Samir S Shah, MD, MSCE

Horwitz and Detsky¹ provide readers with a personal, experientially based primer on how healthcare professionals can more effectively engage on Twitter. As experienced physicians, researchers, and active social media users, the authors outline pragmatic and specific recommendations on how to engage misinformation and add value to social media discourse. We applaud the authors for offering best-practice approaches that are valuable to newcomers as well as seasoned social media users. In highlighting that social media is merely a modern tool for engagement and discussion, the authors underscore the time-held idea that only when a tool is used effectively will it yield the desired outcome. As a medical journal that regularly uses social media as a tool for outreach and dissemination, we could not agree more with the authors’ assertion.

Since 2015, the Journal of Hospital Medicine (JHM) has used social media to engage its readership and extend the impact of the work published in its pages. Like Horwitz and Detsky, JHM has developed insights and experience in how medical journals, organizations, institutions, and other academic programs can use social media effectively. Because of our experience in this area, we are often asked how to build a successful and sustainable social media presence. Here, we share five primary lessons on how to use social media as a tool to disseminate, connect, and engage.

As the flagship journal for the field of hospital medicine, we seek to disseminate the ideas and research that will inform health policy, optimize healthcare delivery, and improve patient outcomes while also building and sustaining an online community for professional engagement and growth. Our social media goals provide direction on how to interact, allow us to focus attention on what is important, and motivate our growth in this area. Simply put, we believe that using social media without defined goals would be like sailing a ship without a rudder.

As your organization establishes its goals, it is important to consider with whom you want to connect. Knowing your audience will allow you to better tailor the content you deliver through social media. For instance, we understand that as a journal focused on hospital medicine, our audience consists of busy clinicians, researchers, and medical educators who are trying to efficiently gather the most up-to-date information in our field. Recognizing this, we produce (and make available for download) Visual Abstracts and publish them on Twitter to help our followers assimilate information from new studies quickly and easily.² Moreover, we recognize that our followers are interested in how to use social media in their professional lives and have published several articles in this topic area.^3-5

We have found that having multiple individuals on our social media team has led to greater creativity and thoughtfulness on how we engage our readership. Our teams span generations, clinical experience, institutions, and cultural backgrounds. This intentional approach has allowed for diversity in thoughts and opinions and has helped shape the JHM social media message. Additionally, we have not only formalized editorial roles through the creation of Digital Media Editor positions, but we have also created the JHM Digital Media Fellowship, a training program and development pipeline for those interested in cultivating organization-based social media experiences and skill sets.⁶

Many organizations believe that successful social media outreach means creating an account and posting content when convenient. Experience has taught us that daily postings and regular engagement will build your brand as a regular and reliable source of information for your followers. Additionally, while many academic journals and organizations only occasionally post material and rarely interact with their followers, we have found that engaging and facilitating conversations through our monthly Twitter discussion (#JHMChat) has established a community, created opportunities for professional networking, and further disseminated the work published in JHM.⁷ As an academic journal or organization entering this field, recognize the product for which people follow you and deliver that product on a consistent basis.

It will only be a matter of time before your organization makes a misstep on social media. Instead of hiding, we recommend stepping into that tension and owning the mistake. For example, we recently published an article that contained a culturally offensive term. As a journal, we reflected on our error and took concrete steps to correct it. Further, we shared our thoughts with our followers to ensure transparency.⁸ Moving forward, we have inserted specific stopgaps in our editorial review process to avoid such missteps in the future.

Although every organization will have different goals and reasons for engaging on social media, we believe these central tenets will help optimize the use of this platform. Although we have established specific objectives for our engagement on social media, we believe Horwitz and Detsky¹ put it best when they note that, at the end of the day, our ultimate goal is in “…promoting knowledge and science in a way that helps us all live healthier and happier lives."

Horwitz and Detsky¹ provide readers with a personal, experientially based primer on how healthcare professionals can more effectively engage on Twitter. As experienced physicians, researchers, and active social media users, the authors outline pragmatic and specific recommendations on how to engage misinformation and add value to social media discourse. We applaud the authors for offering best-practice approaches that are valuable to newcomers as well as seasoned social media users. In highlighting that social media is merely a modern tool for engagement and discussion, the authors underscore the time-held idea that only when a tool is used effectively will it yield the desired outcome. As a medical journal that regularly uses social media as a tool for outreach and dissemination, we could not agree more with the authors’ assertion.

Since 2015, the Journal of Hospital Medicine (JHM) has used social media to engage its readership and extend the impact of the work published in its pages. Like Horwitz and Detsky, JHM has developed insights and experience in how medical journals, organizations, institutions, and other academic programs can use social media effectively. Because of our experience in this area, we are often asked how to build a successful and sustainable social media presence. Here, we share five primary lessons on how to use social media as a tool to disseminate, connect, and engage.

As the flagship journal for the field of hospital medicine, we seek to disseminate the ideas and research that will inform health policy, optimize healthcare delivery, and improve patient outcomes while also building and sustaining an online community for professional engagement and growth. Our social media goals provide direction on how to interact, allow us to focus attention on what is important, and motivate our growth in this area. Simply put, we believe that using social media without defined goals would be like sailing a ship without a rudder.

As your organization establishes its goals, it is important to consider with whom you want to connect. Knowing your audience will allow you to better tailor the content you deliver through social media. For instance, we understand that as a journal focused on hospital medicine, our audience consists of busy clinicians, researchers, and medical educators who are trying to efficiently gather the most up-to-date information in our field. Recognizing this, we produce (and make available for download) Visual Abstracts and publish them on Twitter to help our followers assimilate information from new studies quickly and easily.² Moreover, we recognize that our followers are interested in how to use social media in their professional lives and have published several articles in this topic area.^3-5

We have found that having multiple individuals on our social media team has led to greater creativity and thoughtfulness on how we engage our readership. Our teams span generations, clinical experience, institutions, and cultural backgrounds. This intentional approach has allowed for diversity in thoughts and opinions and has helped shape the JHM social media message. Additionally, we have not only formalized editorial roles through the creation of Digital Media Editor positions, but we have also created the JHM Digital Media Fellowship, a training program and development pipeline for those interested in cultivating organization-based social media experiences and skill sets.⁶

Many organizations believe that successful social media outreach means creating an account and posting content when convenient. Experience has taught us that daily postings and regular engagement will build your brand as a regular and reliable source of information for your followers. Additionally, while many academic journals and organizations only occasionally post material and rarely interact with their followers, we have found that engaging and facilitating conversations through our monthly Twitter discussion (#JHMChat) has established a community, created opportunities for professional networking, and further disseminated the work published in JHM.⁷ As an academic journal or organization entering this field, recognize the product for which people follow you and deliver that product on a consistent basis.

It will only be a matter of time before your organization makes a misstep on social media. Instead of hiding, we recommend stepping into that tension and owning the mistake. For example, we recently published an article that contained a culturally offensive term. As a journal, we reflected on our error and took concrete steps to correct it. Further, we shared our thoughts with our followers to ensure transparency.⁸ Moving forward, we have inserted specific stopgaps in our editorial review process to avoid such missteps in the future.

Although every organization will have different goals and reasons for engaging on social media, we believe these central tenets will help optimize the use of this platform. Although we have established specific objectives for our engagement on social media, we believe Horwitz and Detsky¹ put it best when they note that, at the end of the day, our ultimate goal is in “…promoting knowledge and science in a way that helps us all live healthier and happier lives."

Horwitz and Detsky¹ provide readers with a personal, experientially based primer on how healthcare professionals can more effectively engage on Twitter. As experienced physicians, researchers, and active social media users, the authors outline pragmatic and specific recommendations on how to engage misinformation and add value to social media discourse. We applaud the authors for offering best-practice approaches that are valuable to newcomers as well as seasoned social media users. In highlighting that social media is merely a modern tool for engagement and discussion, the authors underscore the time-held idea that only when a tool is used effectively will it yield the desired outcome. As a medical journal that regularly uses social media as a tool for outreach and dissemination, we could not agree more with the authors’ assertion.

Since 2015, the Journal of Hospital Medicine (JHM) has used social media to engage its readership and extend the impact of the work published in its pages. Like Horwitz and Detsky, JHM has developed insights and experience in how medical journals, organizations, institutions, and other academic programs can use social media effectively. Because of our experience in this area, we are often asked how to build a successful and sustainable social media presence. Here, we share five primary lessons on how to use social media as a tool to disseminate, connect, and engage.

As the flagship journal for the field of hospital medicine, we seek to disseminate the ideas and research that will inform health policy, optimize healthcare delivery, and improve patient outcomes while also building and sustaining an online community for professional engagement and growth. Our social media goals provide direction on how to interact, allow us to focus attention on what is important, and motivate our growth in this area. Simply put, we believe that using social media without defined goals would be like sailing a ship without a rudder.

As your organization establishes its goals, it is important to consider with whom you want to connect. Knowing your audience will allow you to better tailor the content you deliver through social media. For instance, we understand that as a journal focused on hospital medicine, our audience consists of busy clinicians, researchers, and medical educators who are trying to efficiently gather the most up-to-date information in our field. Recognizing this, we produce (and make available for download) Visual Abstracts and publish them on Twitter to help our followers assimilate information from new studies quickly and easily.² Moreover, we recognize that our followers are interested in how to use social media in their professional lives and have published several articles in this topic area.^3-5

We have found that having multiple individuals on our social media team has led to greater creativity and thoughtfulness on how we engage our readership. Our teams span generations, clinical experience, institutions, and cultural backgrounds. This intentional approach has allowed for diversity in thoughts and opinions and has helped shape the JHM social media message. Additionally, we have not only formalized editorial roles through the creation of Digital Media Editor positions, but we have also created the JHM Digital Media Fellowship, a training program and development pipeline for those interested in cultivating organization-based social media experiences and skill sets.⁶

Many organizations believe that successful social media outreach means creating an account and posting content when convenient. Experience has taught us that daily postings and regular engagement will build your brand as a regular and reliable source of information for your followers. Additionally, while many academic journals and organizations only occasionally post material and rarely interact with their followers, we have found that engaging and facilitating conversations through our monthly Twitter discussion (#JHMChat) has established a community, created opportunities for professional networking, and further disseminated the work published in JHM.⁷ As an academic journal or organization entering this field, recognize the product for which people follow you and deliver that product on a consistent basis.

It will only be a matter of time before your organization makes a misstep on social media. Instead of hiding, we recommend stepping into that tension and owning the mistake. For example, we recently published an article that contained a culturally offensive term. As a journal, we reflected on our error and took concrete steps to correct it. Further, we shared our thoughts with our followers to ensure transparency.⁸ Moving forward, we have inserted specific stopgaps in our editorial review process to avoid such missteps in the future.

Although every organization will have different goals and reasons for engaging on social media, we believe these central tenets will help optimize the use of this platform. Although we have established specific objectives for our engagement on social media, we believe Horwitz and Detsky¹ put it best when they note that, at the end of the day, our ultimate goal is in “…promoting knowledge and science in a way that helps us all live healthier and happier lives."

Invasive bacterial infections (IBI; ie, bacterial meningitis, bacteremia) are an uncommon but potentially devastating occurrence in young febrile infants. The challenge for clinicians is that physical examination cannot reliably exclude such infections. Thus, these infants have historically received comprehensive emergency department evaluation, including routine cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) assessment, and, often, required hospitalization for parenteral antibiotic administration while awaiting CSF culture results. The new American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines were necessary given changing bacteriology, advances in diagnostic testing, greater insight into the differential risk of poor outcomes by site of infection, and better appreciation of the potential harms of unnecessary care and interventions.¹ The 21 recommendations apply to well-appearing febrile infants 8 to 60 days of age, with recommendations stratified by age group, and exclude infants with certain conditions, including prematurity, focal bacterial infection, congenital or chromosomal abnormalities, and bronchiolitis. Four key recommendations are highlighted.

Recommendation 1: Diagnostic evaluation. For all age groups, blood culture and urinalysis (UA) are routinely recommended. For infants 8 to 21 days old, urine culture is routinely recommended. For older infants, urine culture is recommended if the UA is positive. All specimens for culture should be obtained via catheterization or suprapubic aspiration.

Infants 8 to 21 days old

• May assess inflammatory markers (grade B, weak).
• Should obtain CSF for analysis and culture (grade A, strong).

Infants 22 to 28 days old

• Should assess inflammatory markers (grade B, strong).
• May obtain CSF for analysis and culture even if no inflammatory marker obtained is abnormal (grade B, moderate).
• Should obtain CSF for analysis and culture if any inflammatory marker obtained is abnormal (procalcitonin >0.5 ng/mL [preferred]; C-reactive protein >20 mg/L; absolute neutrophil count >4000-5200/mm³; or temperature >38.5 °C) (grade B, moderate).

Infants 29 to 60 days old

• Should assess inflammatory markers (grade B, moderate).
• May obtain CSF for analysis and culture if any inflammatory marker is abnormal, (grade C, weak).
• Need not obtain CSF for analysis if all inflammatory markers obtained are normal (grade B, moderate).

Recommendation 2: Initial disposition decision

Infants 8 to 21 days old

• Admit (grade B, moderate).

Infants 22 to 28 days old

• Admit if CSF analysis is abnormal, UA is positive (A, strong), or if CSF is not obtained or is uninterpretable (grade B, weak).
• May manage at home if UA is normal, inflammatory markers are normal, CSF is normal or enterovirus positive, family has received verbal and written home monitoring instructions for concerning signs that should prompt immediate return for care, follow-up plan for reevaluation in 24 hours is in place, and means of communication for change in clinical status has been established (grade B, moderate).

Infants 29 to 60 days old

• Admit if CSF analysis is abnormal (grade A strong).
• May hospitalize if any inflammatory marker obtained is abnormal (grade B, moderate).
• Should manage at home if all the following are present: CSF is normal, if obtained; UA is negative; all inflammatory markers obtained are normal; teaching is complete; follow-up plan for reevaluation in 24 hours is in place; and means of communication for change in clinical status has been established (grade B, moderate).

Recommendation 3: Empiric antimicrobial treatment

Infants 8 to 21 days old

• Should initiate parenteral antimicrobial therapy (grade A, strong).
• This recommendation is based on the high prevalence of IBIs in this age category, and IBI may be present despite a negative UA and/or normal inflammatory markers.

Infants 22 to 28 days old

• Should initiate parenteral antimicrobial therapy if either CSF analysis suggests bacterial meningitis or UA is positive (grade A, strong).
• May administer parenteral antimicrobial therapy if any inflammatory marker is abnormal (grade B, moderate).
• May administer parenteral antimicrobial therapy even if everything is reassuring (grade B, weak).
• Should administer parenteral antimicrobial therapy to infant who will be managed at home even if all evaluation is reassuring (grade C, moderate).

Infants 29 to 60 days old

• Should start parenteral antimicrobials if CSF analysis suggests bacterial meningitis (grade A, strong).
• May use parenteral antimicrobials if any inflammatory marker is abnormal (grade B, moderate).
• Should initiate oral antimicrobial therapy if CSF is normal (if obtained), UA is positive, and no inflammatory markers obtained are abnormal (grade B, strong).
• Need not start antimicrobials if CSF is normal or enterovirus positive, UA is negative, and no inflammatory marker obtained is abnormal (grade B, moderate).

Recommendation 4: Hospital discharge decision

Infants 8 to 21 days old AND Infants 22 to 28 days ol

• Discontinue antibiotics and discharge infant when culture results are negative for 24 to 36 hours (or positive only for contaminants), the infant is well or improving, and there are no other reasons for hospitalization (grade B, strong).

Infants 29 to 60 days old

• Although no specific parameters are given for infants without UTI, presumably the discharge criteria for younger infants would also apply for this group.
• For infants with UTI, discharge if blood and CSF cultures are negative, infant is well or improving, and no other reasons for hospitalization remain (grade B, strong).

The guideline provides opportunities for safely doing less in a vulnerable population. For example, infants with UTIs may be managed differently (eg, often with oral antibiotics) from those with IBIs, which represents an important change from conventional practice.² Additional strengths are the incorporation of procalcitonin, which has emerged as the most accurate marker for risk stratification;³ and deemphasis of complete blood count results.

Multiple exclusions for relatively common scenarios represent missed opportunities for a more complete set of recommendations for the febrile infant population. The decision to exclude infants in the first week of life is perplexing since infants 0 to 7 days old will receive CSF analysis, require admission, and generally be managed comparably to infants 8 to 21 days old. Infants with bronchiolitis are excluded; the absence of uniform guidance may perpetuate variability in management within and across institutions. Finally, exclusion of infants in whom perinatal or congenital herpes simplex virus is a consideration is not ideal. The requirement to consult separate guidance for herpes simplex virus evaluation fragments decision-making and may lead to inadvertent omissions of critical tests or treatment in at-risk infants.

