IHI Expedition Reducing Clostridium difficile Infections Session 2: - - PDF document

10/16/2014 1

IHI Expedition

Reducing Clostridium difficile Infections Session 2: Rapid Detection and Isolation July 9, 2014

These presenters have nothing to disclose

Brian Koll, MD Cliff McDonald, MD Diane Jacobsen MPH, CPHQ

Today’s Host

2

Morgen Palfrey, Project Coordinator, Institute for Healthcare Improvement, is the current coordinator for web- based Expeditions. She also contributes to the IHI Leadership Alliance, the Always Project, and works with Strategic Partners in Singapore. Morgen is a member of Work- Life Wellness Team and Diversity and Inclusion Council at IHI, where she and fellow staff members develop strategies for improving the mind and body. Morgen graduated from the University of Florida in Gainesville, FL where she received her Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science with a concentration in Public Administration.

10/16/2014 2

Audio Broadcast

3

You will see a box in the top left hand corner labeled “Audio broadcast.” If you are able to listen to the program using the speakers on your computer, you have connected successfully.

Phone Connection (Preferred)

4

To join by phone: 1) Click the button on the right hand side of the screen. 2) A pop-up box will appear with call in information. 3) Please dial the phone number, the event number and your attendee ID to connect correctly .

10/16/2014 3

Audio Broadcast vs. Phone Connection

If you using the audio broadcast (through your computer) you will not be able to speak during the WebEx to ask question. All questions will need to come through the chat. If you are using the phone connection (through your telephone) you will be able to raise your hand, be unmuted, and ask questions during the session. Phone connection is preferred if you have access to a phone.

5

WebEx Quick Reference

• Welcome to today’s

session!

• Please use chat to “All

Participants” for questions

• For technology issues only,

please chat to “Host”

• WebEx Technical Support:

866-569-3239

• Dial-in Info: Communicate /

Join Teleconference (in menu)

6

Raise your hand Select Chat recipient Enter Text

10/16/2014 4

7

When Chatting…

Please send your message to All Participants

Expedition Director

8

Diane Jacobsen, MPH, CPHQ, Director, Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) is currently directing the CDC/IHI Antibiotic Stewardship Initiative, NSLIJ/IHI Reducing Sepsis Mortality Collaborative. Ms. Jacobsen served as IHI content lead and improvement advisor for the California Healthcare-Associated Infection Prevention Initiative (CHAIPI) and directed Expeditions

• n Antibiotic Stewardship, Preventing CA-UTIs,

Reducing C.difficle Infections, Sepsis, Stroke Care and Patient Flow. She served as faculty for IHI’s 100,000 Lives and 5 Million Lives Campaign and directed improvement collaboratives on Sepsis Mortality, Patient Flow, Surgical Complications, Reducing Hospital Mortality Rates (HSMR) and co-directed IHI’s Spread

• Initiative. She is an epidemiologist with experience in

quality improvement, risk management, and infection control in specialty, academic, and community hospitals. A graduate of the University of Wisconsin, she earned her master’s degree in Public Health- Epidemiology.

10/16/2014 5

Today’s Agenda

9

Introductions Action Period Assignment Debrief Rapid Detection & Isolation Action Period Assignment

Expedition Objectives

At the end of this Expedition, participants will be able to: Explain the impact of the increasing incidence and severity of C. difficile on hospitals Discuss key approaches to preventing the spread of C. difficile in the hospital setting Identify and begin improving at least one key process for impacting C. difficile in their hospital

10

10/16/2014 6

Schedule of Calls

Session 1 – Making the Case for Reducing Clostridium difficile Infections (CDI) Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2:00 – 3:30 PM ET Session 2 – Rapid Detection and Isolation Date: Wednesday, July 9, 2:00 – 3:00 PM ET Session 3 – Symptom Recognition, Precautions, and the Role of the Environment Date: Wednesday, July 23, 2:00 – 3:00 PM ET Session 4 – Antibiotic Stewardship Date: Wednesday, August 6, 2:00 – 3:00 PM ET Session 5 – The Role of Leadership Date: Wednesday, August 20, 2:00 – 3:00 PM ET Session 6 – Transitions and Long- term Care Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2:00 – 3:00 PM ET

11

Action Period Assignment Debrief

Assess your current process for identifying patients with C

• diff. Does it include:
• A flagging system for patients previously hospitalized with

C diff?

• Prompt implementation of isolation precautions for

patients suspected of C diff, pending laboratory confirmation?

