Tag Archives: hospital-acquired

CDC Finds that 1 in 25 Patients Acquire an Infection While in the Hospital

By Kim Smiley

A recent headline from the New York Times reads “Infections at Hospitals Are Falling, CDC Says”.  That sounds like fantastic news right?  Well, what about this one from the same day from the Washington Post: “One in 25 patients has an infection acquired during hospital stay, CDC says.”  One in 25 doesn’t seem like great odds to me.  The two headlines give very different impressions of the problem, so which one is right?

The truth is that both statements are accurate, but neither tells the complete story.  To really understand the situation, you need to read a lot more than just the headlines. This is a good analogy for what happens in meetings every day.  Something goes wrong and everybody thinks they know what THE problem is or what is THE root cause.  Many times when people argue they aren’t really in disagreement, they are just focused on different parts of the same puzzle.

Building a Cause Map, a visual format for performing a root cause analysis, can help reduce miscommunication.  The first step in the Cause Mapping process is to fill in an Outline.  The top of the Outline lists the basic background information.  At the bottom of the Outline, there is space for listing the specific impacts to the overall goals.  People may argue about what THE problem is, but it’s hard to argue when specifically listing how the problem impacts goals.  For example, most people would agree that increased cost of healthcare is an impact to the overall economic goal of a hospital.  It may sound counterintuitive, but adding detail helps clarify the situation, when defining the problem and when actually determining what went wrong.

In the case of those headlines listed above, both refer to a recent study by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention that found that about 1 in 25 patients in US hospitals in 2011 acquired at least one infection based on data from 11,282 patients treated at 183 hospitals in 10 states.   (The total number of patients who acquired at least one infection is over 700,000.) The study estimated that around 75,000 of these patients died, but didn’t provide information on whether the deaths directly resulted from the infections.  The study also didn’t include nursing homes, emergency departments, rehabilitation hospitals and outpatient treatment centers.  Previous estimates put the number of infections each year at 2.1 million in the 1970s and 1.7 million from 1990 through 2002. The rate of infections also varies widely from hospital to hospital.  There is uncertainty in the data available, but the trend seems to be going in the right direction, even though the problem of hospital-acquired infections remains significant.  Before working to reduce the risk of a problem, it’s important to lay out all the facts and understand what exactly the problem is.  That generally requires more than a simple statement, which is why the Cause Mapping uses a formal Outline to define a problem.

After the Outline is completed, the next step is to analyze the issue by building a Cause Map by asking “why” questions starting with one of the impacted goals.  Hospital acquired infections are an impact to the patient safety goal so we could begin by asking “Why are patients getting infections in hospitals?”  This occurs because they are exposed to a pathogen.  Why?  There are pathogens at the hospital because many sick people are there for treatment.  Inadequate cleanliness also plays a role.  Additionally, the pathogen is able to infect the patient.  You would continue asking questions to determine why patients are being infected until you reach the desired level of detail.  Generally, the bigger the problem, the greater level of detail is needed.

To view a completed Outline and a Cause Map of this issue, click on “Download PDF” above.

Manifestation of Poor Glycemic Control Part 3

By ThinkReliability Staff

In previous blogs, we wrote about nonketotic hyperosmolar coma and diabetic ketoacidosis, which are both conditions related to hyperglycemia, or high blood glucose.  In this blog, we consider the last type of manifestation of poor glycemic control that, when it occurs in the hospital, is considered a hospital-acquired condition by Medicare & Medicaid, meaning that hospitals will not receive additional payment for cases when this condition is acquired during hospitalization.  Hypogelycemic coma, along with nonketotic hyperosmolar coma and diabetic ketoacidosis, results from poor glycemic control within the hospital, but is caused by low blood glucose.

As we did with the other two manifestations of poor glycemic control, we can look at the impacted goals for a hospital and the potential causes and solutions for this condition in a visual root cause analysis or Cause Map.  The goals for hypoglycemic coma are the same to the other manifestations of poor glycemic control and include increased risk of patient death, length of patient stay and treatment needs.  The costs associated with hypoglycemic coma (greater than $7 million in the US from the 212 cases reported to CMS in 2007) are no longer reimbursable when the condition is acquired in the hospital.  There is also always the potential that a patient death can result in a second victim – the patient’s provider(s).