Methods in Preparing the Guideline

The guideline working group included stakeholders from multiple specialties including general pediatrics, emergency medicine, hospital medicine, infectious diseases, and family medicine. In addition to published studies, the committee considered an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality commissioned systematic review, as well as analyses of additional data solicited from previously published peer-reviewed studies. Once recommendations were formulated, additional input from physician focus groups and parents was solicited. Recommendations were rated based on strength of available evidence (A, B, C, D, X) as well as assessment of the benefit/harm profile (strong, moderate, weak).

Sources of Potential Conflicts of Interest or Bias

The guideline writing group was predominantly male, though we note that the broader working group was diverse in gender and specialty. No significant conflicts of interest were noted.

Generalizability

The complexity of this guideline, including age stratification, multiple exclusions, and multistep processes could lead to challenges in implementation; a health information technology application (app) could substantially ease the difficulty of implementation at the point of care.

Additional areas in need of guidance include neonates with bronchiolitis and fever and neonates with focal infection. For the former, there is an abundance of evidence;⁴ what is needed is consensus. For the latter, additional study is needed such as the role of inflammatory markers in stratifying infants with focal infection who need additional evaluation prior to treatment.

Invasive bacterial infections (IBI; ie, bacterial meningitis, bacteremia) are an uncommon but potentially devastating occurrence in young febrile infants. The challenge for clinicians is that physical examination cannot reliably exclude such infections. Thus, these infants have historically received comprehensive emergency department evaluation, including routine cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) assessment, and, often, required hospitalization for parenteral antibiotic administration while awaiting CSF culture results. The new American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines were necessary given changing bacteriology, advances in diagnostic testing, greater insight into the differential risk of poor outcomes by site of infection, and better appreciation of the potential harms of unnecessary care and interventions.¹ The 21 recommendations apply to well-appearing febrile infants 8 to 60 days of age, with recommendations stratified by age group, and exclude infants with certain conditions, including prematurity, focal bacterial infection, congenital or chromosomal abnormalities, and bronchiolitis. Four key recommendations are highlighted.

Recommendation 1: Diagnostic evaluation. For all age groups, blood culture and urinalysis (UA) are routinely recommended. For infants 8 to 21 days old, urine culture is routinely recommended. For older infants, urine culture is recommended if the UA is positive. All specimens for culture should be obtained via catheterization or suprapubic aspiration.

Infants 8 to 21 days old

• May assess inflammatory markers (grade B, weak).
• Should obtain CSF for analysis and culture (grade A, strong).

Infants 22 to 28 days old

• Should assess inflammatory markers (grade B, strong).
• May obtain CSF for analysis and culture even if no inflammatory marker obtained is abnormal (grade B, moderate).
• Should obtain CSF for analysis and culture if any inflammatory marker obtained is abnormal (procalcitonin >0.5 ng/mL [preferred]; C-reactive protein >20 mg/L; absolute neutrophil count >4000-5200/mm³; or temperature >38.5 °C) (grade B, moderate).

Infants 29 to 60 days old

• Should assess inflammatory markers (grade B, moderate).
• May obtain CSF for analysis and culture if any inflammatory marker is abnormal, (grade C, weak).
• Need not obtain CSF for analysis if all inflammatory markers obtained are normal (grade B, moderate).

Recommendation 2: Initial disposition decision

Infants 8 to 21 days old

• Admit (grade B, moderate).

Infants 22 to 28 days old

• Admit if CSF analysis is abnormal, UA is positive (A, strong), or if CSF is not obtained or is uninterpretable (grade B, weak).
• May manage at home if UA is normal, inflammatory markers are normal, CSF is normal or enterovirus positive, family has received verbal and written home monitoring instructions for concerning signs that should prompt immediate return for care, follow-up plan for reevaluation in 24 hours is in place, and means of communication for change in clinical status has been established (grade B, moderate).

Infants 29 to 60 days old

• Admit if CSF analysis is abnormal (grade A strong).
• May hospitalize if any inflammatory marker obtained is abnormal (grade B, moderate).
• Should manage at home if all the following are present: CSF is normal, if obtained; UA is negative; all inflammatory markers obtained are normal; teaching is complete; follow-up plan for reevaluation in 24 hours is in place; and means of communication for change in clinical status has been established (grade B, moderate).

Recommendation 3: Empiric antimicrobial treatment

Infants 8 to 21 days old

• Should initiate parenteral antimicrobial therapy (grade A, strong).
• This recommendation is based on the high prevalence of IBIs in this age category, and IBI may be present despite a negative UA and/or normal inflammatory markers.

Infants 22 to 28 days old

• Should initiate parenteral antimicrobial therapy if either CSF analysis suggests bacterial meningitis or UA is positive (grade A, strong).
• May administer parenteral antimicrobial therapy if any inflammatory marker is abnormal (grade B, moderate).
• May administer parenteral antimicrobial therapy even if everything is reassuring (grade B, weak).
• Should administer parenteral antimicrobial therapy to infant who will be managed at home even if all evaluation is reassuring (grade C, moderate).

Infants 29 to 60 days old

• Should start parenteral antimicrobials if CSF analysis suggests bacterial meningitis (grade A, strong).
• May use parenteral antimicrobials if any inflammatory marker is abnormal (grade B, moderate).
• Should initiate oral antimicrobial therapy if CSF is normal (if obtained), UA is positive, and no inflammatory markers obtained are abnormal (grade B, strong).
• Need not start antimicrobials if CSF is normal or enterovirus positive, UA is negative, and no inflammatory marker obtained is abnormal (grade B, moderate).

Recommendation 4: Hospital discharge decision

Infants 8 to 21 days old AND Infants 22 to 28 days ol

• Discontinue antibiotics and discharge infant when culture results are negative for 24 to 36 hours (or positive only for contaminants), the infant is well or improving, and there are no other reasons for hospitalization (grade B, strong).

Infants 29 to 60 days old

• Although no specific parameters are given for infants without UTI, presumably the discharge criteria for younger infants would also apply for this group.
• For infants with UTI, discharge if blood and CSF cultures are negative, infant is well or improving, and no other reasons for hospitalization remain (grade B, strong).

The guideline provides opportunities for safely doing less in a vulnerable population. For example, infants with UTIs may be managed differently (eg, often with oral antibiotics) from those with IBIs, which represents an important change from conventional practice.² Additional strengths are the incorporation of procalcitonin, which has emerged as the most accurate marker for risk stratification;³ and deemphasis of complete blood count results.

Multiple exclusions for relatively common scenarios represent missed opportunities for a more complete set of recommendations for the febrile infant population. The decision to exclude infants in the first week of life is perplexing since infants 0 to 7 days old will receive CSF analysis, require admission, and generally be managed comparably to infants 8 to 21 days old. Infants with bronchiolitis are excluded; the absence of uniform guidance may perpetuate variability in management within and across institutions. Finally, exclusion of infants in whom perinatal or congenital herpes simplex virus is a consideration is not ideal. The requirement to consult separate guidance for herpes simplex virus evaluation fragments decision-making and may lead to inadvertent omissions of critical tests or treatment in at-risk infants.

Methods in Preparing the Guideline

The guideline working group included stakeholders from multiple specialties including general pediatrics, emergency medicine, hospital medicine, infectious diseases, and family medicine. In addition to published studies, the committee considered an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality commissioned systematic review, as well as analyses of additional data solicited from previously published peer-reviewed studies. Once recommendations were formulated, additional input from physician focus groups and parents was solicited. Recommendations were rated based on strength of available evidence (A, B, C, D, X) as well as assessment of the benefit/harm profile (strong, moderate, weak).

Sources of Potential Conflicts of Interest or Bias

The guideline writing group was predominantly male, though we note that the broader working group was diverse in gender and specialty. No significant conflicts of interest were noted.

Generalizability

The complexity of this guideline, including age stratification, multiple exclusions, and multistep processes could lead to challenges in implementation; a health information technology application (app) could substantially ease the difficulty of implementation at the point of care.

Additional areas in need of guidance include neonates with bronchiolitis and fever and neonates with focal infection. For the former, there is an abundance of evidence;⁴ what is needed is consensus. For the latter, additional study is needed such as the role of inflammatory markers in stratifying infants with focal infection who need additional evaluation prior to treatment.

Invasive bacterial infections (IBI; ie, bacterial meningitis, bacteremia) are an uncommon but potentially devastating occurrence in young febrile infants. The challenge for clinicians is that physical examination cannot reliably exclude such infections. Thus, these infants have historically received comprehensive emergency department evaluation, including routine cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) assessment, and, often, required hospitalization for parenteral antibiotic administration while awaiting CSF culture results. The new American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines were necessary given changing bacteriology, advances in diagnostic testing, greater insight into the differential risk of poor outcomes by site of infection, and better appreciation of the potential harms of unnecessary care and interventions.¹ The 21 recommendations apply to well-appearing febrile infants 8 to 60 days of age, with recommendations stratified by age group, and exclude infants with certain conditions, including prematurity, focal bacterial infection, congenital or chromosomal abnormalities, and bronchiolitis. Four key recommendations are highlighted.

Recommendation 1: Diagnostic evaluation. For all age groups, blood culture and urinalysis (UA) are routinely recommended. For infants 8 to 21 days old, urine culture is routinely recommended. For older infants, urine culture is recommended if the UA is positive. All specimens for culture should be obtained via catheterization or suprapubic aspiration.

Infants 8 to 21 days old

• May assess inflammatory markers (grade B, weak).
• Should obtain CSF for analysis and culture (grade A, strong).

Infants 22 to 28 days old

• Should assess inflammatory markers (grade B, strong).
• May obtain CSF for analysis and culture even if no inflammatory marker obtained is abnormal (grade B, moderate).
• Should obtain CSF for analysis and culture if any inflammatory marker obtained is abnormal (procalcitonin >0.5 ng/mL [preferred]; C-reactive protein >20 mg/L; absolute neutrophil count >4000-5200/mm³; or temperature >38.5 °C) (grade B, moderate).

Infants 29 to 60 days old

• Should assess inflammatory markers (grade B, moderate).
• May obtain CSF for analysis and culture if any inflammatory marker is abnormal, (grade C, weak).
• Need not obtain CSF for analysis if all inflammatory markers obtained are normal (grade B, moderate).

Recommendation 2: Initial disposition decision

Infants 8 to 21 days old

• Admit (grade B, moderate).

Infants 22 to 28 days old

• Admit if CSF analysis is abnormal, UA is positive (A, strong), or if CSF is not obtained or is uninterpretable (grade B, weak).
• May manage at home if UA is normal, inflammatory markers are normal, CSF is normal or enterovirus positive, family has received verbal and written home monitoring instructions for concerning signs that should prompt immediate return for care, follow-up plan for reevaluation in 24 hours is in place, and means of communication for change in clinical status has been established (grade B, moderate).

Infants 29 to 60 days old

• Admit if CSF analysis is abnormal (grade A strong).
• May hospitalize if any inflammatory marker obtained is abnormal (grade B, moderate).
• Should manage at home if all the following are present: CSF is normal, if obtained; UA is negative; all inflammatory markers obtained are normal; teaching is complete; follow-up plan for reevaluation in 24 hours is in place; and means of communication for change in clinical status has been established (grade B, moderate).

Recommendation 3: Empiric antimicrobial treatment

Infants 8 to 21 days old

• Should initiate parenteral antimicrobial therapy (grade A, strong).
• This recommendation is based on the high prevalence of IBIs in this age category, and IBI may be present despite a negative UA and/or normal inflammatory markers.

Infants 22 to 28 days old

• Should initiate parenteral antimicrobial therapy if either CSF analysis suggests bacterial meningitis or UA is positive (grade A, strong).
• May administer parenteral antimicrobial therapy if any inflammatory marker is abnormal (grade B, moderate).
• May administer parenteral antimicrobial therapy even if everything is reassuring (grade B, weak).
• Should administer parenteral antimicrobial therapy to infant who will be managed at home even if all evaluation is reassuring (grade C, moderate).

Infants 29 to 60 days old

• Should start parenteral antimicrobials if CSF analysis suggests bacterial meningitis (grade A, strong).
• May use parenteral antimicrobials if any inflammatory marker is abnormal (grade B, moderate).
• Should initiate oral antimicrobial therapy if CSF is normal (if obtained), UA is positive, and no inflammatory markers obtained are abnormal (grade B, strong).
• Need not start antimicrobials if CSF is normal or enterovirus positive, UA is negative, and no inflammatory marker obtained is abnormal (grade B, moderate).

Recommendation 4: Hospital discharge decision

Infants 8 to 21 days old AND Infants 22 to 28 days ol

• Discontinue antibiotics and discharge infant when culture results are negative for 24 to 36 hours (or positive only for contaminants), the infant is well or improving, and there are no other reasons for hospitalization (grade B, strong).

Infants 29 to 60 days old

• Although no specific parameters are given for infants without UTI, presumably the discharge criteria for younger infants would also apply for this group.
• For infants with UTI, discharge if blood and CSF cultures are negative, infant is well or improving, and no other reasons for hospitalization remain (grade B, strong).

The guideline provides opportunities for safely doing less in a vulnerable population. For example, infants with UTIs may be managed differently (eg, often with oral antibiotics) from those with IBIs, which represents an important change from conventional practice.² Additional strengths are the incorporation of procalcitonin, which has emerged as the most accurate marker for risk stratification;³ and deemphasis of complete blood count results.

Multiple exclusions for relatively common scenarios represent missed opportunities for a more complete set of recommendations for the febrile infant population. The decision to exclude infants in the first week of life is perplexing since infants 0 to 7 days old will receive CSF analysis, require admission, and generally be managed comparably to infants 8 to 21 days old. Infants with bronchiolitis are excluded; the absence of uniform guidance may perpetuate variability in management within and across institutions. Finally, exclusion of infants in whom perinatal or congenital herpes simplex virus is a consideration is not ideal. The requirement to consult separate guidance for herpes simplex virus evaluation fragments decision-making and may lead to inadvertent omissions of critical tests or treatment in at-risk infants.

Methods in Preparing the Guideline

The guideline working group included stakeholders from multiple specialties including general pediatrics, emergency medicine, hospital medicine, infectious diseases, and family medicine. In addition to published studies, the committee considered an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality commissioned systematic review, as well as analyses of additional data solicited from previously published peer-reviewed studies. Once recommendations were formulated, additional input from physician focus groups and parents was solicited. Recommendations were rated based on strength of available evidence (A, B, C, D, X) as well as assessment of the benefit/harm profile (strong, moderate, weak).

Sources of Potential Conflicts of Interest or Bias

The guideline writing group was predominantly male, though we note that the broader working group was diverse in gender and specialty. No significant conflicts of interest were noted.

Generalizability

The complexity of this guideline, including age stratification, multiple exclusions, and multistep processes could lead to challenges in implementation; a health information technology application (app) could substantially ease the difficulty of implementation at the point of care.

Additional areas in need of guidance include neonates with bronchiolitis and fever and neonates with focal infection. For the former, there is an abundance of evidence;⁴ what is needed is consensus. For the latter, additional study is needed such as the role of inflammatory markers in stratifying infants with focal infection who need additional evaluation prior to treatment.

A functioning healthcare system requires trust on many levels. In its simplest form, this is the trust between an individual patient and their physician that allows for candor, autonomy, informed decisions, and compassionate care. Trust is a central component of medical education, as trainees gradually earn the trust of their supervisors to achieve autonomy. And, on a much larger scale, societal trust in science, the facts, and the medical system influences individual and group decisions that can have far-reaching consequences.

Defining trust is challenging. Trust is relational, an often subconscious decision “by one individual to depend on another,” but it can also be as broad as trust in an institution or a national system.¹ Trust also requires vulnerability—trusting another person or system means ceding some level of personal control and accepting risk. Thus, to ask patients and society to trust in physicians, the healthcare system, or public health institutions, though essential, is no small request.