• Prompt notification from the laboratory of results of

testing? “Assess” this process by interviewing a bedside nurse on a unit caring for C diff patient(s)

What did you learn? Insights? Surprises?

12

10/16/2014 7

Faculty

13

Brian Koll, MD, FACP, FIDSA, Executive Director for Infection Prevention, the Mount Sinai Health System, New York, NY, is a nationally-renowned and award-winning infection prevention expert. He has been featured on CBC Evening News for successful efforts to reduce central line associated bloodstream infections, on World News Tonight for successful efforts to control

• C. difficile, and in a national public service

announcement regarding this disease by the Peggy Lillis Memorial Foundation.

Faculty

14

Cliff McDonald, MD, is a former officer in the Epidemic Intelligence Service and is currently the Senior Advisor for Science in the Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion at the CDC. This division seeks to protect patients and healthcare personnel and promotes safety and quality in healthcare delivery systems. Examples of activities include programs for addressing antimicrobial resistance, healthcare-associated infections, and other adverse events affecting patients and healthcare workers. Dr. McDonald is an expert in Clostridium difficile, an antibiotic resistant bacterium.

• Dr. McDonald graduated from Northwestern University Medical School in
• Chicago. He completed his Internal Medicine Residency at Michigan State and

an Infectious Diseases Fellowship at the University of South Alabama, following which he completed a fellowship in Medical Microbiology at Duke University. Past positions have included Associate Investigator at the National Health Research Institutes in Taiwan, where he helped develop an island-wide surveillance system for antimicrobial resistance, and Assistant Professor in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of Louisville, where he worked as a hospital epidemiologist in infection control. He is the author or co-author of

• ver 100 peer-reviewed publications, is a Fellow of the American College of

Physicians and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, and a member of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and American Society for Microbiology. Areas of Expertise include: C. Difficile, Drug Resistant Pathogens, and Healthcare Associated Infections To request an interview, call CDC′s Division of Media Relations at (404) 639- 3286, or e-mail us at media@cdc.gov.

10/16/2014 8

Changing from EIA to GDH PCR Testing for CDI

Acknowledgements

Research Fellow

• Jennifer Leoniak DO

Data Collection

• Jonathan Martin, MD
• Rie Ueno, MD
• Aaron Etra, MD

Statistical Analysis

• David Lucido, PhD

Microbiologic Data

• William Riley, PhD

Pharmaceutical Data

• Tom Jodlowski, PhD

16

10/16/2014 9

BACKGROUND

▶ Clostridium difficile (CDI) is the most commonly

recognized cause of infectious diarrhea in health care settings and is one of the most common healthcare associated infections

▶ The

goals

• f

testing patients with clinical significant diarrhea (CSD) are to identify cases

• f Clostridium difficile infection.

Cohen, S.H., Gerding, D.N., Johnson, S., Kelly, C.P., Loo, V.G., McDonald, L.C., Pepin, J., Wilcox, M.H., 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). Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 2010; 31 (5): 431 – 455.

17

BACKGROUND: Testing Algorithms

▶ One of the ways hospitals can decrease CDI

incidence and decrease length of stay is through improved testing protocols, which can decrease spread of CDI through increased detection and more rapid implementation of infection control measures.

▶ Diagnostic testing for CDI has undergone a

paradigm shift in recent years from immunoassay for toxins A and B, to the newer molecular assays or combination algorithms

18

10/16/2014 10

BACKGROUND: Performance for Testing Strategies

Performance Characteristics: Results for Different Testing Strategies Assay(s) Sensitivity % Specificity %

• Approx. Cost of Testing

Materials at our Facility ($) Toxin A/B alone 32-98.7 84-100 5.00 GDH and toxin A/B EIA 41-92 94-100 15.00 GDH/toxin A/B EIA and molecular 68-100 97-100 15.00-30.00 Molecular alone 73-100 91-100 30.00

19

GDH assay had lower sensitivities with specimens positive for ribotypes other than 027

BACKGROUND: FDA APPROVED PCR

Food and Drug Administration-Approved Polymerase Chain Reaction Assays for Clostridium difficile Gene Target (s) Time (min) tcdB 75-100 tcdB 180-200 tcdB +/- tcdC Binary toxin 30-45 tcdB 60-90 tcdA tcdB tcdC 110-120

20

tdcC gene is found in NAP1/BI/O27 strains and is associated with increased toxin production

10/16/2014 11

Stool Sample

GDH Positive Toxin Positive “TRUE POSITIVE” GDH Positive Toxin Negative “Possible CDI”

