Effectiveness of Probiotic for Primary Prevention of Clostridium difficile Infection: A Single-Center Before-and-After Quality Improvement Intervention at a Tertiary-Care Medical Center
OBJECTIVETo evaluate probiotics for the primary prevention of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) among hospital inpatients.DESIGNA before-and-after quality improvement intervention comparing 12-month baseline and intervention periods.SETTINGA 694-bed teaching hospital.INTERVENTIONWe administered...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Infection control and hospital epidemiology 2018-07, Vol.39 (7), p.765-770 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 770 |
---|---|
container_issue | 7 |
container_start_page | 765 |
container_title | Infection control and hospital epidemiology |
container_volume | 39 |
creator | Trick, William E Sokalski, Stephen J Johnson, Stuart Bunnell, Kristen L Levato, Joseph Ray, Michael J Weinstein, Robert A |
description | OBJECTIVETo evaluate probiotics for the primary prevention of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) among hospital inpatients.DESIGNA before-and-after quality improvement intervention comparing 12-month baseline and intervention periods.SETTINGA 694-bed teaching hospital.INTERVENTIONWe administered a multispecies probiotic comprising L. acidophilus (CL1285), L. casei (LBC80R), and L. rhamnosus (CLR2) to eligible antibiotic recipients within 12 hours of initial antibiotic receipt through 5 days after final dose. We excluded (1) all patients on neonatal, pediatric and oncology wards; (2) all individuals receiving perioperative prophylactic antibiotic recipients; (3) all those restricted from oral intake; and (4) those with pancreatitis, leukopenia, or posttransplant. We defined CDI by symptoms plus C. difficile toxin detection by polymerase chain reaction. Our primary outcome was hospital-onset CDI incidence on eligible hospital units, analyzed using segmented regression.RESULTSThe study included 251 CDI episodes among 360,016 patient days during the baseline and intervention periods, and the incidence rate was 7.0 per 10,000 patient days. The incidence rate was similar during baseline and intervention periods (6.9 vs 7.0 per 10,000 patient days; P=.95). However, compared to the first 6 months of the intervention, we detected a significant decrease in CDI during the final 6 months (incidence rate ratio, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-0.9; P=.009). Testing intensity remained stable between the baseline and intervention periods: 19% versus 20% of stools tested were C. difficile positive by PCR, respectively. From medical record reviews, only 26% of eligible patients received a probiotic per the protocol.CONCLUSIONSDespite poor adherence to the protocol, there was a reduction in the incidence of CDI during the intervention, which was delayed ~6 months after introducing probiotic for primary prevention.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;765-770. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/ice.2018.76 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2031416506</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2031416506</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-c1a11807b96028e23657d27b933ed7f9cde5bf7f793a3d62e028106e1ed42fb03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkU1rFTEUhoMo9lpduZeAG0FyzcedZOLuOrR6oaJiBXchk5xIysykJjOF_jT_nZne1oWrcJLnPOeQF6GXjG4ZZepddLDllLVbJR-hDWsaTWQrdo_RhrZak5aLnyfoWSlXlFKlNXuKTriWuhGMbtCfsxDAzfEGJigFp4C_5tTHNEeHQ8q1iqPNt_WEiswxTSvTDanMOfq4jNjHEKKLA-DDdKdK03u8x9_j9GsA0tUmyPgDVBkQO3myD-vFt8UOcb7Fh_E6pxsYK1b768vDFDtjiy8hz7GOJ53NgD-Dj84O-Oh8jp4EOxR4cX-eoh_nZ5fdJ3Lx5eOh218QJ5iaiWOWsZaqXkvKW-BCNsrzWgoBXgXtPDR9UEFpYYWXHCrFqAQGfsdDT8UpenP01kV_L1BmM8biYBjsBGkphlPBdkw2VFb09X_oVVryVLczvKXtjvFG8Eq9PVIup1IyBHN9_GTDqFkTNTVRsyZq1Op8de9c-hH8P_YhQvEXeFGesw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2808412532</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effectiveness of Probiotic for Primary Prevention of Clostridium difficile Infection: A Single-Center Before-and-After Quality Improvement Intervention at a Tertiary-Care Medical Center</title><source>Cambridge Journals</source><source>ProQuest Central</source><creator>Trick, William E ; Sokalski, Stephen J ; Johnson, Stuart ; Bunnell, Kristen L ; Levato, Joseph ; Ray, Michael J ; Weinstein, Robert A</creator><creatorcontrib>Trick, William E ; Sokalski, Stephen J ; Johnson, Stuart ; Bunnell, Kristen L ; Levato, Joseph ; Ray, Michael J ; Weinstein, Robert