Hypoglycemic coma results from uncontrolled hypoglycemia, which can result from overtreatment with insulin, drug-induced hypoglycemia, drug interaction with insulin, decreased glucose production and/or loss of glucose.  Overtreatment with insulin was implicated in 90% of hypoglycemia cases in a recent study and can result from medication errors (see our analysis on medication errors in hospital settings),  or a failure to adjust insulin for diet or other factors.  Drug-induced hypoglycemia can result from administration of fluoroquinolones (the mechanism for this effect is unknown) and/or inadequate nutrition.  Drugs that interact with insulin may be administered to a diabetic patient if providers are lacking in knowledge about glycemic control.  Underlying disease or infection, such as chronic renal insufficiency, which was implicated in approximately 50% of hypoglycemia cases in the study, can result in decreased glucose production or loss of glucose.

As with the other types of manifestations of poor glycemic control, efforts must be made to prevent these types of incidents.  As suggested with hyperglycemic events, insulin plans should be individualized, accounting for all relevant factors related to glycemic control and diet.  Patients treated with insulin in the hospital should have their blood glucose levels monitored frequently, especially as insulin has been identified as a High-alert medication by The Joint Commission.   Any patients found unconscious should also immediately have their blood glucose levels measured.  Patient’s nutritional intake must be carefully monitored, especially for cases involving medications that might cause hypoglycemia.  Last but not least, controls and procedures involving drugs given to diabetic patients should be carefully controlled, due to the high potential and risk for interaction with insulin.

Two other conditions are considered hospital-acquired manifestations of poor glycemic control: nonketotic hyperosmolar coma and diabetic ketoacidosis.   In previous blogs, we discussed the causes of these issues, and suggested solutions to reduce the risk of these types of incidents.

To view the Outline, Cause Map, and Potential Solutions, please click “Download PDF” above.  Or click here to read more.

Manifestation of Poor Glycemic Control Part 2

By ThinkReliability Staff

In a previous blog, we discussed how poor glycemic control can result in hyperglycemia which could lead to nonketotic hyperosmolar coma.  Diabetic ketoacidosis, if resulting from poor glycemic control within a hospital setting, is another hospital-acquired condition as determined by Medicare & Medicaid, meaning that hospitals will not receive additional payment for cases when this condition is acquired during hospitalization.  Like nonketotic hyperosmolar coma, diabetic ketoacidosis can have a significant impact on patient safety and can be investigated within a Cause Map, or a visual root cause analysis.

The impacted goals for a hospital resulting from hospital-acquired diabetic ketoacidosis are very similar to those for nonketotic hyperosmolar coma.  Patient safety is impacted due to an increased risk of death, which can also result in a provider being a “second victim.  This is a “no-pay” hospital acquired condition, which is estimated to cost $42,974 per case.  According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), in 2007 there were 11,469 cases of hospital-acquired diabetic ketoacidosis, resulting in a total cost to the healthcare system of almost half a billion dollars.

According to a study  published in the International Journal for Quality in Health Care, diabetic emergencies, including nonketotic hyperosmolar coma,  increases the risk of patient death (from 9% to 16%),  length of patient stay (from 7 to 14 days) and treatment requirements.  The costs associated with nonketotic hyperosmolar coma (greater than $114 million in the US in 2007, according to CMS) are no longer reimbursable when the condition is acquired in the hospital.  Additionally, patient death due to hospital-acquired conditions can result in a second   victim – the healthcare provider(s).  Additionally, this diagnosis results in increased stay and treatment requirements.

Beginning with the impacted goals and asking “Why” questions, we quickly determine that diabetic ketoacidosis, like nonketotic hyperosmolar coma, results from uncontrolled hyperglycemia.  Rather than perform the same analysis of causes of hyperglycemia (which, if we’re doing our job right, should result in the same cause-and-effect relationships), we can link to the analysis shown in our previous blog.   However, for diabetic ketoacidosis, we also have a cause of dehydration.  Since this was not a cause previously analyzed, we will add to this portion of the Cause Map.

Patient dehydration can result from a medication that increases fluid loss, an underlying medical condition, or inadequate water intake.  Inadequate water intake can result from a patient’s limited access to water, such as a patient who is bedridden and is not provided adequate water from a caregiver, or the patient feels too ill to drink, or the patient is unable to drink, due to incapacitation, confusion, restraints or sedation.  A combination of these causes may also occur.

Because of the importance of preventing these conditions resulting from hyperglycemia and dehydration, every effort should be made to prevent these outcomes from occurring.

Two other conditions are considered hospital-acquired manifestations of poor glycemic control, diabetic ketoacidosis and hypoglycemic coma.  In future blogs, we will discuss the causes of these issues, and suggested solutions to reduce the risk of these types of incidents.  It is recommended that an individualized insulin plan be used, rather than a sliding scale, to ensure blood glucose levels are kept at or below 110 mg/dL.  A specific glycemic management team, which carefully coordinates medical nutritional therapy with insulin control, can also reduce the risk of glycemic events.  Patients who are found to have an insulin deficiency should be treated with intravenous insulin.