PCR for Toxin Positive Negative

GDH Negative Toxin Negative “TRUE NEGATIVE”

CDI Protocol

• When CDI test ordered, patient automatically

placed on contact precautions

• When patient placed on oral metronidazole or
• ral vancomycin, review for need for contact

precautions

• CDI result treated as critical value with results

called to the patient care area

• Education of healthcare providers

– Frequency of testing – Interpretation of results

22

10/16/2014 12

Results of CDI Testing

23

Results of CDI Testing

24

10/16/2014 13

Results of CDI Testing

25

Results of CDI Testing

26

10/16/2014 14

New York State DOH Hospital Acquired Infections Report 2012

27

Contact Precautions Traffic Light

PATIENTS ON ISOLATION PRECAUTIONS March 7, 2013 Patient MR# Room Source Organism Precautions F 6 5L02A

Blood

MDR Acinetobacter / VRE Strict Contact G 7 5L03A Urine / Wound MDR Klebsiella / VRE Strict Contact H 8 5L03B Blood MDR Acinetobacter / VRE Strict Contact I 9 5L03C Blood / Nasal MDR Klebsiella / MRSA Strict Contact J 10 5L04C Wound

MDR Klebsiella / MDR Pseudomonas / VRE/ MDR Acinetobacter

Strict Contact M 13 SICU10 Blood / Wound MRSA Contact N 14 SICU01 Abscess VRE Contact O 15 11L16P Wound MRSA / C. difficile Contact P 16 11L12B Stool MRSA Contact U 21 5L01B Nasal MRSA Contact V 22 5L02B Sputum MRSA Contact W 23 MICU07

• C. difficile

Contact X 24 11L12B

• C. difficile

Contact Y 25 10D05S

• C. difficile

Contact

10/16/2014 15

Contact Precautions Traffic Light

Patients with Multi-Drug Resistant (MDR)

• r

Pan-Drug Resistant (PDR) Acinetobacter, Klebsiella, etc. should be on strict contact precautions and

• cohorted. Staff caring for these patients should not care for other non-infected
• patients. Equipment used on these patients should not be used on non-infected

patients. Care givers should wear gowns and gloves when entering the room to see these patients. Masks should be worn if suctioning is necessary. Rooms must be terminally cleaned after a patient with this organism is discharged and cleared by Infection Control before a new patient is admitted. Patients with Clostridium difficile should be cohorted. Upon discharge, the room must be terminally cleaned using a 1:10 bleach solution after initial cleaning with the hospital approved germicide. While a patient is in the hospital a 1:10 bleach solution should be used for daily cleaning as needed.

CDI Bundle Compliance Ownership by the Unit

10/16/2014 16

New York State DOH Hospital Acquired Infections Report 2012 New York State DOH Hospital Acquired Infections Report 2012

10/16/2014 17

Patient Demographics

Patient Demographic EIA n = 331 GDH PCR n = 495 p Value Age (mean) 64 65 0.663 Female 175 (53) 273 (55) 0.576 Race White 175 (53) 257 (52) 0.767 Black 56 (17) 94 (19) 0.368 Hispanic 46 (14) 64 (13) 0.542 Asian 30 (9) 35 (7) 0.352 Other 20 (6) 46 (8) 0.331 Charlson Comorbidity Index (mean) 13 (4) 20 (4) 0.689 Prior Hospitalization 113 (34) 173 (35) 0.658 CDI positive patients 31(9) 37(7) 0.3326

Patient Demographics

EIA (n=31) GDH PCR (n=37) p Value Severity in Positive Patients Mild to Moderate 17 21 0.874 Severe 11 11 0.613 Severe Complicated 3 5 0.625

10/16/2014 18

TESTING

EIA (n=331) GDH PCR (n=495) p Value Total Test Cost ($) 10 (5-30) 22 <0.000 Mean Days to Final Test Result 3 (1-13) 2 (1-8) <0.000 EIA (n=31) GDH PCR (n=37) p Value Total Test Cost ($) 12 41 <0.000 Mean Days to Final Test Result 3 (1-8) 3 (1-6) 0.6493

TESTING (CDI POSITIVE PATIENTS) Number of Tests Performed

Total EIA Tests Performed n = 635 Total GDH PCR Performed n = 604 50 100 150 200 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Quantity of EIA Tests Ordered During a Single Episode 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 1 2 3 4 Number of GDH PCR Tests Ordered During a Single Episode

36

10/16/2014 19

RESULTS FOR PCR

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 1 2 3 Results Number Positive 26 (45%) Negative 32 (55%)

