Screening for Asymptomatic Clostridium difficile Among Bone Marrow Transplant Patients: A Mixed-Methods Study of Intervention Effectiveness and Feasibility

Abstract

OBJECTIVETo identify facilitators and barriers to implementation of a Clostridium difficile screening intervention among bone marrow transplant (BMT) patients and to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of the intervention on the rate of hospital-onset C. difficile infection (HO-CDI).DESIGNBefore-and-after trialSETTINGA 505-bed tertiary-care medical centerPARTICIPANTSAll 5,357 patients admitted to the BMT and general medicine wards from January 2014 to February 2017 were included in the study. Interview participants included 3 physicians, 4 nurses, and 4 administrators.INTERVENTIONAll BMT patients were screened within 48 hours of admission. Colonized patients, as defined by a C. difficile–positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) stool result, were placed under contact precautions for the duration of their hospital stay.METHODSInterview responses were coded according to the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety conceptual framework. We compared pre- and postintervention HO-CDI rates on BMT and general internal medicine units using time-series analysis.RESULTSStakeholder engagement, at both the person and organizational level, facilitates standardization and optimization of intervention protocols. While the screening intervention was generally well received, tools and technology were sources of concern. The mean incidence of HO-CDI decreased on the BMT service postintervention (P<.0001). However, the effect of the change in the trend postintervention was not significantly different on BMT compared to the control wards (P=.93).CONCLUSIONSWe report the first mixed-methods study to evaluate a C. difficile screening intervention among the BMT population. The positive nature by which the intervention was received by front-line clinical staff, laboratory staff, and administrators is promising for future implementation studies.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:177–185