Physicians and the medical system at large have not always behaved in ways that warrant trust. Medical research on vulnerable populations (historically marginalized communities, prisoners, residents of institutions) has occurred within living memory. Systemic racism within medicine has led to marked disparities in access and outcomes between White and minoritized communities.² These disparities have been accentuated by the pandemic. Black and Brown patients have higher infection rates and higher mortality rates but less access to healthcare.³ Vaccine distribution, which has been complicated by historic earned distrust from Black and Brown communities, revealed systemic racism. For example, many early mass vaccination sites, such as Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles, could only be easily reached by car. Online appointment scheduling platforms were opaque and required access to technology.⁴

Public trust in institutions has been eroding over the past several decades, but healthcare has unfortunately seen the largest decline.⁵ Individual healthcare decisions have also been increasingly politicized; the net result is the creation of laws, such as those limiting discussions of firearm safety or banning gender-affirming treatments for transgender children, that influence patient-physician interactions. This combination of erosion of trust and politicization of medical decisions has been harshly highlighted by the global pandemic, complicating public health policy and doctor-patient discussions. Public health measures such as masking and vaccination have become polarized.⁶ Further, there is diminishing trust in medical recommendations, brought about by the current media landscape and by frequent modifications to public health recommendations. Science and medicine are constantly changing, and knowledge in these fields is ultimately provisional. Unfortunately, when new data are published that contradict prior information or report new or dramatic findings, it can appear that the medical system was somehow obscuring the truth in the past, rather than simply advancing its knowledge in the present.

How do we build trust? How do we function in a healthcare system where trust has been eroded? Trust is ultimately a fragile thing. The process of earning it is not swift or straightforward, but it can be lost in a moment.

In partnership with the ABIM Foundation, the Journal of Hospital Medicine will explore the concept of trust in all facets of healthcare and medical education, including understanding the drivers of trust in a multitude of settings and in different relationships (patient-clinician, clinician-trainee, clinician- or trainee-organization, health system-community), interventions to build trust, and the enablers of those interventions. To this end, we are seeking articles that explore or evaluate trust. These include original research, brief reports, perspectives, and Leadership & Professional Development articles. Articles focusing on trust should be submitted by December 31, 2021.

A functioning healthcare system requires trust on many levels. In its simplest form, this is the trust between an individual patient and their physician that allows for candor, autonomy, informed decisions, and compassionate care. Trust is a central component of medical education, as trainees gradually earn the trust of their supervisors to achieve autonomy. And, on a much larger scale, societal trust in science, the facts, and the medical system influences individual and group decisions that can have far-reaching consequences.

Defining trust is challenging. Trust is relational, an often subconscious decision “by one individual to depend on another,” but it can also be as broad as trust in an institution or a national system.¹ Trust also requires vulnerability—trusting another person or system means ceding some level of personal control and accepting risk. Thus, to ask patients and society to trust in physicians, the healthcare system, or public health institutions, though essential, is no small request.

Physicians and the medical system at large have not always behaved in ways that warrant trust. Medical research on vulnerable populations (historically marginalized communities, prisoners, residents of institutions) has occurred within living memory. Systemic racism within medicine has led to marked disparities in access and outcomes between White and minoritized communities.² These disparities have been accentuated by the pandemic. Black and Brown patients have higher infection rates and higher mortality rates but less access to healthcare.³ Vaccine distribution, which has been complicated by historic earned distrust from Black and Brown communities, revealed systemic racism. For example, many early mass vaccination sites, such as Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles, could only be easily reached by car. Online appointment scheduling platforms were opaque and required access to technology.⁴

Public trust in institutions has been eroding over the past several decades, but healthcare has unfortunately seen the largest decline.⁵ Individual healthcare decisions have also been increasingly politicized; the net result is the creation of laws, such as those limiting discussions of firearm safety or banning gender-affirming treatments for transgender children, that influence patient-physician interactions. This combination of erosion of trust and politicization of medical decisions has been harshly highlighted by the global pandemic, complicating public health policy and doctor-patient discussions. Public health measures such as masking and vaccination have become polarized.⁶ Further, there is diminishing trust in medical recommendations, brought about by the current media landscape and by frequent modifications to public health recommendations. Science and medicine are constantly changing, and knowledge in these fields is ultimately provisional. Unfortunately, when new data are published that contradict prior information or report new or dramatic findings, it can appear that the medical system was somehow obscuring the truth in the past, rather than simply advancing its knowledge in the present.

How do we build trust? How do we function in a healthcare system where trust has been eroded? Trust is ultimately a fragile thing. The process of earning it is not swift or straightforward, but it can be lost in a moment.

In partnership with the ABIM Foundation, the Journal of Hospital Medicine will explore the concept of trust in all facets of healthcare and medical education, including understanding the drivers of trust in a multitude of settings and in different relationships (patient-clinician, clinician-trainee, clinician- or trainee-organization, health system-community), interventions to build trust, and the enablers of those interventions. To this end, we are seeking articles that explore or evaluate trust. These include original research, brief reports, perspectives, and Leadership & Professional Development articles. Articles focusing on trust should be submitted by December 31, 2021.

A functioning healthcare system requires trust on many levels. In its simplest form, this is the trust between an individual patient and their physician that allows for candor, autonomy, informed decisions, and compassionate care. Trust is a central component of medical education, as trainees gradually earn the trust of their supervisors to achieve autonomy. And, on a much larger scale, societal trust in science, the facts, and the medical system influences individual and group decisions that can have far-reaching consequences.

Defining trust is challenging. Trust is relational, an often subconscious decision “by one individual to depend on another,” but it can also be as broad as trust in an institution or a national system.¹ Trust also requires vulnerability—trusting another person or system means ceding some level of personal control and accepting risk. Thus, to ask patients and society to trust in physicians, the healthcare system, or public health institutions, though essential, is no small request.

Physicians and the medical system at large have not always behaved in ways that warrant trust. Medical research on vulnerable populations (historically marginalized communities, prisoners, residents of institutions) has occurred within living memory. Systemic racism within medicine has led to marked disparities in access and outcomes between White and minoritized communities.² These disparities have been accentuated by the pandemic. Black and Brown patients have higher infection rates and higher mortality rates but less access to healthcare.³ Vaccine distribution, which has been complicated by historic earned distrust from Black and Brown communities, revealed systemic racism. For example, many early mass vaccination sites, such as Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles, could only be easily reached by car. Online appointment scheduling platforms were opaque and required access to technology.⁴

Public trust in institutions has been eroding over the past several decades, but healthcare has unfortunately seen the largest decline.⁵ Individual healthcare decisions have also been increasingly politicized; the net result is the creation of laws, such as those limiting discussions of firearm safety or banning gender-affirming treatments for transgender children, that influence patient-physician interactions. This combination of erosion of trust and politicization of medical decisions has been harshly highlighted by the global pandemic, complicating public health policy and doctor-patient discussions. Public health measures such as masking and vaccination have become polarized.⁶ Further, there is diminishing trust in medical recommendations, brought about by the current media landscape and by frequent modifications to public health recommendations. Science and medicine are constantly changing, and knowledge in these fields is ultimately provisional. Unfortunately, when new data are published that contradict prior information or report new or dramatic findings, it can appear that the medical system was somehow obscuring the truth in the past, rather than simply advancing its knowledge in the present.

How do we build trust? How do we function in a healthcare system where trust has been eroded? Trust is ultimately a fragile thing. The process of earning it is not swift or straightforward, but it can be lost in a moment.

In partnership with the ABIM Foundation, the Journal of Hospital Medicine will explore the concept of trust in all facets of healthcare and medical education, including understanding the drivers of trust in a multitude of settings and in different relationships (patient-clinician, clinician-trainee, clinician- or trainee-organization, health system-community), interventions to build trust, and the enablers of those interventions. To this end, we are seeking articles that explore or evaluate trust. These include original research, brief reports, perspectives, and Leadership & Professional Development articles. Articles focusing on trust should be submitted by December 31, 2021.

We recently published an article in our Leadership & Professional Development series titled “Tribalism: The Good, the Bad, and the Future.” Despite pre- and post-acceptance manuscript review and discussion by a diverse and thoughtful team of editors, we did not appreciate how particular language in this article would be hurtful to some communities. We also promoted the article using the hashtag “tribalism” in a journal tweet. Shortly after we posted the tweet, several readers on social media reached out with constructive feedback on the prejudicial nature of this terminology. Within hours of receiving this feedback, our editorial team met to better understand our error, and we made the decision to immediately retract the manuscript. We also deleted the tweet and issued an apology referencing a screenshot of the original tweet.^1,2 We have republished the original article with appropriate language.³ Tweets promoting the new article will incorporate this new language.

From this experience, we learned that the words “tribe” and “tribalism” have no consistent meaning, are associated with negative historical and cultural assumptions, and can promote misleading stereotypes.⁴ The term “tribe” became popular as a colonial construct to describe forms of social organization considered ”uncivilized” or ”primitive.“⁵ In using the term “tribe” to describe members of medical communities, we ignored the complex and dynamic identities of Native American, African, and other Indigenous Peoples and the history of their oppression.

The intent of the original article was to highlight how being part of a distinct medical discipline, such as hospital medicine or emergency medicine, conferred benefits, such as shared identity and social support structure, and caution how this group identity could also lead to nonconstructive partisan behaviors that might not best serve our patients. We recognize that other words more accurately convey our intent and do not cause harm. We used “tribe” when we meant “group,” “discipline,” or “specialty.” We used “tribalism” when we meant “siloed” or “factional.”

This misstep underscores how, even with the best intentions and diverse teams, microaggressions can happen. We accept responsibility for this mistake, and we will continue to do the work of respecting and advocating for all members of our community. To minimize the likelihood of future errors, we are developing a systematic process to identify language within manuscripts accepted for publication that may be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, or otherwise harmful. As we embrace a growth mindset, we vow to remain transparent, responsive, and welcoming of feedback. We are grateful to our readers for helping us learn.

We recently published an article in our Leadership & Professional Development series titled “Tribalism: The Good, the Bad, and the Future.” Despite pre- and post-acceptance manuscript review and discussion by a diverse and thoughtful team of editors, we did not appreciate how particular language in this article would be hurtful to some communities. We also promoted the article using the hashtag “tribalism” in a journal tweet. Shortly after we posted the tweet, several readers on social media reached out with constructive feedback on the prejudicial nature of this terminology. Within hours of receiving this feedback, our editorial team met to better understand our error, and we made the decision to immediately retract the manuscript. We also deleted the tweet and issued an apology referencing a screenshot of the original tweet.^1,2 We have republished the original article with appropriate language.³ Tweets promoting the new article will incorporate this new language.

From this experience, we learned that the words “tribe” and “tribalism” have no consistent meaning, are associated with negative historical and cultural assumptions, and can promote misleading stereotypes.⁴ The term “tribe” became popular as a colonial construct to describe forms of social organization considered ”uncivilized” or ”primitive.“⁵ In using the term “tribe” to describe members of medical communities, we ignored the complex and dynamic identities of Native American, African, and other Indigenous Peoples and the history of their oppression.

The intent of the original article was to highlight how being part of a distinct medical discipline, such as hospital medicine or emergency medicine, conferred benefits, such as shared identity and social support structure, and caution how this group identity could also lead to nonconstructive partisan behaviors that might not best serve our patients. We recognize that other words more accurately convey our intent and do not cause harm. We used “tribe” when we meant “group,” “discipline,” or “specialty.” We used “tribalism” when we meant “siloed” or “factional.”

This misstep underscores how, even with the best intentions and diverse teams, microaggressions can happen. We accept responsibility for this mistake, and we will continue to do the work of respecting and advocating for all members of our community. To minimize the likelihood of future errors, we are developing a systematic process to identify language within manuscripts accepted for publication that may be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, or otherwise harmful. As we embrace a growth mindset, we vow to remain transparent, responsive, and welcoming of feedback. We are grateful to our readers for helping us learn.

We recently published an article in our Leadership & Professional Development series titled “Tribalism: The Good, the Bad, and the Future.” Despite pre- and post-acceptance manuscript review and discussion by a diverse and thoughtful team of editors, we did not appreciate how particular language in this article would be hurtful to some communities. We also promoted the article using the hashtag “tribalism” in a journal tweet. Shortly after we posted the tweet, several readers on social media reached out with constructive feedback on the prejudicial nature of this terminology. Within hours of receiving this feedback, our editorial team met to better understand our error, and we made the decision to immediately retract the manuscript. We also deleted the tweet and issued an apology referencing a screenshot of the original tweet.^1,2 We have republished the original article with appropriate language.³ Tweets promoting the new article will incorporate this new language.

From this experience, we learned that the words “tribe” and “tribalism” have no consistent meaning, are associated with negative historical and cultural assumptions, and can promote misleading stereotypes.⁴ The term “tribe” became popular as a colonial construct to describe forms of social organization considered ”uncivilized” or ”primitive.“⁵ In using the term “tribe” to describe members of medical communities, we ignored the complex and dynamic identities of Native American, African, and other Indigenous Peoples and the history of their oppression.

The intent of the original article was to highlight how being part of a distinct medical discipline, such as hospital medicine or emergency medicine, conferred benefits, such as shared identity and social support structure, and caution how this group identity could also lead to nonconstructive partisan behaviors that might not best serve our patients. We recognize that other words more accurately convey our intent and do not cause harm. We used “tribe” when we meant “group,” “discipline,” or “specialty.” We used “tribalism” when we meant “siloed” or “factional.”

This misstep underscores how, even with the best intentions and diverse teams, microaggressions can happen. We accept responsibility for this mistake, and we will continue to do the work of respecting and advocating for all members of our community. To minimize the likelihood of future errors, we are developing a systematic process to identify language within manuscripts accepted for publication that may be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, or otherwise harmful. As we embrace a growth mindset, we vow to remain transparent, responsive, and welcoming of feedback. We are grateful to our readers for helping us learn.

Febrile infants aged 0 to 60 days often undergo diagnostic testing to evaluate for invasive bacterial infections (IBI; ie, bacteremia and meningitis) and are subsequently hospitalized pending culture results. Only 1% to 2% of infants 0 to 60 days old have an IBI,^1-3 and most hospitalized infants are discharged once physicians feel confident that pathogens are unlikely to be isolated from blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) cultures. Practice regarding duration of hospitalization while awaiting blood and CSF culture results is not standardized in this population. Longer hospitalizations can lead to increased costs and familial stress, including difficulty with breastfeeding and anxiety in newly postpartum mothers.^4,5

In 2010, an institutional evidence-based guideline for the management of febrile infants aged 0 to 60 days recommended discharge after 36 hours of observation if all cultures were negative.⁶ However, recent studies demonstrate that 85% to 93% of pathogens in blood and CSF cultures grow within 24 hours of incubation.^7-9 Assuming a 2% prevalence of IBI, if 15% of pathogens were identified after 24 hours of incubation, only one out of 333 infants would have an IBI identified after 24 hours of hospital observation.⁷

Furthermore, a review of our institution’s electronic health records (EHR) over the past 5 years revealed that an observation period of 24 hours would have resulted in the discharge of three infants with an IBI. Two infants had bacteremia; both were discharged from the emergency department (ED) without antibiotics, returned to care after cultures were reported positive at 27 hours, and had no adverse outcomes. The third infant had meningitis, but also had an abnormal CSF Gram stain, which led to a longer hospitalization.

In 2019, our institution appraised the emerging literature and institutional data supporting the low absolute risk of missed IBI, and also leveraged local consensus among key stakeholders to update its evidence-based guideline for the evaluation and management of febrile infants aged 60 days and younger. The updated guideline recommends that clinicians consider discharging well-appearing neonates and infants if blood and CSF cultures remain negative at 24 hours.¹⁰ The objective of this study was to decrease the average hospital culture observation time (COT; culture incubation to hospital discharge) from 38 to 30 hours over a 12-month period in febrile infants aged 0 to 60 days.

Context

Improvement efforts were conducted at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC), a large, urban, academic hospital that admitted more than 8,000 noncritically ill patients to the hospital medicine (HM) service from July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2019. Hospital medicine teams, located at both the main and satellite campuses, are staffed by attending physicians, fellows, residents, medical students, and nurse practitioners. The two campuses, which are about 20 miles apart, share clinician providers but have distinct nursing pools.

Microbiology services for all CCHMC patients are provided at the main campus. Blood and CSF cultures at the satellite campus are transported to the main campus for incubation and monitoring via an urgent courier service. The microbiology laboratory at CCHMC uses a continuous monitoring system for blood cultures (BACT/ALERT Virtuo, BioMérieux). The system automatically alerts laboratory technicians of positive cultures; these results are reported to clinical providers within 30 minutes of detection. Laboratory technicians manually evaluate CSF cultures once daily for 5 days.