58 (12%) out of 495 possible CDI

NUMBER OF PCR TESTS PERFORMED IN A SINGLE EPISODE

5 10 15 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Number of Hospital Days to PCR Results

37

RESULTS FOR ALL PATIENTS

EIA (n=331) GDH PCR (n=495) p Value Length of Stay (mean) 19 12 <0.000 30d Readmission 86 (26) 134 (27) 0.774 Total Test Costs ($) 10 22 <0.000 Mean CDI Antibiotic Cost ($) 12 6 0.0016 Death within 30d 23 11 0.001

10/16/2014 20

RESULTS FOR CDI POSITIVE PATIENTS

EIA (n=31) GDH PCR (n=37) p Value Mean Length of Stay 28 15 <0.014 Escalation of Care 13 6 0.019 Mean Total Test Costs ($) 12 41 <0.000 Mean CD Antibiotic Cost ($) 61 30 0.0741 Recurrence within 30 days 5 2 0.147 Death within 30d 9 2 <0.000

EIA to GDH PCR for CDI

• The

amount

• f

CDI detected was not significantly different between the two testing methodologies

• 12% required confirmatory testing by PCR
• Decreased time to result by one day
• During time period GDH PCR in place

– Decrease in length of stay – Decrease in antibiotic costs – Decrease in escalation of care – Decrease in all cause 30 day mortality – Increase in cost of testing

10/16/2014 21

EIA to GDH PCR for CDI

• During time period GDH PCR in place

– Decrease in length of stay – Decrease in antibiotic costs – Increase in cost of testing

• Costs during EIA = $1,705,090
• Costs during GDH PCR = $1,099,440
• Reduction in costs overall = $605,650

Questions/Discussion

42

Raise your hand Use the Chat

10/16/2014 22

Carolyn Gould, MD, MSCR

• L. Clifford McDonald, MD, FACP, SHEA

Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Clostridium difficile Infection: Rapid Detection and Isolation

National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion

Vital Signs: 6 Key Components

• f Prevention

 Prescribe and use antibiotics carefully  Focus on an early and reliable diagnosis  Isolate patients immediately  Wear gloves and gowns for all contact with patient

and patient care environment

 Assure adequate cleaning of the patient care

environment, augment with EPA-registered C. difficile sporicidal disinfectant

 Notify facilities upon patient transfer

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6109a3.htm

Rapid detection and isolation

10/16/2014 23

Components of Rapid Detection and Isolation

Screen patients for new-onset diarrhea on admission and

• n a regular

basis. Facilitate early testing. Consider nurse-driven protocols. Pair testing with

• rder for Contact

Precautions. Use more sensitive testing methods.

Optimizing Testing

 Enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for toxin sensitivity 48%-

67%

 More sensitive tests:

• Nucleic-acid amplification tests (NAAT)
• Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)
• Loop-mediated amplification (LAMP)
• GDH + toxin testing of positive specimens
• GDH less sensitive (79%-98%) compared to NAAT or toxigenic

culture in a recent meta-analysis

Tenover FC, Novak-Weekley S, Woods CW, et al. J Clin Microbiol 2010; 48:3719–24 Tenover et al. J Mol Diagn 2011;13:573-82 Peterson et al. Clin Infect Dis 2007;45:1152-60 Shetty et al. J Hosp Infect 2011;77:1-6

10/16/2014 24

Typical Diagnostic Algorithm for Detection of Toxigenic C. difficile in Stool Specimens

Kufelnicka and Kirn T J Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52:1451-57

FDA-Approved Commercial NAAT Assays

 5 currently

• 4 use PCR to detect toxin B gene (tcdB)
• 1 uses LAMP to detect toxin A gene (tcdA)
• Only LAMP assay specifically cleared for testing symptomatic

children 1-2 years of age

• Although some C. difficile strains are toxin A negative, vestigial tcdA

sequences still present in such strains are reportedly sufficient to provide a signal

Tenover et al. J Mol Diagn 2011;13:573-82 http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances

10/16/2014 25

First and Foremost…

• For any testing method, you need a favorable pre-

test probability of disease for optimal performance

– Diagnostic accuracy improves with increasing prevalence of disease in the population tested

• That means testing appropriately:

– Watery/unformed stool (conforms to shape of container) – At least 3 unformed stools in 24 hours – Avoidance of repeat testing, tests of cure

• Lab stool rejection policies important

Making Early and Accurate Diagnosis a Reality

To Realize Benefit of NAAT Need a Rational Testing Strategy

 Meta-analysis of 19

studies, 7392 samples

 Mean sensitivity: 90%  Mean specificity: 96%

Deshpande et al. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2011;53(7):e81–e90

“…a 15-20% testing prevalence with a NAAT may be more achievable than a 8-12% prevalence with an EIA…”

• -LC McDonald

10/16/2014 26

Results of Repeat PCR Tests Following a Negative Result.