A</creatorcontrib><description>OBJECTIVETo evaluate probiotics for the primary prevention of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) among hospital inpatients.DESIGNA before-and-after quality improvement intervention comparing 12-month baseline and intervention periods.SETTINGA 694-bed teaching hospital.INTERVENTIONWe administered a multispecies probiotic comprising L. acidophilus (CL1285), L. casei (LBC80R), and L. rhamnosus (CLR2) to eligible antibiotic recipients within 12 hours of initial antibiotic receipt through 5 days after final dose. We excluded (1) all patients on neonatal, pediatric and oncology wards; (2) all individuals receiving perioperative prophylactic antibiotic recipients; (3) all those restricted from oral intake; and (4) those with pancreatitis, leukopenia, or posttransplant. We defined CDI by symptoms plus C. difficile toxin detection by polymerase chain reaction. Our primary outcome was hospital-onset CDI incidence on eligible hospital units, analyzed using segmented regression.RESULTSThe study included 251 CDI episodes among 360,016 patient days during the baseline and intervention periods, and the incidence rate was 7.0 per 10,000 patient days. The incidence rate was similar during baseline and intervention periods (6.9 vs 7.0 per 10,000 patient days; P=.95). However, compared to the first 6 months of the intervention, we detected a significant decrease in CDI during the final 6 months (incidence rate ratio, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-0.9; P=.009). Testing intensity remained stable between the baseline and intervention periods: 19% versus 20% of stools tested were C. difficile positive by PCR, respectively. From medical record reviews, only 26% of eligible patients received a probiotic per the protocol.CONCLUSIONSDespite poor adherence to the protocol, there was a reduction in the incidence of CDI during the intervention, which was delayed ~6 months after introducing probiotic for primary prevention.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;765-770.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0899-823X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1559-6834</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/ice.2018.76</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29695310</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Antibiotics ; Disease control ; Disease prevention ; Disinfection & disinfectants ; Infections ; Intervention ; Nursing ; Patient safety ; Pediatrics ; Prevention ; Probiotics ; Quality improvement ; Regression analysis ; Teaching hospitals ; Toxins</subject><ispartof>Infection control and hospital epidemiology, 2018-07, Vol.39 (7), p.765-770</ispartof><rights>2018 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-c1a11807b96028e23657d27b933ed7f9cde5bf7f793a3d62e028106e1ed42fb03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-c1a11807b96028e23657d27b933ed7f9cde5bf7f793a3d62e028106e1ed42fb03</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2808412532/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2808412532?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21367,27901,27902,33721,33722,43781,74045</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29695310$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Trick, William E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sokalski, Stephen J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Stuart</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bunnell, Kristen L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Levato, Joseph</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ray, Michael J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weinstein, Robert A</creatorcontrib><title>Effectiveness of Probiotic for Primary Prevention of Clostridium difficile Infection: A Single-Center Before-and-After Quality Improvement Intervention at a Tertiary-Care Medical Center</title><title>Infection control and hospital epidemiology</title><addtitle>Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol</addtitle><description>OBJECTIVETo evaluate probiotics for the primary prevention of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) among hospital inpatients.DESIGNA before-and-after quality improvement intervention comparing 12-month baseline and intervention periods.SETTINGA 694-bed teaching hospital.INTERVENTIONWe administered a multispecies probiotic comprising L. acidophilus (CL1285), L. casei (LBC80R), and L. rhamnosus (CLR2) to eligible antibiotic