Holding firm: Use of clinical correlation to improve Clostridioides difficile testing

Impact of an electronic smart order-set for diagnostic stewardship of Clostridiodes difficile infection (CDI) in a community healthcare system in South Florida

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate testing for Clostridiodes difficile infection (CDI) increases health care onset cases and contributes to overdiagnosis and overtreatment of patients in a community health care system.

METHODS

An electronic smart order set for the testing of CDI was created and implemented to improve the appropriateness of testing. A retrospective review of patients who were tested for CDI, pre and post, was conducted to determine if inappropriate stool testing for CDI decreased post-implementation of the order set.

RESULTS

224 patients were tested for CDI during the study period with the post-implementation period having a higher proportion of patients who met appropriate testing criteria defined by presence of diarrhea (80.5% vs 61.3%; P = .002). The rate of inappropriate CDI stool testing decreased from 31.1% to 11.0% after implementation (P < .001). A higher proportion of CDI patients were readmitted within 30 days of discharge (54.2% vs 33.0%; P = 0.001) during the post-implementation period.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a significant reduction in inappropriate CDI testing following the implementation of the order set. There was an observed increase in the proportion of patients who underwent recent gastrointestinal surgery which may have contributed to the increase in 30-day readmission rates during the post-implementation period.

Diagnostic stewardship in infectious diseases: a scoping review

Introduction. The term 'diagnostic stewardship' is relatively new, with a recent surge in its use within the literature. Despite its increasing popularity, a precise definition remains elusive. Various attempts have been made to define it, with some viewing it as an integral part of antimicrobial stewardship. The World Health Organization offers a broad definition, emphasizing the importance of timely, accurate diagnostics. However, inconsistencies in the use of this term still persist, necessitating further clarification.Gap Statement. There are currently inconsistencies in the definition of diagnostic stewardship used within the academic literature.Aim. This scoping review aims to categorize the use of diagnostic stewardship approaches and define this approach by identifying common characteristics and factors of its use within the literature.Methodology. This scoping review undertook a multi-database search from date of inception until October 2022. Any observational or experimental study where the authors define the intervention to be diagnostic stewardship from any clinical area was included. Screening of all papers was undertaken by a single reviewer with 10% verification by a second reviewer. Data extraction was undertaken by a single reviewer using a pre-piloted form. Given the wide variation in study design and intervention outcomes, a narrative synthesis approach was applied. Studies were clustered around common diagnostic stewardship interventions where appropriate.Results. After duplicate removal, a total of 1310 citations were identified, of which, after full-paper screening, 105 studies were included in this scoping review. The classification of an intervention as taking a diagnostic stewardship approach is a relatively recent development, with the first publication in this field dating back to 2017. The majority of research in this area has been conducted within the USA, with very few studies undertaken outside this region. Visual inspection of the citation map reveals that the current evidence base is interconnected, with frequent references to each other's work. The interventions commonly adopt a restrictive approach, utilizing hard and soft stops within the pre-analytical phase to restrict access to testing. Upon closer examination of the outcomes, it becomes evident that there is a predominant focus on reducing the number of tests rather than enhancing the current test protocol. This is further reflected in the limited number of studies that report on test performance (including protocol improvements, specificity and sensitivity).Conclusion. Diagnostic stewardship seems to have deviated from its intended course, morphing into a rather rudimentary instrument wielded not to enhance but to constrict the scope of testing. Despite the World Health Organization's advocacy for an ideology that promotes a more comprehensive approach to quality improvement, it may be more appropriate to consider alternative regional narratives when categorizing these types of quality improvement interventions.