Luo R F and Banaei N J. Clin. Microbiol. 2010;48:3738-41

How Will Use of NAAT Affect CDI Incidence Rates?

Source Change in testing % Increase in CDI incidence 3 states in CDC’s Emerging Infections Program CDI surveillance EIA → PCR 43% - 67% Multi-hospital EIA → PCR 56% Single center EIA → PCR 57% Single center EIA → PCR 110% Single center GDH+EIA+CCNA → PCR 50% Single center EIA → GDH+PCR 97% Single center GDH+EIA → GDH+EIA+PCR 70%

Gould et al. Clin Infect Dis 2013 Longtin et al. Clin Infect Dis 2012; advanced access Moehring et al ICHE 2013;34:1051-66 de Jong et al. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2012;31:2219-25 Goldenberg SD. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32:1231-2 Fong et al. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32: Williamson et al. Am J Infect Control 2012; in press

10/16/2014 27

NHSN CDI Risk Adjusted SIR Accounts for More Sensitive Testing

Factor Description Intercept Facility Bed Size > 245 101-245 ≤ 100 Teaching Type Major Graduate Limited & Non CDI Test Type NAAT (PCR) EIA All Other Prevalence Continuous (no CO-HCFA)

Data Sources and Submission

• CDI test type, facility bed size, and

teaching type are collected on the required Annual Facility Survey.

• The survey is completed after the

end of each year for accuracy in describing a full year’s worth of data.

Variables from Final Model to be included for Risk Adjustment in SIR Calculation

Potential Benefits of More Sensitive Testing

 Fewer isolation days for negative patients  Fewer repetitive tests performed (46% at one institution

with restriction rules in place)

 In theory, earlier treatment initiation, reduced

complications, and improved infection control

Gould et al. CID 2013;57:1304 Moehring et al. ICHE 2013;34:1055-61 Loo VG, Frenette C. Presented at ICAAC 2011. Abstract D-1273 Morgan M, Grein J, Ochner M, Hoang H, Jin A, Murthy R. Presented at ICAAC 2011 Belmares J, Pua H, Schreckenberger P, Parada J. [abstract 150]. Presented at SHEA 2011 Annual Scientific Meeting, 1–4 April, 2011; Dallas, TX Goldenber g SA et al. ICHE 2011

10/16/2014 28

Early Detection of CDI: Importance of Inter-Facility Communication

Hospital Post-acute care

• Long-term acute care
• Nursing home/SNF
• Home health
• Hospice

10/16/2014 29

Post Symptomatic CDI Carriage: Particularly Contagious Asymptomatic Carriers?

Sethi AK et al. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010; 31:21-27 http://www.cdc.gov/HAI/toolkits/InterfacilityTransferCommunicationForm11-2010.pdf

10/16/2014 30

For more information please contact Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1600 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA 30333 Telephone, 1-800-CDC-INFO (232-4636)/TTY: 1-888-232-6348 E-mail: cdcinfo@cdc.gov Web: www.cdc.gov

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Thank you! Questions?

National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases Place Descriptor Here

10/16/2014 31

Questions?

61

Raise your hand Use the Chat

Action Period Assignment

Rapid detection and precautions for C diff – test a process:

To expedite patients being placed on contact precautions when C diff is suspected or confirmed

• Test a flag, prompt, etc. to automatically initiate contact precaution

when CDI test is ordered. (one unit, one nurse/unit clerk, refine based on initial test)

• Test a process to review patient placed on oral metronidazole or oral

vancomycin, for need for contact precautions (one unit, one pharmacist/nurse, one day on MDR’s – refine based on initial test)

• Test a process to enhance STAT reporting of CDI, ie: critical value

(one unit, one week, partner with laboratory – refine based on initial test)

62

10/16/2014 32

Expedition Communications

Listserv for session communications: CdiffExpedition@ls.ihi.org

– To add colleagues, email us at info@ihi.org – Pose questions, share resources, discuss barriers or successes

63

Next Session

Session 3: Symptom Recognition, Precautions, and the Role of the Environment Wednesday, July 23rd, 2:00 PM – 3:00 PM ET Faculty: Brian Koll MD & Cliff McDonald MD

64