Improvement Team

Our improvement team included three HM attending physicians; two HM fellows; a pediatric chief resident; two nurses, who represented nursing pools at the main and satellite campuses; and a clinical pharmacist, who is a co-leader of the antimicrobial stewardship program at CCHMC. Supporting members for the improvement team included the CCHMC laboratory director; the microbiology laboratory director; an infectious disease physician, who is a co-leader of the antimicrobial stewardship program; and nursing directors of the HM units at both campuses.

Evidence-Based Guideline

Our improvement initiative was based on recommendations from the updated CCHMC Evidence-Based Care Guideline for Management of Infants 0 to 60 days with Fever of Unknown Source.¹⁰ This guideline, published in May 2019, was developed by a multidisciplinary working group composed of key stakeholders from HM, community pediatrics, emergency medicine, the pediatric residency program, infectious disease, and laboratory medicine. Several improvement team members were participants on the committee that published the evidence-based guideline. The committee first performed a systematic literature review and critical appraisal of the literature. Care recommendations were formulated via a consensus process directed by best evidence, patient and family preferences, and clinical expertise; the recommendations were subsequently reviewed and approved by clinical experts who were not involved in the development process.

Based on evidence review and multistakeholder consensus, the updated guideline recommends clinicians consider discharging neonates and infants aged 60 days and younger if there is no culture growth after an observation period of 24 hours (as documented in the EHR) and patients are otherwise medically ready for discharge (ie, well appearing with adequate oral intake).^10,11 In addition, prior to discharge, there must be a documented working phone number on file for the patient’s parents/guardians, an established outpatient follow-up plan within 24 hours, and communication with the primary pediatrician who is in agreement with discharge at 24 hours.

Study Population

Infants 0 to 60 days old who had a documented or reported fever without an apparent source based on history and physical exam upon presentation to the ED, and who were subsequently admitted to the HM service at CCHMC between October 30, 2018, and July 10, 2020, were eligible for inclusion. We excluded infants who were admitted to other clinical services (eg, intensive care unit); had organisms identified on blood, urine, or CSF culture within 24 hours of incubation; had positive herpes simplex virus testing; had skin/soft tissue infections or another clearly documented source of bacterial infection; or had an alternative indication for hospitalization (eg, need for intravenous fluid or deep suctioning) after cultures had incubated for 24 hours. Infants who had a positive blood, urine, or CSF culture result after 24 hours of incubation were included in the study population. Organisms were classified as pathogen or contaminant based on treatment decisions made by the care team.

Improvement Activities

Key drivers critical to success of the improvement efforts were: (1) clearly defined standard of care for duration of observation in febrile infants 0 to 60 days old; (2) improved understanding of microbiology lab procedures; (3) effective communication of discharge criteria between providers and nurses; and (4) transparency of data with feedback (Figure 1).

Education and Structured Dissemination of Evidence-Based Guideline

The CCHMC febrile infant guideline¹⁰ was disseminated to HM physicians, residents, and nurses via the following means: (1) in-person announcements at staff meetings and educational conferences, (2) published highlights from the guideline in weekly newsletters, and (3) email announcements. Additionally, members of the study team educated HM attending physicians, nursing staff from the medical units at both campuses, and resident physicians about recent studies demonstrating safety of shorter length of stay (LOS) in febrile infants aged 0 to 60 days. The study team also provided residents, physicians, and nurses with data on the number of positive blood and CSF cultures and outcomes of patients at CCHMC within the past 5 years. In addition, team members led a journal club for residents discussing an article⁷ describing time-to-positivity of blood and CSF cultures in febrile infants. For ongoing engagement, the evidence-based guideline and a detailed explanation of microbiology procedures were published in the resident handbook, an internal resource that includes vital clinical pearls and practice guidelines across specialties. (Each resident receives an updated hard copy each year, and there is also an online link to the resource in the EHR.) Information about the guideline and COT was also included in the monthly chief resident’s orientation script, which is relayed to all residents on the first day of their HM rotation.

Clear Communication of Microbiology Procedures

Team members created a detailed process map describing the processing protocols for blood and CSF cultures collected at both CCHMC campuses. This information was shared with HM attending physicians and nurses via in-person announcements at staff meetings, flyers in team workrooms, and email communications. Residents received information on microbiology protocols via in-person announcements at educational conferences and dissemination in the weekly residency newsletter.Important information communicated included:

1. Definition of culture start time. We conveyed that there may be a delay of up to 4 hours between culture collection at the satellite campus and culture incubation at the main campus laboratory. As a result, the time of blood or CSF sample arrival to the main campus laboratory was a more accurate reflection of the culture incubation start time than the culture collection time.

2. Explanation of CSF culture processing. We discussed the process by which these cultures are plated upon arrival at the microbiology laboratory and read once per day in the morning. Therefore, a culture incubated at midnight would be evaluated once at 9 hours and not again until 33 hours.

Modification of Febrile Infant Order Set

Enhancements to the febrile infant order set improved communication and cultivated a shared mental model regarding discharge goals among all members of the care team. The EHR order set for febrile infants was updated as follows: (1) mandatory free-text fields that established the culture start time for blood and CSF cultures were added, (2) culture start time was clearly defined (ie, the time culture arrives at the main campus laboratory), and (3) a change was made in the default discharge criteria¹¹ to “culture observation for 24 hours,” with the ability to modify COT (Appendix Figure 1). We embedded hyperlinks to the guideline and microbiology process map within the updated order set, which allowed providers to easily access this information and refresh their knowledge of the recommendations (Appendix Figure 1).

Identification of Failures and Follow-up With Near-Time Feedback

All cases of febrile infants were tracked weekly. For infants hospitalized longer than 24 hours, the study team contacted the discharging clinicians to discuss reasons for prolonged hospitalization, with an emphasis on identifying system-level barriers to earlier discharge.

Study of the Interventions

The institutional microbiology database was queried weekly to identify all infants 0 to 60 days old who had a blood culture obtained and were hospitalized on the HM service. Study team members conducted targeted EHR review to determine whether patients met exclusion criteria and to identify reasons for prolonged COT. Baseline data were collected retrospectively for a 3-month period prior to initiation of improvement activities. During the study period, queries were conducted weekly and reviewed by study team members to evaluate the impact of improvement activities and to inform new interventions.

Measures

Our primary outcome measure was COT, defined as the hours between final culture incubation and hospital discharge. The operational definition for “final culture incubation” was the documented time of arrival of the last collected culture to the microbiology laboratory. Our goal COT was 30 hours to account for a subset of patients whose blood and/or CSF culture were obtained overnight (ie, after 9 pm), since subsequent discharge times would likely and practically be delayed beyond 24 hours. Our secondary outcome measure was LOS, defined as the time between ED arrival and hospital discharge. Process measures included the proportion of patients for whom the febrile infant EHR order set was used and the proportion of patients for whom medical discharge criteria (ie, blood and CSF culture observed for ”xx” hours) and culture incubation start times were entered using the order set. Balancing measures included identification of IBI after hospital discharge, 48-hour ED revisits, and 7-day hospital readmissions.

Analysis

Measures were evaluated using statistical process control charts and run charts, and Western Electric rules were employed to determine special cause variation.¹² Annotated X-bar S control charts tracked the impact of improvement activities on average COT and LOS for all infants. Given that a relatively small number of patients (ie, two to four) met inclusion criteria each week, average COT was calculated per five patients.

This study was considered exempt from review by the CCHMC Institutional Review Board.

Of the 184 infants in this study, 46 were included as part of baseline data collection, and 138 were included during the intervention period. The median age was 26.6 days (range, 3-59 days); 52% of patients were female; two-thirds were non-Hispanic White; 22% were Black, and 5% were Hispanic (Appendix Table).

Average COT decreased from 38 hours to 32 hours with improvement activities (Figure 2) and was sustained for a total of 17 months. There were small decreases in COT after initial education was provided to attendings, nurses, and residents.

After the launch of the updated order set, median usage of the EHR order set increased from 50% to 80%. Medical discharge criteria were entered for 80 (96%) of the 83 patients for whom the updated order set was applied; culture incubation start times were entered for 78 (94%) of these patients.

No infants in our cohort were found to have IBI after hospital discharge. There were no ED revisits within 48 hours of discharge, and there were no hospital readmissions within 7 days of index discharge. Furthermore, none of the patients included in the study had growth of a pathogenic organism after 24 hours.

Of the 138 infants hospitalized during the intervention period, 77 (56%) had a COT greater than 30 hours. Among these 77 patients, 49 (64%) had their final culture incubated between 9 pm and 4 am; Furthermore, 11 (14%) had missing, abnormal, pretreated, or uninterpretable CSF studies, 7 (9%) had ongoing fevers, and 4 (5%) remained hospitalized due to family preference or inability to obtain timely outpatient follow-up.

Our study aimed to decrease the average COT from 38 hours to 30 hours among hospitalized infants aged 60 days and younger over a period of 12 months. An intervention featuring implementation of an evidence-based guideline through education, laboratory procedure transparency, creation of a standardized EHR order set, and near-time feedback was associated with a shorter average COT of 32 hours, sustained over a 17-month period. No infants with bacteremia or meningitis were inappropriately discharged during this study.

Interpretation

Prior to our improvement efforts, most febrile infants at CCHMC were observed for at least 36 hours based on a prior institutional guideline,⁶ despite recent evidence suggesting that most pathogens in blood and CSF cultures grow within 24 hours of incubation.^7-9 The goal of this improvement initiative was to bridge the gap between emerging evidence and clinical practice by developing and disseminating an updated evidence-based guideline to safely decrease the hospital observation time in febrile infants aged 60 days and younger.

Similar to previous studies aimed at improving diagnosis and management among febrile infants,^13-16 generation and structured dissemination of an institutional evidence-based guideline was crucial to safely shortening COT in our population. These prior studies established a goal COT of 36 to 42 hours for hospitalized febrile infants.^13,15,16 Our study incorporated emerging evidence and local experience into an updated evidence-based practice guideline to further reduce COT to 32 hours for hospitalized infants. Key factors contributing to our success included multidisciplinary engagement, specifically partnering with nurses and resident physicians in designing and implementing our initiatives. Furthermore, improved transparency of culture monitoring practices allowed clinicians to better understand the recommended observation periods. Finally, we employed a standardized EHR order set as a no-cost, one-time, high-reliability intervention to establish 24 hours of culture monitoring as the default and to enhance transparency around start time for culture incubation.

Average COT remained stable at 32 hours for 17 months after initiation of the intervention. During the intervention period, 64% patients with hospital stays longer than 30 hours had cultures obtained between 9 pm to 4 am. These patients often remained hospitalized for longer than 30 hours to allow for a daytime hospital discharge. Additionally, CSF cultures were only monitored manually once per day between 8 am and 10 am. As a result, CSF cultures obtained in the evening (eg, 9 pm) would be evaluated once at roughly 12 hours of incubation, and then the following morning at 36 hours of incubation. In cases where CSF studies (eg, cell count, protein, Gram stain) were abnormal, uninterpretable, or could not be obtained, clinicians monitored CSF cultures closer to 36 hours from incubation. While evidence-based guidelines and local data support safe early discharge of febrile infants, clinicians presented with incomplete or uninterpretable data were appropriately more likely to observe infants for longer periods to confirm negative cultures.

Limitations

The study has several limitations. First, this single-center study was conducted at a quaternary care medical center with a robust quality improvement infrastructure. Our interventions took advantage of the existing processes in place that ensure timely discharge of medically ready patients.¹¹ Furthermore, microbiology laboratory practices are unique to our institution. These factors limit the generalizability of this work. Second, due to small numbers of eligible infants, analyses were conducted per five patients. Infrequent hospitalizations limited our ability to learn quickly from PDSA cycles. Finally, we did not measure cost savings attributable to shorter hospital stays. However, in addition to financial savings from charges and decreased nonmedical costs such as lost earnings and childcare,¹⁷ shorter hospitalizations have many additional benefits, such as promoting bonding and breastfeeding and decreasing exposure to nosocomial infections. Shorter hospitalizations, with clearly communicated discharge times, also serve to optimize patient throughput.

Implementation of a clinical practice guideline resulted in reduction of average COT from 38 to 32 hours in febrile infants aged 60 days and younger, with no cases of missed IBI. Engagement of multidisciplinary stakeholders in the generation and structured dissemination of the evidence-based guideline, improved transparency of the microbiological blood and CSF culture process, and standardization of EHR order sets were crucial to the success of this work. Cultures incubated overnight and daily CSF culture-monitoring practices primarily contributed to an average LOS of more than 30 hours.

Future work will include collaboration with emergency physicians to improve evaluation efficiency and decrease LOS in the ED for febrile infants. Additionally, creation of an automated data dashboard of COT and LOS will provide clinicians with real-time feedback on hospitalization practices.

The authors thank Dr Jeffrey Simmons, MD, MSc, as well as the members of the 2019 Fever of Uncertain Source Evidence-Based Guideline Committee. We also thank the James M Anderson Center for Health System Excellence and the Rapid Cycle Improvement Collaborative for their support with guideline development as well as design and execution of our improvement efforts.

Febrile infants aged 0 to 60 days often undergo diagnostic testing to evaluate for invasive bacterial infections (IBI; ie, bacteremia and meningitis) and are subsequently hospitalized pending culture results. Only 1% to 2% of infants 0 to 60 days old have an IBI,^1-3 and most hospitalized infants are discharged once physicians feel confident that pathogens are unlikely to be isolated from blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) cultures. Practice regarding duration of hospitalization while awaiting blood and CSF culture results is not standardized in this population. Longer hospitalizations can lead to increased costs and familial stress, including difficulty with breastfeeding and anxiety in newly postpartum mothers.^4,5

In 2010, an institutional evidence-based guideline for the management of febrile infants aged 0 to 60 days recommended discharge after 36 hours of observation if all cultures were negative.⁶ However, recent studies demonstrate that 85% to 93% of pathogens in blood and CSF cultures grow within 24 hours of incubation.^7-9 Assuming a 2% prevalence of IBI, if 15% of pathogens were identified after 24 hours of incubation, only one out of 333 infants would have an IBI identified after 24 hours of hospital observation.⁷

Furthermore, a review of our institution’s electronic health records (EHR) over the past 5 years revealed that an observation period of 24 hours would have resulted in the discharge of three infants with an IBI. Two infants had bacteremia; both were discharged from the emergency department (ED) without antibiotics, returned to care after cultures were reported positive at 27 hours, and had no adverse outcomes. The third infant had meningitis, but also had an abnormal CSF Gram stain, which led to a longer hospitalization.

In 2019, our institution appraised the emerging literature and institutional data supporting the low absolute risk of missed IBI, and also leveraged local consensus among key stakeholders to update its evidence-based guideline for the evaluation and management of febrile infants aged 60 days and younger. The updated guideline recommends that clinicians consider discharging well-appearing neonates and infants if blood and CSF cultures remain negative at 24 hours.¹⁰ The objective of this study was to decrease the average hospital culture observation time (COT; culture incubation to hospital discharge) from 38 to 30 hours over a 12-month period in febrile infants aged 0 to 60 days.

Context

Improvement efforts were conducted at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC), a large, urban, academic hospital that admitted more than 8,000 noncritically ill patients to the hospital medicine (HM) service from July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2019. Hospital medicine teams, located at both the main and satellite campuses, are staffed by attending physicians, fellows, residents, medical students, and nurse practitioners. The two campuses, which are about 20 miles apart, share clinician providers but have distinct nursing pools.

Microbiology services for all CCHMC patients are provided at the main campus. Blood and CSF cultures at the satellite campus are transported to the main campus for incubation and monitoring via an urgent courier service. The microbiology laboratory at CCHMC uses a continuous monitoring system for blood cultures (BACT/ALERT Virtuo, BioMérieux). The system automatically alerts laboratory technicians of positive cultures; these results are reported to clinical providers within 30 minutes of detection. Laboratory technicians manually evaluate CSF cultures once daily for 5 days.

Improvement Team

Our improvement team included three HM attending physicians; two HM fellows; a pediatric chief resident; two nurses, who represented nursing pools at the main and satellite campuses; and a clinical pharmacist, who is a co-leader of the antimicrobial stewardship program at CCHMC. Supporting members for the improvement team included the CCHMC laboratory director; the microbiology laboratory director; an infectious disease physician, who is a co-leader of the antimicrobial stewardship program; and nursing directors of the HM units at both campuses.

