Anna Song Beeber1, Christine E Kistler2, Sheryl Zimmerman3, Cassandra Dictus4, Kimberly Ward5, Claire Farel6, Keith Chrzan7, Christopher J Wretman5, Marcella Boyton-Hansen8, Michael Pignone9, Philip D Sloane2. 1. School of Nursing, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; The Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. Electronic address: asbeeber@email.unc.edu. 2. The Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Department of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 3. The Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; School of Social Work, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 4. School of Nursing, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 5. The Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 7. Sawtooth Analytics, Chesterton, IN, USA. 8. School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 9. School of Medicine, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine what information is most important to registered nurses' (RNs) decisions to call clinicians about suspected urinary tract infections (UTIs) in nursing home residents. DESIGN: Web-based discrete choice experiment with 19 clinical scenarios. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Online survey with a convenience sample of RNs (N = 881) recruited from a health care research panel. METHODS: Clinical scenarios used information from 10 categories of resident characteristics: UTI risk, resident type, functional status, mental status, lower urinary tract status, body temperature, physical examination, urinalysis, antibiotic request, and goals of care. Participants were randomized into 2 deliberation conditions (self-paced, n = 437 and forced deliberation, n = 444). The degree to which evidence- and non-evidence-based information was important to decision-making was estimated using unconditional multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: For all nurses (22.8%) and the self-paced group (24.1%), lower urinary tract status had the highest importance scores for the decision to call a clinician about a suspected UTI. For the forced-deliberation group, body temperature was most important (23.7%), and lower urinary tract status was less important (21%, P = .001). The information associated with the highest odds of an RN calling about a suspected UTI was painful or difficult urination [odds ratio (OR) 4.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.16-5.65], obvious blood in urine (OR 4.66, 95% CI 3.99-5.44), and temperature at 101.5° (OR 3.80, 95% CI 3.28-4.42). For the self-paced group, painful or difficult urination (OR 5.65, 95% CI 4.53-7.04) had the highest odds, whereas obvious blood in urine (OR 4.39, 95% CI 3.53-5.47) had highest odds for the forced-deliberation group. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: This study highlighted the importance of specific resident characteristics in nurse decision-making about suspected UTIs. Future antimicrobial stewardship efforts should aim to not only improve the previously studied overprescribing practices of clinicians, but to improve nurses' assessment of signs and symptoms of potential infections and how they weigh resident information.
OBJECTIVES: To determine what information is most important to registered nurses' (RNs) decisions to call clinicians about suspected urinary tract infections (UTIs) in nursing home residents. DESIGN: Web-based discrete choice experiment with 19 clinical scenarios. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Online survey with a convenience sample of RNs (N = 881) recruited from a health care research panel. METHODS: Clinical scenarios used information from 10 categories of resident characteristics: UTI risk, resident type, functional status, mental status, lower urinary tract status, body temperature, physical examination, urinalysis, antibiotic request, and goals of care. Participants were randomized into 2 deliberation conditions (self-paced, n = 437 and forced deliberation, n = 444). The degree to which evidence- and non-evidence-based information was important to decision-making was estimated using unconditional multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: For all nurses (22.8%) and the self-paced group (24.1%), lower urinary tract status had the highest importance scores for the decision to call a clinician about a suspected UTI. For the forced-deliberation group, body temperature was most important (23.7%), and lower urinary tract status was less important (21%, P = .001). The information associated with the highest odds of an RN calling about a suspected UTI was painful or difficult urination [odds ratio (OR) 4.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.16-5.65], obvious blood in urine (OR 4.66, 95% CI 3.99-5.44), and temperature at 101.5° (OR 3.80, 95% CI 3.28-4.42). For the self-paced group, painful or difficult urination (OR 5.65, 95% CI 4.53-7.04) had the highest odds, whereas obvious blood in urine (OR 4.39, 95% CI 3.53-5.47) had highest odds for the forced-deliberation group. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: This study highlighted the importance of specific resident characteristics in nurse decision-making about suspected UTIs. Future antimicrobial stewardship efforts should aim to not only improve the previously studied overprescribing practices of clinicians, but to improve nurses' assessment of signs and symptoms of potential infections and how they weigh resident information.
Authors: Mark Loeb; Kevin Brazil; Lynne Lohfeld; Allison McGeer; Andrew Simor; Kurt Stevenson; Dick Zoutman; Stephanie Smith; Xiwu Liu; Stephen D Walter Journal: BMJ Date: 2005-09-08
Authors: Kevin P High; Suzanne F Bradley; Stefan Gravenstein; David R Mehr; Vincent J Quagliarello; Chesley Richards; Thomas T Yoshikawa Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2009-01-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Brigid M Wilson; Sue Shick; Rebecca R Carter; Barbara Heath; Patricia A Higgins; Basia Sychla; Danielle M Olds; Robin L P Jump Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2017-02-08 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: Laura W van Buul; Ruth B Veenhuizen; Wilco P Achterberg; François G Schellevis; Rob T G M Essink; Sabine C de Greeff; Stephanie Natsch; Jenny T van der Steen; Cees M P M Hertogh Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2014-11-20 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Jennifer Meddings; Sanjay Saint; Sarah L Krein; Elissa Gaies; Heidi Reichert; Andrew Hickner; Sara McNamara; Jason D Mann; Lona Mody Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Esther W de Bekker-Grob; Lieke Hol; Bas Donkers; Leonie van Dam; J Dik F Habbema; Monique E van Leerdam; Ernst J Kuipers; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot; Ewout W Steyerberg Journal: Value Health Date: 2009-11-12 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Saniya Singh; Chris Degeling; Dominic Fernandez; Amy Montgomery; Peter Caputi; Frank P Deane Journal: Antimicrob Resist Infect Control Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 6.454