determine the impact of an evidence-based guideline for the treatment of CDI at a community teaching hospital. A retrospective chart review was conducted to identify length of stay (LOS), readmission rates, direct cost, mortality, and physician adherence to guidelines in patients with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition codes and laboratory confirmation of CDI between February 1, 2013 and January 31, 2014. Endpoints included LOS after diagnosis of CDI, 30-day readmission rates, direct cost after diagnosis of CDI, and mortality.
Results: A total of 351 patient encounters were included in the study. Although not statistically significant, it was found that guideline-based therapy (n = 131) was associated with a lower median LOS (6 days vs 8 days; P = 0.06). Thirty-day hospital readmission (25.2% vs 29.5%; P = 0.39) and median cost after diagnosis of CDI ($7238.48 vs $8794.81; P = 0.10) also were lower but not statistically significant. Patients with mild-to-moderate infection were found to have a significantly lower median LOS (5 days vs 7 days; P = 0.03) and median cost after diagnosis ($5257.85 vs $7680.56; P = 0.03) when treated with guideline-based therapy. Overall physician adherence to guidelines was low, at 38%.
Conclusions: Treatment with guideline-based therapy for CDI was associated with a trend toward a significantly lower LOS and cost. Barriers to physician adherence to guidelines still exist, despite education and guideline availability. Electronic health record–based order sets or clinical decision tools may improve recognition of and adherence to guidelines.
This content is limited to qualifying members.
Existing members, please login first
If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.
Purchase only this article ($25)
Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.
Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)
Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.
Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)
Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.
References
1. Magill SS, Edwards JR, Bamberg W, et al. Multistate point-prevalence survey of health care-associated infections. N Engl J Med 2014;370: 1198-1208.
2. Lessa FC, Mu Y, Bamberg WM, et al. Burden of Clostridium difficile infection in the United States. N Engl J Med 2015;372:825-834.
3. Forster AJ, Taljaard MT, Oake N, et al. The effect of hospital-acquired infection with Clostridium difficile on length of stay in hospital. CMAJ 2012;184:37-42.
4. Dubberke ER, Olsen MA. Burden of Clostridium difficile on the healthcare system. Clin Infect Dis 2012;5(Suppl 2):S88-S92.
5. Zar FA, Bakkanagari SR, Moorthi KM, et al. A comparison of vancomycin and metronidazole for the treatment of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea, stratified by disease severity. Clin Infect Dis 2007;45:302-307.
6. Cohen SH, Gerding DN, Johnson S, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for Clostridium difficile infection in adults: 2010 update by the society for healthcare epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31:431-455.
7. McEllistrem MC, McGraw M, Sahud AG. High frequency of nonadherence to Clostridium difficile treatment guidelines. South Med J 2014:107597-599.
8. Saviteer SM, Samsa GP, Rutala WA. Nosocomial infections in the elderly. Increased risk per hospital day. Am J Med 1988;84:661-666.
9. Johnson S, Louie TJ, Gerding DN, et al. Vancomycin, metronidazole, or tolevamer for Clostridium difficile infection: results from two multinational, randomized, controlled trials. Clin Infect Dis 2014;59:345-354.
10. Drekonja DM, Butler M, MacDonald R, et al. Comparative effectiveness of Clostridium difficile treatments: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:839-847.
11. Hensgens MP, Goorhuis A, Dekkers OM, et al. Time interval of increased risk for Clostridium difficile infection after exposure to antibiotics. J Antimicrob Chemother 2012;67:742-748.
12. Surawicz CM, Brandt LJ, Binion DG, et al. Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of Clostridium difficile infections. Am J Gastroenterol 2013;108:478-499.
13. Wenisch JM, Equiluz-Bruck S, Fudel M, et al. Decreasing Clostridium difficile infections by an antimicrobial stewardship program that reduces moxifloxacin use. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014;58: 5079-5083.
14. Talpaert MJ, Gopal Rao G, Cooper BS, et al. Impact of guidelines and enhanced antibiotic stewardship on reducing broad-spectrum antibiotic usage and its effect on incidence of Clostridium difficile infection. J Antimicrob Chemother 2011;66:2168-2174.
15. Aldeyab MA, Kearney MP, Scott MG, et al. An evaluation of the impact of antibiotic stewardship on reducing the use of high-risk antibiotics and its effect on the incidence of Clostridium difficile infection in hospital settings. J Antimicrob Chemother 2012;67:2988-2996.
16. Feazel LM, Malhotra A, Perencevich EN, et al. Effect of antibiotic stewardship programmes on Clostridium difficile incidence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother 2014;69:1748-1754.