Evidence-Based Guideline

Our improvement initiative was based on recommendations from the updated CCHMC Evidence-Based Care Guideline for Management of Infants 0 to 60 days with Fever of Unknown Source.¹⁰ This guideline, published in May 2019, was developed by a multidisciplinary working group composed of key stakeholders from HM, community pediatrics, emergency medicine, the pediatric residency program, infectious disease, and laboratory medicine. Several improvement team members were participants on the committee that published the evidence-based guideline. The committee first performed a systematic literature review and critical appraisal of the literature. Care recommendations were formulated via a consensus process directed by best evidence, patient and family preferences, and clinical expertise; the recommendations were subsequently reviewed and approved by clinical experts who were not involved in the development process.

Based on evidence review and multistakeholder consensus, the updated guideline recommends clinicians consider discharging neonates and infants aged 60 days and younger if there is no culture growth after an observation period of 24 hours (as documented in the EHR) and patients are otherwise medically ready for discharge (ie, well appearing with adequate oral intake).^10,11 In addition, prior to discharge, there must be a documented working phone number on file for the patient’s parents/guardians, an established outpatient follow-up plan within 24 hours, and communication with the primary pediatrician who is in agreement with discharge at 24 hours.

Study Population

Infants 0 to 60 days old who had a documented or reported fever without an apparent source based on history and physical exam upon presentation to the ED, and who were subsequently admitted to the HM service at CCHMC between October 30, 2018, and July 10, 2020, were eligible for inclusion. We excluded infants who were admitted to other clinical services (eg, intensive care unit); had organisms identified on blood, urine, or CSF culture within 24 hours of incubation; had positive herpes simplex virus testing; had skin/soft tissue infections or another clearly documented source of bacterial infection; or had an alternative indication for hospitalization (eg, need for intravenous fluid or deep suctioning) after cultures had incubated for 24 hours. Infants who had a positive blood, urine, or CSF culture result after 24 hours of incubation were included in the study population. Organisms were classified as pathogen or contaminant based on treatment decisions made by the care team.

Improvement Activities

Key drivers critical to success of the improvement efforts were: (1) clearly defined standard of care for duration of observation in febrile infants 0 to 60 days old; (2) improved understanding of microbiology lab procedures; (3) effective communication of discharge criteria between providers and nurses; and (4) transparency of data with feedback (Figure 1).

Education and Structured Dissemination of Evidence-Based Guideline

The CCHMC febrile infant guideline¹⁰ was disseminated to HM physicians, residents, and nurses via the following means: (1) in-person announcements at staff meetings and educational conferences, (2) published highlights from the guideline in weekly newsletters, and (3) email announcements. Additionally, members of the study team educated HM attending physicians, nursing staff from the medical units at both campuses, and resident physicians about recent studies demonstrating safety of shorter length of stay (LOS) in febrile infants aged 0 to 60 days. The study team also provided residents, physicians, and nurses with data on the number of positive blood and CSF cultures and outcomes of patients at CCHMC within the past 5 years. In addition, team members led a journal club for residents discussing an article⁷ describing time-to-positivity of blood and CSF cultures in febrile infants. For ongoing engagement, the evidence-based guideline and a detailed explanation of microbiology procedures were published in the resident handbook, an internal resource that includes vital clinical pearls and practice guidelines across specialties. (Each resident receives an updated hard copy each year, and there is also an online link to the resource in the EHR.) Information about the guideline and COT was also included in the monthly chief resident’s orientation script, which is relayed to all residents on the first day of their HM rotation.

Clear Communication of Microbiology Procedures

Team members created a detailed process map describing the processing protocols for blood and CSF cultures collected at both CCHMC campuses. This information was shared with HM attending physicians and nurses via in-person announcements at staff meetings, flyers in team workrooms, and email communications. Residents received information on microbiology protocols via in-person announcements at educational conferences and dissemination in the weekly residency newsletter.Important information communicated included:

1. Definition of culture start time. We conveyed that there may be a delay of up to 4 hours between culture collection at the satellite campus and culture incubation at the main campus laboratory. As a result, the time of blood or CSF sample arrival to the main campus laboratory was a more accurate reflection of the culture incubation start time than the culture collection time.

2. Explanation of CSF culture processing. We discussed the process by which these cultures are plated upon arrival at the microbiology laboratory and read once per day in the morning. Therefore, a culture incubated at midnight would be evaluated once at 9 hours and not again until 33 hours.

Modification of Febrile Infant Order Set

Enhancements to the febrile infant order set improved communication and cultivated a shared mental model regarding discharge goals among all members of the care team. The EHR order set for febrile infants was updated as follows: (1) mandatory free-text fields that established the culture start time for blood and CSF cultures were added, (2) culture start time was clearly defined (ie, the time culture arrives at the main campus laboratory), and (3) a change was made in the default discharge criteria¹¹ to “culture observation for 24 hours,” with the ability to modify COT (Appendix Figure 1). We embedded hyperlinks to the guideline and microbiology process map within the updated order set, which allowed providers to easily access this information and refresh their knowledge of the recommendations (Appendix Figure 1).

Identification of Failures and Follow-up With Near-Time Feedback

All cases of febrile infants were tracked weekly. For infants hospitalized longer than 24 hours, the study team contacted the discharging clinicians to discuss reasons for prolonged hospitalization, with an emphasis on identifying system-level barriers to earlier discharge.

Study of the Interventions

The institutional microbiology database was queried weekly to identify all infants 0 to 60 days old who had a blood culture obtained and were hospitalized on the HM service. Study team members conducted targeted EHR review to determine whether patients met exclusion criteria and to identify reasons for prolonged COT. Baseline data were collected retrospectively for a 3-month period prior to initiation of improvement activities. During the study period, queries were conducted weekly and reviewed by study team members to evaluate the impact of improvement activities and to inform new interventions.

Measures

Our primary outcome measure was COT, defined as the hours between final culture incubation and hospital discharge. The operational definition for “final culture incubation” was the documented time of arrival of the last collected culture to the microbiology laboratory. Our goal COT was 30 hours to account for a subset of patients whose blood and/or CSF culture were obtained overnight (ie, after 9 pm), since subsequent discharge times would likely and practically be delayed beyond 24 hours. Our secondary outcome measure was LOS, defined as the time between ED arrival and hospital discharge. Process measures included the proportion of patients for whom the febrile infant EHR order set was used and the proportion of patients for whom medical discharge criteria (ie, blood and CSF culture observed for ”xx” hours) and culture incubation start times were entered using the order set. Balancing measures included identification of IBI after hospital discharge, 48-hour ED revisits, and 7-day hospital readmissions.

Analysis

Measures were evaluated using statistical process control charts and run charts, and Western Electric rules were employed to determine special cause variation.¹² Annotated X-bar S control charts tracked the impact of improvement activities on average COT and LOS for all infants. Given that a relatively small number of patients (ie, two to four) met inclusion criteria each week, average COT was calculated per five patients.

This study was considered exempt from review by the CCHMC Institutional Review Board.

Of the 184 infants in this study, 46 were included as part of baseline data collection, and 138 were included during the intervention period. The median age was 26.6 days (range, 3-59 days); 52% of patients were female; two-thirds were non-Hispanic White; 22% were Black, and 5% were Hispanic (Appendix Table).

Average COT decreased from 38 hours to 32 hours with improvement activities (Figure 2) and was sustained for a total of 17 months. There were small decreases in COT after initial education was provided to attendings, nurses, and residents.

After the launch of the updated order set, median usage of the EHR order set increased from 50% to 80%. Medical discharge criteria were entered for 80 (96%) of the 83 patients for whom the updated order set was applied; culture incubation start times were entered for 78 (94%) of these patients.

No infants in our cohort were found to have IBI after hospital discharge. There were no ED revisits within 48 hours of discharge, and there were no hospital readmissions within 7 days of index discharge. Furthermore, none of the patients included in the study had growth of a pathogenic organism after 24 hours.

Of the 138 infants hospitalized during the intervention period, 77 (56%) had a COT greater than 30 hours. Among these 77 patients, 49 (64%) had their final culture incubated between 9 pm and 4 am; Furthermore, 11 (14%) had missing, abnormal, pretreated, or uninterpretable CSF studies, 7 (9%) had ongoing fevers, and 4 (5%) remained hospitalized due to family preference or inability to obtain timely outpatient follow-up.

Our study aimed to decrease the average COT from 38 hours to 30 hours among hospitalized infants aged 60 days and younger over a period of 12 months. An intervention featuring implementation of an evidence-based guideline through education, laboratory procedure transparency, creation of a standardized EHR order set, and near-time feedback was associated with a shorter average COT of 32 hours, sustained over a 17-month period. No infants with bacteremia or meningitis were inappropriately discharged during this study.

Interpretation

Prior to our improvement efforts, most febrile infants at CCHMC were observed for at least 36 hours based on a prior institutional guideline,⁶ despite recent evidence suggesting that most pathogens in blood and CSF cultures grow within 24 hours of incubation.^7-9 The goal of this improvement initiative was to bridge the gap between emerging evidence and clinical practice by developing and disseminating an updated evidence-based guideline to safely decrease the hospital observation time in febrile infants aged 60 days and younger.

Similar to previous studies aimed at improving diagnosis and management among febrile infants,^13-16 generation and structured dissemination of an institutional evidence-based guideline was crucial to safely shortening COT in our population. These prior studies established a goal COT of 36 to 42 hours for hospitalized febrile infants.^13,15,16 Our study incorporated emerging evidence and local experience into an updated evidence-based practice guideline to further reduce COT to 32 hours for hospitalized infants. Key factors contributing to our success included multidisciplinary engagement, specifically partnering with nurses and resident physicians in designing and implementing our initiatives. Furthermore, improved transparency of culture monitoring practices allowed clinicians to better understand the recommended observation periods. Finally, we employed a standardized EHR order set as a no-cost, one-time, high-reliability intervention to establish 24 hours of culture monitoring as the default and to enhance transparency around start time for culture incubation.

Average COT remained stable at 32 hours for 17 months after initiation of the intervention. During the intervention period, 64% patients with hospital stays longer than 30 hours had cultures obtained between 9 pm to 4 am. These patients often remained hospitalized for longer than 30 hours to allow for a daytime hospital discharge. Additionally, CSF cultures were only monitored manually once per day between 8 am and 10 am. As a result, CSF cultures obtained in the evening (eg, 9 pm) would be evaluated once at roughly 12 hours of incubation, and then the following morning at 36 hours of incubation. In cases where CSF studies (eg, cell count, protein, Gram stain) were abnormal, uninterpretable, or could not be obtained, clinicians monitored CSF cultures closer to 36 hours from incubation. While evidence-based guidelines and local data support safe early discharge of febrile infants, clinicians presented with incomplete or uninterpretable data were appropriately more likely to observe infants for longer periods to confirm negative cultures.

Limitations

The study has several limitations. First, this single-center study was conducted at a quaternary care medical center with a robust quality improvement infrastructure. Our interventions took advantage of the existing processes in place that ensure timely discharge of medically ready patients.¹¹ Furthermore, microbiology laboratory practices are unique to our institution. These factors limit the generalizability of this work. Second, due to small numbers of eligible infants, analyses were conducted per five patients. Infrequent hospitalizations limited our ability to learn quickly from PDSA cycles. Finally, we did not measure cost savings attributable to shorter hospital stays. However, in addition to financial savings from charges and decreased nonmedical costs such as lost earnings and childcare,¹⁷ shorter hospitalizations have many additional benefits, such as promoting bonding and breastfeeding and decreasing exposure to nosocomial infections. Shorter hospitalizations, with clearly communicated discharge times, also serve to optimize patient throughput.

Implementation of a clinical practice guideline resulted in reduction of average COT from 38 to 32 hours in febrile infants aged 60 days and younger, with no cases of missed IBI. Engagement of multidisciplinary stakeholders in the generation and structured dissemination of the evidence-based guideline, improved transparency of the microbiological blood and CSF culture process, and standardization of EHR order sets were crucial to the success of this work. Cultures incubated overnight and daily CSF culture-monitoring practices primarily contributed to an average LOS of more than 30 hours.

Future work will include collaboration with emergency physicians to improve evaluation efficiency and decrease LOS in the ED for febrile infants. Additionally, creation of an automated data dashboard of COT and LOS will provide clinicians with real-time feedback on hospitalization practices.

The authors thank Dr Jeffrey Simmons, MD, MSc, as well as the members of the 2019 Fever of Uncertain Source Evidence-Based Guideline Committee. We also thank the James M Anderson Center for Health System Excellence and the Rapid Cycle Improvement Collaborative for their support with guideline development as well as design and execution of our improvement efforts.

Febrile infants aged 0 to 60 days often undergo diagnostic testing to evaluate for invasive bacterial infections (IBI; ie, bacteremia and meningitis) and are subsequently hospitalized pending culture results. Only 1% to 2% of infants 0 to 60 days old have an IBI,^1-3 and most hospitalized infants are discharged once physicians feel confident that pathogens are unlikely to be isolated from blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) cultures. Practice regarding duration of hospitalization while awaiting blood and CSF culture results is not standardized in this population. Longer hospitalizations can lead to increased costs and familial stress, including difficulty with breastfeeding and anxiety in newly postpartum mothers.^4,5

In 2010, an institutional evidence-based guideline for the management of febrile infants aged 0 to 60 days recommended discharge after 36 hours of observation if all cultures were negative.⁶ However, recent studies demonstrate that 85% to 93% of pathogens in blood and CSF cultures grow within 24 hours of incubation.^7-9 Assuming a 2% prevalence of IBI, if 15% of pathogens were identified after 24 hours of incubation, only one out of 333 infants would have an IBI identified after 24 hours of hospital observation.⁷

Furthermore, a review of our institution’s electronic health records (EHR) over the past 5 years revealed that an observation period of 24 hours would have resulted in the discharge of three infants with an IBI. Two infants had bacteremia; both were discharged from the emergency department (ED) without antibiotics, returned to care after cultures were reported positive at 27 hours, and had no adverse outcomes. The third infant had meningitis, but also had an abnormal CSF Gram stain, which led to a longer hospitalization.

In 2019, our institution appraised the emerging literature and institutional data supporting the low absolute risk of missed IBI, and also leveraged local consensus among key stakeholders to update its evidence-based guideline for the evaluation and management of febrile infants aged 60 days and younger. The updated guideline recommends that clinicians consider discharging well-appearing neonates and infants if blood and CSF cultures remain negative at 24 hours.¹⁰ The objective of this study was to decrease the average hospital culture observation time (COT; culture incubation to hospital discharge) from 38 to 30 hours over a 12-month period in febrile infants aged 0 to 60 days.

Context

Improvement efforts were conducted at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC), a large, urban, academic hospital that admitted more than 8,000 noncritically ill patients to the hospital medicine (HM) service from July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2019. Hospital medicine teams, located at both the main and satellite campuses, are staffed by attending physicians, fellows, residents, medical students, and nurse practitioners. The two campuses, which are about 20 miles apart, share clinician providers but have distinct nursing pools.

Microbiology services for all CCHMC patients are provided at the main campus. Blood and CSF cultures at the satellite campus are transported to the main campus for incubation and monitoring via an urgent courier service. The microbiology laboratory at CCHMC uses a continuous monitoring system for blood cultures (BACT/ALERT Virtuo, BioMérieux). The system automatically alerts laboratory technicians of positive cultures; these results are reported to clinical providers within 30 minutes of detection. Laboratory technicians manually evaluate CSF cultures once daily for 5 days.

Improvement Team

Our improvement team included three HM attending physicians; two HM fellows; a pediatric chief resident; two nurses, who represented nursing pools at the main and satellite campuses; and a clinical pharmacist, who is a co-leader of the antimicrobial stewardship program at CCHMC. Supporting members for the improvement team included the CCHMC laboratory director; the microbiology laboratory director; an infectious disease physician, who is a co-leader of the antimicrobial stewardship program; and nursing directors of the HM units at both campuses.

Evidence-Based Guideline

Our improvement initiative was based on recommendations from the updated CCHMC Evidence-Based Care Guideline for Management of Infants 0 to 60 days with Fever of Unknown Source.¹⁰ This guideline, published in May 2019, was developed by a multidisciplinary working group composed of key stakeholders from HM, community pediatrics, emergency medicine, the pediatric residency program, infectious disease, and laboratory medicine. Several improvement team members were participants on the committee that published the evidence-based guideline. The committee first performed a systematic literature review and critical appraisal of the literature. Care recommendations were formulated via a consensus process directed by best evidence, patient and family preferences, and clinical expertise; the recommendations were subsequently reviewed and approved by clinical experts who were not involved in the development process.