recipients within 12 hours of initial antibiotic receipt through 5 days after final dose. We excluded (1) all patients on neonatal, pediatric and oncology wards; (2) all individuals receiving perioperative prophylactic antibiotic recipients; (3) all those restricted from oral intake; and (4) those with pancreatitis, leukopenia, or posttransplant. We defined CDI by symptoms plus C. difficile toxin detection by polymerase chain reaction. Our primary outcome was hospital-onset CDI incidence on eligible hospital units, analyzed using segmented regression.RESULTSThe study included 251 CDI episodes among 360,016 patient days during the baseline and intervention periods, and the incidence rate was 7.0 per 10,000 patient days. The incidence rate was similar during baseline and intervention periods (6.9 vs 7.0 per 10,000 patient days; P=.95). However, compared to the first 6 months of the intervention, we detected a significant decrease in CDI during the final 6 months (incidence rate ratio, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-0.9; P=.009). Testing intensity remained stable between the baseline and intervention periods: 19% versus 20% of stools tested were C. difficile positive by PCR, respectively. From medical record reviews, only 26% of eligible patients received a probiotic per the protocol.CONCLUSIONSDespite poor adherence to the protocol, there was a reduction in the incidence of CDI during the intervention, which was delayed ~6 months after introducing probiotic for primary prevention.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;765-770.</description><subject>Antibiotics</subject><subject>Disease control</subject><subject>Disease prevention</subject><subject>Disinfection & disinfectants</subject><subject>Infections</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Nursing</subject><subject>Patient safety</subject><subject>Pediatrics</subject><subject>Prevention</subject><subject>Probiotics</subject><subject>Quality improvement</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>Teaching hospitals</subject><subject>Toxins</subject><issn>0899-823X</issn><issn>1559-6834</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkU1rFTEUhoMo9lpduZeAG0FyzcedZOLuOrR6oaJiBXchk5xIysykJjOF_jT_nZne1oWrcJLnPOeQF6GXjG4ZZepddLDllLVbJR-hDWsaTWQrdo_RhrZak5aLnyfoWSlXlFKlNXuKTriWuhGMbtCfsxDAzfEGJigFp4C_5tTHNEeHQ8q1iqPNt_WEiswxTSvTDanMOfq4jNjHEKKLA-DDdKdK03u8x9_j9GsA0tUmyPgDVBkQO3myD-vFt8UOcb7Fh_E6pxsYK1b768vDFDtjiy8hz7GOJ53NgD-Dj84O-Oh8jp4EOxR4cX-eoh_nZ5fdJ3Lx5eOh218QJ5iaiWOWsZaqXkvKW-BCNsrzWgoBXgXtPDR9UEFpYYWXHCrFqAQGfsdDT8UpenP01kV_L1BmM8biYBjsBGkphlPBdkw2VFb09X_oVVryVLczvKXtjvFG8Eq9PVIup1IyBHN9_GTDqFkTNTVRsyZq1Op8de9c-hH8P_YhQvEXeFGesw</recordid><startdate>201807</startdate><enddate>201807</enddate><creator>Trick, William E</creator><creator>Sokalski, Stephen J</creator><creator>Johnson, Stuart</creator><creator>Bunnell, Kristen L</creator><creator>Levato, Joseph</creator><creator>Ray, Michael J</creator><creator>Weinstein, Robert A</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201807</creationdate><title>Effectiveness of Probiotic for Primary Prevention of Clostridium difficile Infection: A Single-Center Before-and-After Quality Improvement Intervention at a Tertiary-Care Medical Center</title><author>Trick, William E ; Sokalski, Stephen J ; Johnson, Stuart ; Bunnell, Kristen L ; Levato, Joseph ; Ray, Michael J ; Weinstein, Robert A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-c1a11807b96028e23657d27b933ed7f9cde5bf7f793a3d62e028106e1ed42fb03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Antibiotics</topic><topic>Disease control</topic><topic>Disease prevention</topic><topic>Disinfection & disinfectants</topic><topic>Infections</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Nursing</topic><topic>Patient safety</topic><topic>Pediatrics</topic><topic>Prevention</topic><topic>Probiotics</topic><topic>Quality improvement</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>Teaching hospitals</topic><topic>Toxins</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Trick, William E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sokalski, Stephen J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Stuart</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bunnell, Kristen L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Levato, Joseph</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ray, Michael J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weinstein, Robert A</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Infection