Citations

Abstract Objectives Diagnostic reconciliation is the collaborative process between patients and clinicians to create and reconcile evidence-based, feasible, and desirable care plans. However, the specific components of this process remain unclear. The objective of this study was to develop the first comprehensive framework to elucidate the diagnostic reconciliation process. Methods We followed a multi-step and iterative approach to develop the framework, including a focused systematic review of diagnostic conversations, quantitative evaluation of recordings of real-life clinical visits recordings, and stakeholder engagement (e.g., patients, clinicians, researchers). Results We identified 17 potential components to the process of diagnostic reconciliation through literature review and stakeholder engagement. After review of 56 clinical visits and further stakeholder engagement, we developed a final framework including four categories: 1) understanding the need for a test/referral, 2) logistics of test/referral scheduling, 3) test/referral information, and 4) test/referral results. Conclusions The proposed framework lays the foundation for evaluation and improvement of diagnostic conversations in practice. Clinicians can enhance patient-centered diagnosis by co-creating diagnostic plans of care in practice and using the components described in the novel diagnostic reconciliation framework.

Abstract Background Strategies to optimize antibiotic prescribing at discharge are not well understood. Methods In fall 2019, we surveyed 39 Michigan hospitals on their antibiotic stewardship strategies. The association of reported strategies with discharge antibiotic overuse (unnecessary, excess, suboptimal fluoroquinolones) for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and urinary tract infection (UTI) was evaluated in 2 ways: (1) all strategies assumed equal weight and (2) strategies were weighted based on the ROAD (Reducing Overuse of Antibiotics at Discharge) Home Framework (ie, Tier 1—Critical infrastructure, Tier 2—Broad inpatient interventions, Tier 3—Discharge-specific strategies) with Tier 3 strategies receiving the highest weight. Results Between 1 July 2017 and 30 July 2019, 39 hospitals with 20 444 patients (56.5% CAP; 43.5% UTI) were included. Survey response was 100%. Hospitals reported a median (interquartile range [IQR]) 12 (9–14) of 34 possible stewardship strategies. On analyses of individual stewardship strategies, the Tier 3 intervention, review of antibiotics prior to discharge, was the only strategy consistently associated with lower antibiotic overuse at discharge (adjusted incident rate ratio [aIRR] 0.543, 95% confidence interval [CI]: .335–.878). On multivariable analysis, weighting by ROAD Home tier predicted antibiotic overuse at discharge for both CAP and UTI. For diseases combined, having more weighted strategies was associated with lower antibiotic overuse at discharge (aIRR 0.957, 95% CI: .927–.987, per weighted intervention); discharge-specific stewardship strategies were associated with a 12.4% relative decrease in antibiotic overuse days at discharge. Conclusions The more stewardship strategies a hospital reported, the lower its antibiotic overuse at discharge. However, Tier 3, or discharge-specific strategies, appeared to have the largest effect on antibiotic prescribing at discharge.