Based on evidence review and multistakeholder consensus, the updated guideline recommends clinicians consider discharging neonates and infants aged 60 days and younger if there is no culture growth after an observation period of 24 hours (as documented in the EHR) and patients are otherwise medically ready for discharge (ie, well appearing with adequate oral intake).^10,11 In addition, prior to discharge, there must be a documented working phone number on file for the patient’s parents/guardians, an established outpatient follow-up plan within 24 hours, and communication with the primary pediatrician who is in agreement with discharge at 24 hours.

Study Population

Infants 0 to 60 days old who had a documented or reported fever without an apparent source based on history and physical exam upon presentation to the ED, and who were subsequently admitted to the HM service at CCHMC between October 30, 2018, and July 10, 2020, were eligible for inclusion. We excluded infants who were admitted to other clinical services (eg, intensive care unit); had organisms identified on blood, urine, or CSF culture within 24 hours of incubation; had positive herpes simplex virus testing; had skin/soft tissue infections or another clearly documented source of bacterial infection; or had an alternative indication for hospitalization (eg, need for intravenous fluid or deep suctioning) after cultures had incubated for 24 hours. Infants who had a positive blood, urine, or CSF culture result after 24 hours of incubation were included in the study population. Organisms were classified as pathogen or contaminant based on treatment decisions made by the care team.

Improvement Activities

Key drivers critical to success of the improvement efforts were: (1) clearly defined standard of care for duration of observation in febrile infants 0 to 60 days old; (2) improved understanding of microbiology lab procedures; (3) effective communication of discharge criteria between providers and nurses; and (4) transparency of data with feedback (Figure 1).

Education and Structured Dissemination of Evidence-Based Guideline

The CCHMC febrile infant guideline¹⁰ was disseminated to HM physicians, residents, and nurses via the following means: (1) in-person announcements at staff meetings and educational conferences, (2) published highlights from the guideline in weekly newsletters, and (3) email announcements. Additionally, members of the study team educated HM attending physicians, nursing staff from the medical units at both campuses, and resident physicians about recent studies demonstrating safety of shorter length of stay (LOS) in febrile infants aged 0 to 60 days. The study team also provided residents, physicians, and nurses with data on the number of positive blood and CSF cultures and outcomes of patients at CCHMC within the past 5 years. In addition, team members led a journal club for residents discussing an article⁷ describing time-to-positivity of blood and CSF cultures in febrile infants. For ongoing engagement, the evidence-based guideline and a detailed explanation of microbiology procedures were published in the resident handbook, an internal resource that includes vital clinical pearls and practice guidelines across specialties. (Each resident receives an updated hard copy each year, and there is also an online link to the resource in the EHR.) Information about the guideline and COT was also included in the monthly chief resident’s orientation script, which is relayed to all residents on the first day of their HM rotation.

Clear Communication of Microbiology Procedures

Team members created a detailed process map describing the processing protocols for blood and CSF cultures collected at both CCHMC campuses. This information was shared with HM attending physicians and nurses via in-person announcements at staff meetings, flyers in team workrooms, and email communications. Residents received information on microbiology protocols via in-person announcements at educational conferences and dissemination in the weekly residency newsletter.Important information communicated included:

1. Definition of culture start time. We conveyed that there may be a delay of up to 4 hours between culture collection at the satellite campus and culture incubation at the main campus laboratory. As a result, the time of blood or CSF sample arrival to the main campus laboratory was a more accurate reflection of the culture incubation start time than the culture collection time.

2. Explanation of CSF culture processing. We discussed the process by which these cultures are plated upon arrival at the microbiology laboratory and read once per day in the morning. Therefore, a culture incubated at midnight would be evaluated once at 9 hours and not again until 33 hours.

Modification of Febrile Infant Order Set

Enhancements to the febrile infant order set improved communication and cultivated a shared mental model regarding discharge goals among all members of the care team. The EHR order set for febrile infants was updated as follows: (1) mandatory free-text fields that established the culture start time for blood and CSF cultures were added, (2) culture start time was clearly defined (ie, the time culture arrives at the main campus laboratory), and (3) a change was made in the default discharge criteria¹¹ to “culture observation for 24 hours,” with the ability to modify COT (Appendix Figure 1). We embedded hyperlinks to the guideline and microbiology process map within the updated order set, which allowed providers to easily access this information and refresh their knowledge of the recommendations (Appendix Figure 1).

Identification of Failures and Follow-up With Near-Time Feedback

All cases of febrile infants were tracked weekly. For infants hospitalized longer than 24 hours, the study team contacted the discharging clinicians to discuss reasons for prolonged hospitalization, with an emphasis on identifying system-level barriers to earlier discharge.

Study of the Interventions

The institutional microbiology database was queried weekly to identify all infants 0 to 60 days old who had a blood culture obtained and were hospitalized on the HM service. Study team members conducted targeted EHR review to determine whether patients met exclusion criteria and to identify reasons for prolonged COT. Baseline data were collected retrospectively for a 3-month period prior to initiation of improvement activities. During the study period, queries were conducted weekly and reviewed by study team members to evaluate the impact of improvement activities and to inform new interventions.

Measures

Our primary outcome measure was COT, defined as the hours between final culture incubation and hospital discharge. The operational definition for “final culture incubation” was the documented time of arrival of the last collected culture to the microbiology laboratory. Our goal COT was 30 hours to account for a subset of patients whose blood and/or CSF culture were obtained overnight (ie, after 9 pm), since subsequent discharge times would likely and practically be delayed beyond 24 hours. Our secondary outcome measure was LOS, defined as the time between ED arrival and hospital discharge. Process measures included the proportion of patients for whom the febrile infant EHR order set was used and the proportion of patients for whom medical discharge criteria (ie, blood and CSF culture observed for ”xx” hours) and culture incubation start times were entered using the order set. Balancing measures included identification of IBI after hospital discharge, 48-hour ED revisits, and 7-day hospital readmissions.

Analysis

Measures were evaluated using statistical process control charts and run charts, and Western Electric rules were employed to determine special cause variation.¹² Annotated X-bar S control charts tracked the impact of improvement activities on average COT and LOS for all infants. Given that a relatively small number of patients (ie, two to four) met inclusion criteria each week, average COT was calculated per five patients.

This study was considered exempt from review by the CCHMC Institutional Review Board.

Of the 184 infants in this study, 46 were included as part of baseline data collection, and 138 were included during the intervention period. The median age was 26.6 days (range, 3-59 days); 52% of patients were female; two-thirds were non-Hispanic White; 22% were Black, and 5% were Hispanic (Appendix Table).

Average COT decreased from 38 hours to 32 hours with improvement activities (Figure 2) and was sustained for a total of 17 months. There were small decreases in COT after initial education was provided to attendings, nurses, and residents.

After the launch of the updated order set, median usage of the EHR order set increased from 50% to 80%. Medical discharge criteria were entered for 80 (96%) of the 83 patients for whom the updated order set was applied; culture incubation start times were entered for 78 (94%) of these patients.

No infants in our cohort were found to have IBI after hospital discharge. There were no ED revisits within 48 hours of discharge, and there were no hospital readmissions within 7 days of index discharge. Furthermore, none of the patients included in the study had growth of a pathogenic organism after 24 hours.

Of the 138 infants hospitalized during the intervention period, 77 (56%) had a COT greater than 30 hours. Among these 77 patients, 49 (64%) had their final culture incubated between 9 pm and 4 am; Furthermore, 11 (14%) had missing, abnormal, pretreated, or uninterpretable CSF studies, 7 (9%) had ongoing fevers, and 4 (5%) remained hospitalized due to family preference or inability to obtain timely outpatient follow-up.

Our study aimed to decrease the average COT from 38 hours to 30 hours among hospitalized infants aged 60 days and younger over a period of 12 months. An intervention featuring implementation of an evidence-based guideline through education, laboratory procedure transparency, creation of a standardized EHR order set, and near-time feedback was associated with a shorter average COT of 32 hours, sustained over a 17-month period. No infants with bacteremia or meningitis were inappropriately discharged during this study.

Interpretation

Prior to our improvement efforts, most febrile infants at CCHMC were observed for at least 36 hours based on a prior institutional guideline,⁶ despite recent evidence suggesting that most pathogens in blood and CSF cultures grow within 24 hours of incubation.^7-9 The goal of this improvement initiative was to bridge the gap between emerging evidence and clinical practice by developing and disseminating an updated evidence-based guideline to safely decrease the hospital observation time in febrile infants aged 60 days and younger.

Similar to previous studies aimed at improving diagnosis and management among febrile infants,^13-16 generation and structured dissemination of an institutional evidence-based guideline was crucial to safely shortening COT in our population. These prior studies established a goal COT of 36 to 42 hours for hospitalized febrile infants.^13,15,16 Our study incorporated emerging evidence and local experience into an updated evidence-based practice guideline to further reduce COT to 32 hours for hospitalized infants. Key factors contributing to our success included multidisciplinary engagement, specifically partnering with nurses and resident physicians in designing and implementing our initiatives. Furthermore, improved transparency of culture monitoring practices allowed clinicians to better understand the recommended observation periods. Finally, we employed a standardized EHR order set as a no-cost, one-time, high-reliability intervention to establish 24 hours of culture monitoring as the default and to enhance transparency around start time for culture incubation.

Average COT remained stable at 32 hours for 17 months after initiation of the intervention. During the intervention period, 64% patients with hospital stays longer than 30 hours had cultures obtained between 9 pm to 4 am. These patients often remained hospitalized for longer than 30 hours to allow for a daytime hospital discharge. Additionally, CSF cultures were only monitored manually once per day between 8 am and 10 am. As a result, CSF cultures obtained in the evening (eg, 9 pm) would be evaluated once at roughly 12 hours of incubation, and then the following morning at 36 hours of incubation. In cases where CSF studies (eg, cell count, protein, Gram stain) were abnormal, uninterpretable, or could not be obtained, clinicians monitored CSF cultures closer to 36 hours from incubation. While evidence-based guidelines and local data support safe early discharge of febrile infants, clinicians presented with incomplete or uninterpretable data were appropriately more likely to observe infants for longer periods to confirm negative cultures.

Limitations

The study has several limitations. First, this single-center study was conducted at a quaternary care medical center with a robust quality improvement infrastructure. Our interventions took advantage of the existing processes in place that ensure timely discharge of medically ready patients.¹¹ Furthermore, microbiology laboratory practices are unique to our institution. These factors limit the generalizability of this work. Second, due to small numbers of eligible infants, analyses were conducted per five patients. Infrequent hospitalizations limited our ability to learn quickly from PDSA cycles. Finally, we did not measure cost savings attributable to shorter hospital stays. However, in addition to financial savings from charges and decreased nonmedical costs such as lost earnings and childcare,¹⁷ shorter hospitalizations have many additional benefits, such as promoting bonding and breastfeeding and decreasing exposure to nosocomial infections. Shorter hospitalizations, with clearly communicated discharge times, also serve to optimize patient throughput.

Implementation of a clinical practice guideline resulted in reduction of average COT from 38 to 32 hours in febrile infants aged 60 days and younger, with no cases of missed IBI. Engagement of multidisciplinary stakeholders in the generation and structured dissemination of the evidence-based guideline, improved transparency of the microbiological blood and CSF culture process, and standardization of EHR order sets were crucial to the success of this work. Cultures incubated overnight and daily CSF culture-monitoring practices primarily contributed to an average LOS of more than 30 hours.

Future work will include collaboration with emergency physicians to improve evaluation efficiency and decrease LOS in the ED for febrile infants. Additionally, creation of an automated data dashboard of COT and LOS will provide clinicians with real-time feedback on hospitalization practices.

The authors thank Dr Jeffrey Simmons, MD, MSc, as well as the members of the 2019 Fever of Uncertain Source Evidence-Based Guideline Committee. We also thank the James M Anderson Center for Health System Excellence and the Rapid Cycle Improvement Collaborative for their support with guideline development as well as design and execution of our improvement efforts.

To benefit patients and the public health of their communities, children’s hospitals across the United States prepared for and responded to COVID-19 by conserving personal protective equipment, suspending noncritical in-person healthcare encounters (including outpatient visits and elective surgeries), and implementing socially distanced essential care.^1,2 These measures were promptly instituted during a time of both substantial uncertainty about the pandemic’s behavior in children—including its severity and duration—and extreme variation in local and state governments’ responses to the pandemic.

Congruent with other healthcare institutions, children’s hospitals calibrated their clinical operations to the evolving nature of the pandemic, prioritizing the safety of patients and staff while striving to maintain financial viability in the setting of increased costs and decreased revenue. In some cases, children’s hospitals aided adult hospitals and health systems by admitting young and middle-aged adult patients and by centralizing all pediatric patients requiring intensive care within a region. These efforts occurred while many children’s hospitals remained the sole source of specialized pediatric care, including care for rare complex health problems.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, there is a critical need to assess how the initial phase of the pandemic affected healthcare encounters and related finances in children’s hospitals. Understanding these trends will position children’s hospitals to project and prepare for subsequent COVID-19 surges, as well as future related public health crises that necessitate widespread social distancing. Therefore, we compared year-over-year trends in healthcare encounters and hospital charges across US children’s hospitals before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on the beginning of COVID-19 in the United States, which was defined as February through June 2020.

This is a retrospective analysis of 26 children’s hospitals (22 freestanding, 4 nonfreestanding) from all US regions (12 South, 7 Midwest, 5 West, 2 Northeast) contributing encounter and financial data to the PROSPECT database (Children’s Hospital Association, Lenexa, Kansas) from February 1 to June 30 in both 2019 (before COVID-19) and 2020 (during COVID-19). In response to COVID-19, hospitals participating in PROSPECT increased the efficiency of data centralization and reporting in 2020 during the period February 1 to June 30 to expedite analysis and dissemination of findings.

The main outcome measures were the percentage of change in weekly encounters (inpatient bed-days, emergency department [ED] visits, and surgeries) and inflation-adjusted charges (categorized as inpatient care and outpatient care, such as ambulatory surgery, clinics, and ED visits) before vs during COVID-19. Number of encounters and charges were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The distribution of weekly change in outcome measures from 2019 vs 2020 across hospitals was reported with medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs). The threshold of statistical significance was set at P < .05. All analyses were performed with SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute). This study was considered exempt from human subjects research by the Institutional Review Board of Children’s Mercy Hospital (Kansas City, Missouri).

All 26 children’s hospitals experienced similar trends in healthcare encounters and charges during the study period (Figure and Table). From February 1 to March 10, 2020, the volume of healthcare encounters in the children’s hospitals remained the same as that for the same period in 2019 (P > .1) (Figure).

Charges that accrued from February 1 to June 30 were lower in 2020 by a median 23.6% (IQR, –28.7% to –19.1%) per children’s hospital than they were in 2019, corresponding to a median decrease of $276.3 million (IQR, $404.0-$126.0 million) in charges per hospital (Table). Forty percent of this decrease was attributable to decreased charges resulting from fewer inpatient healthcare encounters.

During the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, children’s hospitals experienced a substantial decrease in healthcare encounters and charges. Greater decreases were observed for ED visits and surgery encounters than for inpatient bed-days. Nonetheless, inpatient bed-days decreased by more than one-third, consistent with the decrease in inpatient resource use reported for adult hospitals.³ Remarkably, these trends were consistent across children’s hospitals, despite variation in the content and installation of and adherence with social distancing policies in their surrounding local areas.

These findings beg the question of how well children’s hospitals are positioned to weather a recurrent surge in COVID-19. Because the severity of illness of COVID-19 has been lower to date in the pediatric vs adult populations, an increase in COVID-19-related visits to EDs and admissions to offset the decreased resource use of other pediatric healthcare problems is not anticipated. Existing hospital financial reserves as well as federal aid from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act that helped mitigate the initial encounter and financial losses during the beginning of COVID-19 may not be readily available over time.^4,5 Certainly, the findings from the current study support continued lobbying for additional state and federal funds allocated through future relief packages to children’s hospitals.

Additional approaches to financial solvency in children’s hospitals during the sustained COVID-19 pandemic include addressing surgical backlogs and sharing best practices for safe and sustained reopening of clinical operations and financial practices across institutions. Although the PROSPECT database does not contain information on the types of surgeries present within this backlog, our experiences suggest that both same-day and inpatient elective surgeries have been affected, especially lengthy procedures (eg, spinal fusion for neuromuscular scoliosis). Spread and scale of feasible and efficient solutions to reengineer and expand patient capacities and throughput for operating rooms, postanesthesia recovery areas, and intensive care and floor units are needed. Enhanced analytics that accurately predict postoperative length of hospital stay, coupled with early recovery after surgery clinical protocols, could help optimize hospital bed management. Effective ways to convert hospital rooms from single to double occupancy, to manage family visitation, and to proactively test asymptomatic patients, family, and hospital staff will mitigate continued COVID-19 penetration through children’s hospitals.