Because 20-30% of diabetic ketoacidosis cases are estimated to be the initial presentation of previously undiagnosed diabetes, some experts recommend testing the glucose levels of all children who have not been diagnosed with diabetes, and all patients who are vomiting or require intravenous hydration.  To reduce the risk of dehydration, patient’s fluid intake should be tracked and any patients who are unable to  drink should have intravenous fluids.

Nonketotic hyperosmolar coma and diabetic ketoacidosis are two hospital-acquired events that result from hyperglycemia.  The remaining hospital-acquired manifestation of poor glycemic control, hypoglycemic coma, will be covered in a future blog.

To view the Outline, Cause Map, and Solutions please click “Download PDF” above.  Or click here to read our previous blog.

Manifestation of Poor Glycemic Control Part 1

By ThinkReliability Staff

Nonketotic hyperosmolar coma resulting from poor glycemic control within a hospital setting is now considered a hospital-acquired condition by Medicare & Medicaid, meaning that hospitals will not receive additional  payment for cases when this condition is acquired during hospitalization.  Because of the severity of the impact of this condition, its implications and causes should be carefully studied to determine ways to reduce the risk of this condition being acquired during a hospital stay.

We can look at the impacted goals for a hospital and the potential causes for this condition, in a visual root cause analysis or Cause Map.  To perform a Cause Mapping analysis, we will first determine the impacts of a given condition on an organization’s goals, then develop cause-and-effect relationships to diagram the causes that result in the condition.

According to a study published in the International Journal for Quality in Health Care, diabetic emergencies, including nonketotic hyperosmolar coma,  increases the risk of patient death (from 9% to 16%),  length of patient stay (from 7 to 14 days) and treatment requirements.  The costs associated with nonketotic hyperosmolar coma (greater than $114 million in the US in 2007, according to CMS) are no longer reimbursable when the condition is acquired in the hospital.  Additionally, patient death due to hospital-acquired conditions can result in a second victim – the healthcare provider(s).

To analyze this issue, we begin with an impacted goal and ask “Why” questions.  In this case, we are looking at the impact to the patient safety goal becaue of the  increased risk of patient death due to nonketotic hyperosmolar coma, which is caused by uncontrolled hyperglycemia (high blood glucose).   Associated infection, medication that interferes with glucose absorption, and insulin deficiency can all contribute to hyperglycemia.  Insufficient knowledge of providers about glycemic control can result in diabetic patients being given medications that interfere with glucose absorption, or in inadequate control of diabetes with insulin in the hospital setting.

The study referenced above also found that insufficient staffing, which may result in insufficient backups/checks of staff, use of workarounds, and ineffective communication between the team, leading to insufficient tracking of glycemic control.    Providers may also be unaware of a patient’s diabetic status, due to poor record keeping or communication.   Inadequate insulin therapy can also contribute to hyperglycemia.  Specifically, medication errors involving insulin (see our medication error Cause Map), fear of hypoglycemia (which may result in fear of aggressive insulin therapy), and  failure to adjust insulin for diet or other factors, including age, renal failure, liver disease, can result in an all too common “one size fits all” linear sliding insulin scale providing inadequate results.

Two other conditions are considered hospital-acquired manifestations of poor glycemic control, diabetic ketoacidosis and hypoglycemic coma.  In future blogs, we will discuss the causes of these issues, and suggested solutions to reduce the risk of these types of incidents.

To view the Outline and Cause Map, please click “Download PDF” above.  Or click here to read more.

New Research on the Impact of Hospital-Acquired Infections

By ThinkReliability Staff

Recent research has shown that in-hospital mortality for patients who acquire an infection in the hospital increases from 4.5% to 18.5%.  Hospital-acquired infections are infections obtained while a patient is hospitalized.  The three main hospital-acquired infections (or HAIs) are bloodstream infections (28% of HAIs), pneumonia (21%) and urinary tract infections (15%).

Not only does an HAI increase the mortality rate, it has other impacts as well.  We can look at these impacts, and their causes, in a root cause analysis demonstrated visually as a Cause Map.  For the purpose of this root cause analysis, we will limit our investigation to HAIs that occur during hospitalization in an intensive care unit (ICU).  We begin with determining the other impacts to the goals.  The patient safety goal is impacted due to the increase in mortality.  The organization goal is impacted because many insurers (including Medicare and Medicaid) will not reimburse for some infections obtained during hospitalization.   Additional treatment is required to treat the infection, resulting in an impact to the patient services goal.  The treatment for these infections normally results in an increased stay in the ICU (from an average of 8.1 days to 15.8 days), at a cost of $16,000.  It is estimated that 26.7% of all ICU stays result in at least one HAI.