control and hospital epidemiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Trick, William E</au><au>Sokalski, Stephen J</au><au>Johnson, Stuart</au><au>Bunnell, Kristen L</au><au>Levato, Joseph</au><au>Ray, Michael J</au><au>Weinstein, Robert A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effectiveness of Probiotic for Primary Prevention of Clostridium difficile Infection: A Single-Center Before-and-After Quality Improvement Intervention at a Tertiary-Care Medical Center</atitle><jtitle>Infection control and hospital epidemiology</jtitle><addtitle>Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol</addtitle><date>2018-07</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>39</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>765</spage><epage>770</epage><pages>765-770</pages><issn>0899-823X</issn><eissn>1559-6834</eissn><abstract>OBJECTIVETo evaluate probiotics for the primary prevention of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) among hospital inpatients.DESIGNA before-and-after quality improvement intervention comparing 12-month baseline and intervention periods.SETTINGA 694-bed teaching hospital.INTERVENTIONWe administered a multispecies probiotic comprising L. acidophilus (CL1285), L. casei (LBC80R), and L. rhamnosus (CLR2) to eligible antibiotic recipients within 12 hours of initial antibiotic receipt through 5 days after final dose. We excluded (1) all patients on neonatal, pediatric and oncology wards; (2) all individuals receiving perioperative prophylactic antibiotic recipients; (3) all those restricted from oral intake; and (4) those with pancreatitis, leukopenia, or posttransplant. We defined CDI by symptoms plus C. difficile toxin detection by polymerase chain reaction. Our primary outcome was hospital-onset CDI incidence on eligible hospital units, analyzed using segmented regression.RESULTSThe study included 251 CDI episodes among 360,016 patient days during the baseline and intervention periods, and the incidence rate was 7.0 per 10,000 patient days. The incidence rate was similar during baseline and intervention periods (6.9 vs 7.0 per 10,000 patient days; P=.95). However, compared to the first 6 months of the intervention, we detected a significant decrease in CDI during the final 6 months (incidence rate ratio, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-0.9; P=.009). Testing intensity remained stable between the baseline and intervention periods: 19% versus 20% of stools tested were C. difficile positive by PCR, respectively. From medical record reviews, only 26% of eligible patients received a probiotic per the protocol.CONCLUSIONSDespite poor adherence to the protocol, there was a reduction in the incidence of CDI during the intervention, which was delayed ~6 months after introducing probiotic for primary prevention.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;765-770.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><pmid>29695310</pmid><doi>10.1017/ice.2018.76</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0899-823X |
ispartof | Infection control and hospital epidemiology, 2018-07, Vol.39 (7), p.765-770 |
issn | 0899-823X 1559-6834 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2031416506 |
source | Cambridge Journals; ProQuest Central |
subjects | Antibiotics Disease control Disease prevention Disinfection & disinfectants Infections Intervention Nursing Patient safety Pediatrics Prevention Probiotics Quality improvement Regression analysis Teaching hospitals Toxins |
title | Effectiveness of Probiotic for Primary Prevention of Clostridium difficile Infection: A Single-Center Before-and-After Quality Improvement Intervention at a Tertiary-Care Medical Center |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-06T17%3A09%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effectiveness%20of%20Probiotic%20for%20Primary%20Prevention%20of%20Clostridium%20difficile%20Infection:%20A%20Single-Center%20Before-and-After%20Quality%20Improvement%20Intervention%20at%20a%20Tertiary-Care%20Medical%20Center&rft.jtitle=Infection%20control%20and%20hospital%20epidemiology&rft.au=Trick,%20William%20E&rft.date=2018-07&rft.volume=39&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=765&rft.epage=770&rft.pages=765-770&rft.issn=0899-823X&rft.eissn=1559-6834&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/ice.2018.76&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2031416506%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2808412532&rft_id=info:pmid/29695310&rfr_iscdi=true |