One important limitation of the current study is the measurement of hospitals’ charges. The charge data were not positioned to comprehensively measure each hospital’s financial state during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the decrease in hospital charges reported by the children’s hospitals in the current study is comparable with the financial losses reported for many adult hospitals during the pandemic.^6,7 It is important to recognize that the amount of the charges may not be equivalent to the cost of care or revenue collected by the hospitals. PROSPECT does not contain information on cost, and current cost-to-charge ratios are based on historical (ie, pre-COVID-19) data; therefore, they do not account for increased cost of personal protective equipment and other related costs that occurred during the pandemic, which makes use of these ratios challenging. Nevertheless, it is possible that the relative difference in costs incurred and revenue collected before and during COVID-19 may have been similar to the differences observed in hospital charges.

Children’s hospitals’ ability to serve the nation’s pediatric patients depends on the success of the hospitals’ plans to manage current and future COVID-19 surges and to reopen and recover from the surges that have passed. Additional investigation is needed to identify best operational and financial practices among children’s hospitals that have enabled them to endure the COVID-19 pandemic.

To benefit patients and the public health of their communities, children’s hospitals across the United States prepared for and responded to COVID-19 by conserving personal protective equipment, suspending noncritical in-person healthcare encounters (including outpatient visits and elective surgeries), and implementing socially distanced essential care.^1,2 These measures were promptly instituted during a time of both substantial uncertainty about the pandemic’s behavior in children—including its severity and duration—and extreme variation in local and state governments’ responses to the pandemic.

Congruent with other healthcare institutions, children’s hospitals calibrated their clinical operations to the evolving nature of the pandemic, prioritizing the safety of patients and staff while striving to maintain financial viability in the setting of increased costs and decreased revenue. In some cases, children’s hospitals aided adult hospitals and health systems by admitting young and middle-aged adult patients and by centralizing all pediatric patients requiring intensive care within a region. These efforts occurred while many children’s hospitals remained the sole source of specialized pediatric care, including care for rare complex health problems.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, there is a critical need to assess how the initial phase of the pandemic affected healthcare encounters and related finances in children’s hospitals. Understanding these trends will position children’s hospitals to project and prepare for subsequent COVID-19 surges, as well as future related public health crises that necessitate widespread social distancing. Therefore, we compared year-over-year trends in healthcare encounters and hospital charges across US children’s hospitals before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on the beginning of COVID-19 in the United States, which was defined as February through June 2020.

This is a retrospective analysis of 26 children’s hospitals (22 freestanding, 4 nonfreestanding) from all US regions (12 South, 7 Midwest, 5 West, 2 Northeast) contributing encounter and financial data to the PROSPECT database (Children’s Hospital Association, Lenexa, Kansas) from February 1 to June 30 in both 2019 (before COVID-19) and 2020 (during COVID-19). In response to COVID-19, hospitals participating in PROSPECT increased the efficiency of data centralization and reporting in 2020 during the period February 1 to June 30 to expedite analysis and dissemination of findings.

The main outcome measures were the percentage of change in weekly encounters (inpatient bed-days, emergency department [ED] visits, and surgeries) and inflation-adjusted charges (categorized as inpatient care and outpatient care, such as ambulatory surgery, clinics, and ED visits) before vs during COVID-19. Number of encounters and charges were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The distribution of weekly change in outcome measures from 2019 vs 2020 across hospitals was reported with medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs). The threshold of statistical significance was set at P < .05. All analyses were performed with SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute). This study was considered exempt from human subjects research by the Institutional Review Board of Children’s Mercy Hospital (Kansas City, Missouri).

All 26 children’s hospitals experienced similar trends in healthcare encounters and charges during the study period (Figure and Table). From February 1 to March 10, 2020, the volume of healthcare encounters in the children’s hospitals remained the same as that for the same period in 2019 (P > .1) (Figure).

Charges that accrued from February 1 to June 30 were lower in 2020 by a median 23.6% (IQR, –28.7% to –19.1%) per children’s hospital than they were in 2019, corresponding to a median decrease of $276.3 million (IQR, $404.0-$126.0 million) in charges per hospital (Table). Forty percent of this decrease was attributable to decreased charges resulting from fewer inpatient healthcare encounters.

During the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, children’s hospitals experienced a substantial decrease in healthcare encounters and charges. Greater decreases were observed for ED visits and surgery encounters than for inpatient bed-days. Nonetheless, inpatient bed-days decreased by more than one-third, consistent with the decrease in inpatient resource use reported for adult hospitals.³ Remarkably, these trends were consistent across children’s hospitals, despite variation in the content and installation of and adherence with social distancing policies in their surrounding local areas.

These findings beg the question of how well children’s hospitals are positioned to weather a recurrent surge in COVID-19. Because the severity of illness of COVID-19 has been lower to date in the pediatric vs adult populations, an increase in COVID-19-related visits to EDs and admissions to offset the decreased resource use of other pediatric healthcare problems is not anticipated. Existing hospital financial reserves as well as federal aid from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act that helped mitigate the initial encounter and financial losses during the beginning of COVID-19 may not be readily available over time.^4,5 Certainly, the findings from the current study support continued lobbying for additional state and federal funds allocated through future relief packages to children’s hospitals.

Additional approaches to financial solvency in children’s hospitals during the sustained COVID-19 pandemic include addressing surgical backlogs and sharing best practices for safe and sustained reopening of clinical operations and financial practices across institutions. Although the PROSPECT database does not contain information on the types of surgeries present within this backlog, our experiences suggest that both same-day and inpatient elective surgeries have been affected, especially lengthy procedures (eg, spinal fusion for neuromuscular scoliosis). Spread and scale of feasible and efficient solutions to reengineer and expand patient capacities and throughput for operating rooms, postanesthesia recovery areas, and intensive care and floor units are needed. Enhanced analytics that accurately predict postoperative length of hospital stay, coupled with early recovery after surgery clinical protocols, could help optimize hospital bed management. Effective ways to convert hospital rooms from single to double occupancy, to manage family visitation, and to proactively test asymptomatic patients, family, and hospital staff will mitigate continued COVID-19 penetration through children’s hospitals.

One important limitation of the current study is the measurement of hospitals’ charges. The charge data were not positioned to comprehensively measure each hospital’s financial state during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the decrease in hospital charges reported by the children’s hospitals in the current study is comparable with the financial losses reported for many adult hospitals during the pandemic.^6,7 It is important to recognize that the amount of the charges may not be equivalent to the cost of care or revenue collected by the hospitals. PROSPECT does not contain information on cost, and current cost-to-charge ratios are based on historical (ie, pre-COVID-19) data; therefore, they do not account for increased cost of personal protective equipment and other related costs that occurred during the pandemic, which makes use of these ratios challenging. Nevertheless, it is possible that the relative difference in costs incurred and revenue collected before and during COVID-19 may have been similar to the differences observed in hospital charges.

Children’s hospitals’ ability to serve the nation’s pediatric patients depends on the success of the hospitals’ plans to manage current and future COVID-19 surges and to reopen and recover from the surges that have passed. Additional investigation is needed to identify best operational and financial practices among children’s hospitals that have enabled them to endure the COVID-19 pandemic.

To benefit patients and the public health of their communities, children’s hospitals across the United States prepared for and responded to COVID-19 by conserving personal protective equipment, suspending noncritical in-person healthcare encounters (including outpatient visits and elective surgeries), and implementing socially distanced essential care.^1,2 These measures were promptly instituted during a time of both substantial uncertainty about the pandemic’s behavior in children—including its severity and duration—and extreme variation in local and state governments’ responses to the pandemic.

Congruent with other healthcare institutions, children’s hospitals calibrated their clinical operations to the evolving nature of the pandemic, prioritizing the safety of patients and staff while striving to maintain financial viability in the setting of increased costs and decreased revenue. In some cases, children’s hospitals aided adult hospitals and health systems by admitting young and middle-aged adult patients and by centralizing all pediatric patients requiring intensive care within a region. These efforts occurred while many children’s hospitals remained the sole source of specialized pediatric care, including care for rare complex health problems.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, there is a critical need to assess how the initial phase of the pandemic affected healthcare encounters and related finances in children’s hospitals. Understanding these trends will position children’s hospitals to project and prepare for subsequent COVID-19 surges, as well as future related public health crises that necessitate widespread social distancing. Therefore, we compared year-over-year trends in healthcare encounters and hospital charges across US children’s hospitals before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on the beginning of COVID-19 in the United States, which was defined as February through June 2020.

This is a retrospective analysis of 26 children’s hospitals (22 freestanding, 4 nonfreestanding) from all US regions (12 South, 7 Midwest, 5 West, 2 Northeast) contributing encounter and financial data to the PROSPECT database (Children’s Hospital Association, Lenexa, Kansas) from February 1 to June 30 in both 2019 (before COVID-19) and 2020 (during COVID-19). In response to COVID-19, hospitals participating in PROSPECT increased the efficiency of data centralization and reporting in 2020 during the period February 1 to June 30 to expedite analysis and dissemination of findings.

The main outcome measures were the percentage of change in weekly encounters (inpatient bed-days, emergency department [ED] visits, and surgeries) and inflation-adjusted charges (categorized as inpatient care and outpatient care, such as ambulatory surgery, clinics, and ED visits) before vs during COVID-19. Number of encounters and charges were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The distribution of weekly change in outcome measures from 2019 vs 2020 across hospitals was reported with medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs). The threshold of statistical significance was set at P < .05. All analyses were performed with SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute). This study was considered exempt from human subjects research by the Institutional Review Board of Children’s Mercy Hospital (Kansas City, Missouri).

All 26 children’s hospitals experienced similar trends in healthcare encounters and charges during the study period (Figure and Table). From February 1 to March 10, 2020, the volume of healthcare encounters in the children’s hospitals remained the same as that for the same period in 2019 (P > .1) (Figure).

Charges that accrued from February 1 to June 30 were lower in 2020 by a median 23.6% (IQR, –28.7% to –19.1%) per children’s hospital than they were in 2019, corresponding to a median decrease of $276.3 million (IQR, $404.0-$126.0 million) in charges per hospital (Table). Forty percent of this decrease was attributable to decreased charges resulting from fewer inpatient healthcare encounters.

During the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, children’s hospitals experienced a substantial decrease in healthcare encounters and charges. Greater decreases were observed for ED visits and surgery encounters than for inpatient bed-days. Nonetheless, inpatient bed-days decreased by more than one-third, consistent with the decrease in inpatient resource use reported for adult hospitals.³ Remarkably, these trends were consistent across children’s hospitals, despite variation in the content and installation of and adherence with social distancing policies in their surrounding local areas.

These findings beg the question of how well children’s hospitals are positioned to weather a recurrent surge in COVID-19. Because the severity of illness of COVID-19 has been lower to date in the pediatric vs adult populations, an increase in COVID-19-related visits to EDs and admissions to offset the decreased resource use of other pediatric healthcare problems is not anticipated. Existing hospital financial reserves as well as federal aid from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act that helped mitigate the initial encounter and financial losses during the beginning of COVID-19 may not be readily available over time.^4,5 Certainly, the findings from the current study support continued lobbying for additional state and federal funds allocated through future relief packages to children’s hospitals.

Additional approaches to financial solvency in children’s hospitals during the sustained COVID-19 pandemic include addressing surgical backlogs and sharing best practices for safe and sustained reopening of clinical operations and financial practices across institutions. Although the PROSPECT database does not contain information on the types of surgeries present within this backlog, our experiences suggest that both same-day and inpatient elective surgeries have been affected, especially lengthy procedures (eg, spinal fusion for neuromuscular scoliosis). Spread and scale of feasible and efficient solutions to reengineer and expand patient capacities and throughput for operating rooms, postanesthesia recovery areas, and intensive care and floor units are needed. Enhanced analytics that accurately predict postoperative length of hospital stay, coupled with early recovery after surgery clinical protocols, could help optimize hospital bed management. Effective ways to convert hospital rooms from single to double occupancy, to manage family visitation, and to proactively test asymptomatic patients, family, and hospital staff will mitigate continued COVID-19 penetration through children’s hospitals.

One important limitation of the current study is the measurement of hospitals’ charges. The charge data were not positioned to comprehensively measure each hospital’s financial state during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the decrease in hospital charges reported by the children’s hospitals in the current study is comparable with the financial losses reported for many adult hospitals during the pandemic.^6,7 It is important to recognize that the amount of the charges may not be equivalent to the cost of care or revenue collected by the hospitals. PROSPECT does not contain information on cost, and current cost-to-charge ratios are based on historical (ie, pre-COVID-19) data; therefore, they do not account for increased cost of personal protective equipment and other related costs that occurred during the pandemic, which makes use of these ratios challenging. Nevertheless, it is possible that the relative difference in costs incurred and revenue collected before and during COVID-19 may have been similar to the differences observed in hospital charges.

Children’s hospitals’ ability to serve the nation’s pediatric patients depends on the success of the hospitals’ plans to manage current and future COVID-19 surges and to reopen and recover from the surges that have passed. Additional investigation is needed to identify best operational and financial practices among children’s hospitals that have enabled them to endure the COVID-19 pandemic.

Providing high-quality, efficient, and evidence-based healthcare is a complicated and complex process. The right approach or path forward is not always clear. In medicine, decision-making inherently involves uncertainty; evidence may be lacking, or values or context may differ, and thus, reasonable clinicians may choose to make different decisions based on the same data.

In this spirit of fostering education and healthy debate to improve understanding of challenges relevant to the field of hospital medicine, we are pleased to introduce our Point-Counterpoint series within the Perspectives in Hospital Medicine section of the journal. Point-Counterpoint Perspectives presents a debate by content experts. Each provides an interpretation of evidence regarding patient management or other controversial issues relating to hospital-based care. The format consists of an overview of the topic with an original point followed by a counterpoint response and, finally, a rebuttal (Table). We ask contributors to be as outspoken in their points and counterpoints as the evidence allows in order to fully elaborate the questions and uncertainties that may otherwise be familiar only to experts in the field or to those in other disciplines.

Our inaugural point-counterpoint articles address whether healthcare workers should receive priority for scarce drugs and therapies during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The intermittent shortage of medical supplies and protective equipment has made it not only difficult but also at times dangerous for healthcare workers to care for infected patients.¹ The risks of developing COVID-19 and fear of transmitting it to loved ones has led to stress, fatigue, and burnout among healthcare workers, leading some to quit and even attempt suicide. The downstream effects of this stress may adversely affect patients and exacerbate staffing challenges in an already taxed healthcare system.² Do we have a special obligation to those on the front lines? We are grateful to Drs Kirk R Daffner, Armand Antommaria, and Ndidi I Unaka, for addressing this controversial topic.^3-5

Providing high-quality, efficient, and evidence-based healthcare is a complicated and complex process. The right approach or path forward is not always clear. In medicine, decision-making inherently involves uncertainty; evidence may be lacking, or values or context may differ, and thus, reasonable clinicians may choose to make different decisions based on the same data.

In this spirit of fostering education and healthy debate to improve understanding of challenges relevant to the field of hospital medicine, we are pleased to introduce our Point-Counterpoint series within the Perspectives in Hospital Medicine section of the journal. Point-Counterpoint Perspectives presents a debate by content experts. Each provides an interpretation of evidence regarding patient management or other controversial issues relating to hospital-based care. The format consists of an overview of the topic with an original point followed by a counterpoint response and, finally, a rebuttal (Table). We ask contributors to be as outspoken in their points and counterpoints as the evidence allows in order to fully elaborate the questions and uncertainties that may otherwise be familiar only to experts in the field or to those in other disciplines.

Our inaugural point-counterpoint articles address whether healthcare workers should receive priority for scarce drugs and therapies during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The intermittent shortage of medical supplies and protective equipment has made it not only difficult but also at times dangerous for healthcare workers to care for infected patients.¹ The risks of developing COVID-19 and fear of transmitting it to loved ones has led to stress, fatigue, and burnout among healthcare workers, leading some to quit and even attempt suicide. The downstream effects of this stress may adversely affect patients and exacerbate staffing challenges in an already taxed healthcare system.² Do we have a special obligation to those on the front lines? We are grateful to Drs Kirk R Daffner, Armand Antommaria, and Ndidi I Unaka, for addressing this controversial topic.^3-5

Providing high-quality, efficient, and evidence-based healthcare is a complicated and complex process. The right approach or path forward is not always clear. In medicine, decision-making inherently involves uncertainty; evidence may be lacking, or values or context may differ, and thus, reasonable clinicians may choose to make different decisions based on the same data.

