Objective

To assess the impact of a newly developed Central-Line Insertion Site Assessment (CLISA) score on the incidence of local inflammation or infection for CLABSI prevention.

Design

A pre- and postintervention, quasi-experimental quality improvement study.

Setting and participants

Adult inpatients with central venous catheters (CVCs) hospitalized in an intensive care unit or oncology ward at a large academic medical center.

Methods

We evaluated CLISA score impact on insertion site inflammation and infection (CLISA score of 2 or 3) incidence in the baseline period (June 2014-January 2015) and the intervention period (April 2015-October 2017) using interrupted times series and generalized linear mixed-effects multivariable analyses. These were run separately for days-to-line removal from identification of a CLISA score of 2 or 3. CLISA score interrater reliability and photo quiz results were evaluated.

Results

Among 6,957 CVCs assessed 40,846 times, percentage of lines with CLISA score of 2 or 3 in the baseline and intervention periods decreased by 78.2% (from 22.0% to 4.7%), with a significant immediate decrease in the time-series analysis (P < .001). According to the multivariable regression, the intervention was associated with lower percentage of lines with a CLISA score of 2 or 3, after adjusting for age, gender, CVC body location, and hospital unit (odds ratio, 0.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.34; P < .001). According to the multivariate regression, days to removal of lines with CLISA score of 2 or 3 was 3.19 days faster after the intervention (P < .001). Also, line dwell time decreased 37.1% from a mean of 14 days (standard deviation [SD], 10.6) to 8.8 days (SD, 9.0) (P < .001). Device utilization ratios decreased 9% from 0.64 (SD, 0.08) to 0.58 (SD, 0.06) (P = .039).

Conclusions

The CLISA score creates a common language for assessing line infection risk and successfully promotes high compliance with best practices in timely line removal.

Abstract Background Outpatient peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) use has grown without standardized protocols for their management. We assessed the impact of a mobile app strategy for outpatient CLABSI prevention using photo-monitoring, assessment, and response to lines with local inflammation/infection in a cohort of cancer clinic patients. Methods This prospective cohort study evaluated adults with PICCs at an academic cancer clinic at baseline (7/2015–12/2016) and after implementing the SAFER (Standardizing Assessment For Effective Response) Lines program (intervention 5/2017–11/2018). This included a mobile app enabling (1) clinic assessment of localized inflammation or infection defined as Central Line Insertion Site Assessment (CLISA) score 2 or 3, respectively (Table 1), (2) photo-documentation, and (3) score-based automated physician alerts for remote response. We assessed demographics, malignancy type, and line characteristics. Generalized linear mixed effects model assessed program impact on frequency of CLISA 2 or 3 lines, clustered by patient. Cox proportional hazards and Kaplan Meier models assessed days to line removal after CLISA 2 or 3 were identified. Results Among 4,894 assessments of 528 PICCs in 380 outpatients, there were 272 lines (199 patients) at baseline and 256 lines (181 patients) after SAFER program implementation. Mean age, gender, PICC dwell time, and history of prior PICC were similar at baseline and intervention. The proportion of inflamed (CLISA 2) and infected (CLISA 3) lines decreased 40% (from 26% to 16%, and 19% to 11%, respectively) during intervention compared to baseline. Lines with peeling dressings decreased 80% (from 46% to 9%). Mean days to removal of inflamed lines decreased 59% (from 19 to 8 days); removal of infected lines decreased 85% (from 11 to < 2 days). Intervention was associated with 46% lower risk of local inflammation/infection (OR 0.46, CI=0.26–0.83, p< 0.01, Table 2) and faster line removal when such lines were identified (HR 0.18, CI=0.12–0.27, p< 0.01). Conclusion The SAFER Lines mobile app and program decreased the frequency of locally inflamed or infected PICC insertion sites and increased the speed of removal when local inflammation/infection was found in cancer clinic patients. Disclosures Raheeb Saavedra, AS, Medline: Conducted studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and/or environmental cleaning products|Stryker: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products|Xttrium Laboratories: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products Raveena D. Singh, MA, Medline: Conducted studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and/or environmental cleaning products|Stryker: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products|Xttrium Laboratories: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products Susan S. Huang, MD, MPH, Medline: Conducted studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and/or environmental cleaning products|Molnlyke: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals received contributed antiseptic product|Stryker: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products|Xttrium Laboratories: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic product.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether measurement and feedback of chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) skin concentrations can improve CHG bathing practice across multiple intensive care units (ICUs). DESIGN: A before-and-after quality improvement study measuring patient CHG skin concentrations during 6 point-prevalence surveys (3 surveys each during baseline and intervention periods). SETTING: The study was conducted across 7 geographically diverse ICUs with routine CHG bathing. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients in the medical ICU. METHODS: CHG skin concentrations were measured at the neck, axilla, and inguinal region using a semiquantitative colorimetric assay. Aggregate unit-level CHG skin concentration measurements from the baseline period and each intervention period survey were reported back to ICU leadership, which then used routine education and quality improvement activities to improve CHG bathing practice. We used multilevel linear models to assess the impact of intervention on CHG skin concentrations. RESULTS: We enrolled 681 (93%) of 736 eligible patients; 92% received a CHG bath prior to survey. At baseline, CHG skin concentrations were lowest on the neck, compared to axillary or inguinal regions (P < .001). CHG was not detected on 33% of necks, 19% of axillae, and 18% of inguinal regions (P < .001 for differences in body sites). During the intervention period, ICUs that used CHG-impregnated cloths had a 3-fold increase in patient CHG skin concentrations as compared to baseline (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Routine CHG bathing performance in the ICU varied across multiple hospitals. Measurement and feedback of CHG skin concentrations can be an important tool to improve CHG bathing practice.