Beginning with the impacted patient safety goal, we can ask “Why” questions to demonstrate the cause-and-effect relationships leading to the increase in mortality.  Increased mortality is due to the acquiring of an HAI.  HAIs result from the exposure to a pathogen and frequently occur in the ICU partially due to the increased risk of infection due to the underlying condition for which the patient is in the ICU.  There are two types of pathogens to which patients can be exposed: endogenous (essentially, from the patient’s own body) and exogenous (from visitors, healthcare providers, equipment, the environment, etc).  HAIs are highly related to the use of invasive support measures, which provide a path for either kind of pathogen directly into the patient’s body.  Specifically, the use of a central intravenous line is cited in 91% of bloodstream infections, mechanical ventilation is cited in 95% of hospital-acquired pneumonias, and urinary catheters are cited in 77% of urinary tract infection.

Because these invasive support measures are generally required for patient care, it’s difficult to see how these infections can be reduced.  However, some programs have been shown to substantially reduce HAIs – and the cost associated with them – by improving the culture of safety and compliance with preventive methods.  One such program in Michigan has reduced the rate of bloodstream infections associated with central lines from 7.7 to 1.3 per 1,000 catheter days.  Even without a dedicated safety program, insisting on hand washing and proper cleanliness procedures during the insertion, checking, and removal of invasive support measures can reduce the risk of HAIs.  Additionally, because the use of invasive support measures is so strongly correlated to HAIs, removal of these measures as soon as possible can also reduce the risk.

To view the Outline and Cause Map, please click “Download PDF” above.  Click here to read more about hospital-acquired conditions.  Or click here to read more about the latest research.

Hospital-Acquired Infections Sepsis and Pneumonia

By ThinkReliability Staff

Infections of any kind acquired in a hospital are undesirable from the perspective of both the hospital and the patient.  After all, patients go to a hospital to get better, not sicker.  Until recently, the incidence of these sorts of infections has been difficult to determine, with inconsistent reporting requirements across the country and difficulty determining the sources of such infections.  However, a recent study in the Archives of Internal Medicine has determined some staggering numbers related to two hospital-acquired infections, sepsis and pneumonia.  Together, these two infections result in 48,000 deaths and $8.1 billion in additional costs per year.  A total of 1.7 million patients contract infections at hospitals every year.

Sepsis is a bloodstream infection.  The study found that nearly 20% of patients who contract sepsis after invasive surgery at a hospital will die from it.  On average, a patient who contracts sepsis can expect 11 additional days at the hospital, at a cost of $32,900.  Sepsis contracted in hospitals is generally a bacterial infection, caused by bacteria in the bloodstream (known as bacteremia).  A patient must be exposed to bacteria in order for the bacteria to access the bloodstream.  Bacterial access to a patient can be caused by ineffective infectious control procedures.

Nosocomia (or hospital-acquired) pneumonia is an infection of the lungs.  Like sepsis, in a hospital setting it is generally caused by a bacterial infection when bacteria enter the lungs.  Also like sepsis, this requires bacterial access to the patient.  More than 11% of patients who contract nosocomial pneumonia after invasive surgery will die.  On average, a patient with nosocomial pneumonia will spend 14 extra days in the hospital, at a cost of $46,400.

To prevent these types of bacterial infections, every employee in a hospital must practice effective infectious disease control.  Each hospital must develop infection control procedures to aid in preventing the spread of disease.  As an example, here we’ll look at the infection control procedure for  pre-surgery.  This extremely simple procedure was developed based on the CDC’s Surgical Site Infection FAQs.  If a patient has hair in the surgical area, it should be clipped, not shaved, to avoid infection.  If a patient is high risk, he or she may receive antibiotics before the surgery.  The patient’s skin will be cleaned at the surgical site to avoid introducing the patient’s skin bacteria into the surgical wound.  Before the providers begin surgery, they will wash their hands and arms up to the elbows thoroughly and don protective wear.  This helps prevent bacteria carried by the providers (including bacteria from the providers’ previous patients) from infecting the patient.

This is just one example of a process that demonstrates infection control to protect patients from hospital-acquired infections.  More can be developed, based on a hospital’s best practices.  What’s important is the focus on infection control to protect patients.