In this spirit of fostering education and healthy debate to improve understanding of challenges relevant to the field of hospital medicine, we are pleased to introduce our Point-Counterpoint series within the Perspectives in Hospital Medicine section of the journal. Point-Counterpoint Perspectives presents a debate by content experts. Each provides an interpretation of evidence regarding patient management or other controversial issues relating to hospital-based care. The format consists of an overview of the topic with an original point followed by a counterpoint response and, finally, a rebuttal (Table). We ask contributors to be as outspoken in their points and counterpoints as the evidence allows in order to fully elaborate the questions and uncertainties that may otherwise be familiar only to experts in the field or to those in other disciplines.

Our inaugural point-counterpoint articles address whether healthcare workers should receive priority for scarce drugs and therapies during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The intermittent shortage of medical supplies and protective equipment has made it not only difficult but also at times dangerous for healthcare workers to care for infected patients.¹ The risks of developing COVID-19 and fear of transmitting it to loved ones has led to stress, fatigue, and burnout among healthcare workers, leading some to quit and even attempt suicide. The downstream effects of this stress may adversely affect patients and exacerbate staffing challenges in an already taxed healthcare system.² Do we have a special obligation to those on the front lines? We are grateful to Drs Kirk R Daffner, Armand Antommaria, and Ndidi I Unaka, for addressing this controversial topic.^3-5

We are committed to using our platform at the Journal of Hospital Medicine (JHM) to address inequities in healthcare delivery, policy, and research. Race was conceived as a mechanism of social division, leading to the false belief, propagated over time, of race as a biological variable.¹ As a result, racism has contributed to the medical abuse and exploitation of Black and Brown communities and inequities in health status among racialized groups. We must abandon practices that perpetuate inequities and champion practices that resolve them. Racial health equity—the absence of unjust and avoidable health disparities among racialized groups—is unattainable if we continue to simply identify inequities without naming racism as a determinant of health. As a journal, our responsibility is to disseminate evidence-based manuscripts that reflect an understanding of race, racism, and health.

We have modified our author guidelines. First, we now require authors to clearly define race and provide justification for its inclusion in clinical case descriptions and study analyses. We aim to contribute to the necessary course correction as well as promote self-reflection on study design choices that propagate false notions of race as a biological concept and conclusions that reinforce race-based rather than race-conscious practices in medicine.² Second, we expect authors to explicitly name racism and make a concerted effort to explore its role, identify its specific forms, and examine mutually reinforcing mechanisms of inequity that potentially contributed to study findings. Finally, we instruct authors to avoid the use of phrases like “patient mistrust,” which places blame for inequities on patients and their families and decouples mistrust from the fraught history of racism in medicine.

We must also acknowledge and reflect on our previous contributions to such inequity as authors, reviewers, and editors in order to learn and grow. Among the more than 2,000 articles published in JHM since its inception, only four included the term “racism.” Three of these articles are perspectives published in June 2020 and beyond. The only original research manuscript that directly addressed racism was a qualitative study of adults with sickle cell disease.³ The authors described study participants’ perspectives: “In contrast, the hospital experience during adulthood was often punctuated by bitter relationships with staff, and distrust over possible excessive use of opioids. Moreover, participants raised the possibility of racism in their interactions with hospital staff.” In this example, patients called out racism and its impact on their experience. We know JHM is not alone in falling woefully short in advancing our understanding of racism and racial health inequities. Each of us should identify missed opportunities to call out racism as a driver of racial health disparities in our own publications. We must act on these lessons regarding the ways in which racism infiltrates scientific publishing. We must use this awareness, along with our influence, voice, and collective power, to enact change for the betterment of our patients, their families, and the medical community.

We at JHM will contribute to uncovering and disseminating solutions to health inequities that result from racism. We are grateful to Boyd et al for their call to action and for providing a blueprint for improvement to those of us who write, review, and publish scholarly work.⁴

We are committed to using our platform at the Journal of Hospital Medicine (JHM) to address inequities in healthcare delivery, policy, and research. Race was conceived as a mechanism of social division, leading to the false belief, propagated over time, of race as a biological variable.¹ As a result, racism has contributed to the medical abuse and exploitation of Black and Brown communities and inequities in health status among racialized groups. We must abandon practices that perpetuate inequities and champion practices that resolve them. Racial health equity—the absence of unjust and avoidable health disparities among racialized groups—is unattainable if we continue to simply identify inequities without naming racism as a determinant of health. As a journal, our responsibility is to disseminate evidence-based manuscripts that reflect an understanding of race, racism, and health.

We have modified our author guidelines. First, we now require authors to clearly define race and provide justification for its inclusion in clinical case descriptions and study analyses. We aim to contribute to the necessary course correction as well as promote self-reflection on study design choices that propagate false notions of race as a biological concept and conclusions that reinforce race-based rather than race-conscious practices in medicine.² Second, we expect authors to explicitly name racism and make a concerted effort to explore its role, identify its specific forms, and examine mutually reinforcing mechanisms of inequity that potentially contributed to study findings. Finally, we instruct authors to avoid the use of phrases like “patient mistrust,” which places blame for inequities on patients and their families and decouples mistrust from the fraught history of racism in medicine.

We must also acknowledge and reflect on our previous contributions to such inequity as authors, reviewers, and editors in order to learn and grow. Among the more than 2,000 articles published in JHM since its inception, only four included the term “racism.” Three of these articles are perspectives published in June 2020 and beyond. The only original research manuscript that directly addressed racism was a qualitative study of adults with sickle cell disease.³ The authors described study participants’ perspectives: “In contrast, the hospital experience during adulthood was often punctuated by bitter relationships with staff, and distrust over possible excessive use of opioids. Moreover, participants raised the possibility of racism in their interactions with hospital staff.” In this example, patients called out racism and its impact on their experience. We know JHM is not alone in falling woefully short in advancing our understanding of racism and racial health inequities. Each of us should identify missed opportunities to call out racism as a driver of racial health disparities in our own publications. We must act on these lessons regarding the ways in which racism infiltrates scientific publishing. We must use this awareness, along with our influence, voice, and collective power, to enact change for the betterment of our patients, their families, and the medical community.

We at JHM will contribute to uncovering and disseminating solutions to health inequities that result from racism. We are grateful to Boyd et al for their call to action and for providing a blueprint for improvement to those of us who write, review, and publish scholarly work.⁴

We are committed to using our platform at the Journal of Hospital Medicine (JHM) to address inequities in healthcare delivery, policy, and research. Race was conceived as a mechanism of social division, leading to the false belief, propagated over time, of race as a biological variable.¹ As a result, racism has contributed to the medical abuse and exploitation of Black and Brown communities and inequities in health status among racialized groups. We must abandon practices that perpetuate inequities and champion practices that resolve them. Racial health equity—the absence of unjust and avoidable health disparities among racialized groups—is unattainable if we continue to simply identify inequities without naming racism as a determinant of health. As a journal, our responsibility is to disseminate evidence-based manuscripts that reflect an understanding of race, racism, and health.

We have modified our author guidelines. First, we now require authors to clearly define race and provide justification for its inclusion in clinical case descriptions and study analyses. We aim to contribute to the necessary course correction as well as promote self-reflection on study design choices that propagate false notions of race as a biological concept and conclusions that reinforce race-based rather than race-conscious practices in medicine.² Second, we expect authors to explicitly name racism and make a concerted effort to explore its role, identify its specific forms, and examine mutually reinforcing mechanisms of inequity that potentially contributed to study findings. Finally, we instruct authors to avoid the use of phrases like “patient mistrust,” which places blame for inequities on patients and their families and decouples mistrust from the fraught history of racism in medicine.

We must also acknowledge and reflect on our previous contributions to such inequity as authors, reviewers, and editors in order to learn and grow. Among the more than 2,000 articles published in JHM since its inception, only four included the term “racism.” Three of these articles are perspectives published in June 2020 and beyond. The only original research manuscript that directly addressed racism was a qualitative study of adults with sickle cell disease.³ The authors described study participants’ perspectives: “In contrast, the hospital experience during adulthood was often punctuated by bitter relationships with staff, and distrust over possible excessive use of opioids. Moreover, participants raised the possibility of racism in their interactions with hospital staff.” In this example, patients called out racism and its impact on their experience. We know JHM is not alone in falling woefully short in advancing our understanding of racism and racial health inequities. Each of us should identify missed opportunities to call out racism as a driver of racial health disparities in our own publications. We must act on these lessons regarding the ways in which racism infiltrates scientific publishing. We must use this awareness, along with our influence, voice, and collective power, to enact change for the betterment of our patients, their families, and the medical community.

We at JHM will contribute to uncovering and disseminating solutions to health inequities that result from racism. We are grateful to Boyd et al for their call to action and for providing a blueprint for improvement to those of us who write, review, and publish scholarly work.⁴

Many of us are interested in developing or refining our skillsets. To do so, we need mentorship, which in the still-young field of hospital medicine can sometimes be challenging to obtain.

As a physician-investigator and editor, I commonly encounter young and even mid-career physicians wrestling with how to develop or refine their academic skills, and they’re usually pondering the challenges in finding someone in their own division or hospitalist group to help them. When this happens, I talk to them about bagels and cream cheese. I ask them two questions: “What’s your cream cheese?” and “Where’s your bagel?” Their natural reaction of puzzlement, perhaps mixed with hunger if they haven’t yet had breakfast, is similar to the one you’ve likely just experienced, so let me explain.

In medical school, I had a friend who absolutely loved cream cheese. If it had been socially acceptable, he would have simply walked around scooping cream cheese from a large tub. Had he done that, people would likely have given him funny looks and taken a few steps away. So, instead, my friend found an acceptable solution, which is that he would eat a lot of bagels. And those bagels would be piled high with cream cheese because what he wanted was the cream cheese and the bagel provided a reasonable means by which to get it.

So now I ask you: What’s your passion? What is the thing that you want to scoop from the tub (of learning and doing) every day for the rest of your life? That’s the cream cheese. Now, all you have to do is to find your bagel, the vehicle that allows you to get there.

Let’s see those principles in action. Say that you’re a hospitalist who wants to learn how to conduct randomized clinical trials, enhance medication reconciliation, or improve transitions of care. You can read about randomization schemes or improvement cycles but that’s clearly not enough. You need someone to help you frame the question, understand how to navigate the system, and avoid potential pitfalls. You need someone with relevant experience and expertise, someone with whom you can discuss nuances such as the trade-offs between different outcome measures or analytic approaches. You need your bagel.

There may not be anyone in your division with such expertise. You may need to branch out to find that bagel. You talk to a few people and they all point you to a cardiologist who runs clinical trials. What other field has such witty study acronyms as MRFIT or MIRACL or PROVE IT? If you’re interested in medication reconciliation, they may direct you to a pharmacist who studies medication errors. If you’re interested in improving care transitions, they may connect you with a critical care physician with expertise in interhospital transfers. You can meet with these folks to learn about their work. If their personality and mentorship style are a good fit, you can offer to assist in some aspect of their ongoing studies and, in return, ask for mentorship. You may have only a limited interest in the clinical content area, but if there is someone willing to invest their time in teaching, mentoring, and sponsoring you, then you’ve found your bagel.

Think about what you’re hoping to accomplish and keep an open mind to unexpected venues for mentorship and skill development. That bagel may be in your division or department, or it may be somewhere else in your institution, or it may not be in your institution at all but elsewhere regionally or nationally. The sequence is important. What’s your cream cheese? Figured it out? Great, now go find that bagel.

Many of us are interested in developing or refining our skillsets. To do so, we need mentorship, which in the still-young field of hospital medicine can sometimes be challenging to obtain.

As a physician-investigator and editor, I commonly encounter young and even mid-career physicians wrestling with how to develop or refine their academic skills, and they’re usually pondering the challenges in finding someone in their own division or hospitalist group to help them. When this happens, I talk to them about bagels and cream cheese. I ask them two questions: “What’s your cream cheese?” and “Where’s your bagel?” Their natural reaction of puzzlement, perhaps mixed with hunger if they haven’t yet had breakfast, is similar to the one you’ve likely just experienced, so let me explain.

In medical school, I had a friend who absolutely loved cream cheese. If it had been socially acceptable, he would have simply walked around scooping cream cheese from a large tub. Had he done that, people would likely have given him funny looks and taken a few steps away. So, instead, my friend found an acceptable solution, which is that he would eat a lot of bagels. And those bagels would be piled high with cream cheese because what he wanted was the cream cheese and the bagel provided a reasonable means by which to get it.

So now I ask you: What’s your passion? What is the thing that you want to scoop from the tub (of learning and doing) every day for the rest of your life? That’s the cream cheese. Now, all you have to do is to find your bagel, the vehicle that allows you to get there.

Let’s see those principles in action. Say that you’re a hospitalist who wants to learn how to conduct randomized clinical trials, enhance medication reconciliation, or improve transitions of care. You can read about randomization schemes or improvement cycles but that’s clearly not enough. You need someone to help you frame the question, understand how to navigate the system, and avoid potential pitfalls. You need someone with relevant experience and expertise, someone with whom you can discuss nuances such as the trade-offs between different outcome measures or analytic approaches. You need your bagel.

There may not be anyone in your division with such expertise. You may need to branch out to find that bagel. You talk to a few people and they all point you to a cardiologist who runs clinical trials. What other field has such witty study acronyms as MRFIT or MIRACL or PROVE IT? If you’re interested in medication reconciliation, they may direct you to a pharmacist who studies medication errors. If you’re interested in improving care transitions, they may connect you with a critical care physician with expertise in interhospital transfers. You can meet with these folks to learn about their work. If their personality and mentorship style are a good fit, you can offer to assist in some aspect of their ongoing studies and, in return, ask for mentorship. You may have only a limited interest in the clinical content area, but if there is someone willing to invest their time in teaching, mentoring, and sponsoring you, then you’ve found your bagel.

Think about what you’re hoping to accomplish and keep an open mind to unexpected venues for mentorship and skill development. That bagel may be in your division or department, or it may be somewhere else in your institution, or it may not be in your institution at all but elsewhere regionally or nationally. The sequence is important. What’s your cream cheese? Figured it out? Great, now go find that bagel.

Many of us are interested in developing or refining our skillsets. To do so, we need mentorship, which in the still-young field of hospital medicine can sometimes be challenging to obtain.

As a physician-investigator and editor, I commonly encounter young and even mid-career physicians wrestling with how to develop or refine their academic skills, and they’re usually pondering the challenges in finding someone in their own division or hospitalist group to help them. When this happens, I talk to them about bagels and cream cheese. I ask them two questions: “What’s your cream cheese?” and “Where’s your bagel?” Their natural reaction of puzzlement, perhaps mixed with hunger if they haven’t yet had breakfast, is similar to the one you’ve likely just experienced, so let me explain.

In medical school, I had a friend who absolutely loved cream cheese. If it had been socially acceptable, he would have simply walked around scooping cream cheese from a large tub. Had he done that, people would likely have given him funny looks and taken a few steps away. So, instead, my friend found an acceptable solution, which is that he would eat a lot of bagels. And those bagels would be piled high with cream cheese because what he wanted was the cream cheese and the bagel provided a reasonable means by which to get it.

So now I ask you: What’s your passion? What is the thing that you want to scoop from the tub (of learning and doing) every day for the rest of your life? That’s the cream cheese. Now, all you have to do is to find your bagel, the vehicle that allows you to get there.

Let’s see those principles in action. Say that you’re a hospitalist who wants to learn how to conduct randomized clinical trials, enhance medication reconciliation, or improve transitions of care. You can read about randomization schemes or improvement cycles but that’s clearly not enough. You need someone to help you frame the question, understand how to navigate the system, and avoid potential pitfalls. You need someone with relevant experience and expertise, someone with whom you can discuss nuances such as the trade-offs between different outcome measures or analytic approaches. You need your bagel.

There may not be anyone in your division with such expertise. You may need to branch out to find that bagel. You talk to a few people and they all point you to a cardiologist who runs clinical trials. What other field has such witty study acronyms as MRFIT or MIRACL or PROVE IT? If you’re interested in medication reconciliation, they may direct you to a pharmacist who studies medication errors. If you’re interested in improving care transitions, they may connect you with a critical care physician with expertise in interhospital transfers. You can meet with these folks to learn about their work. If their personality and mentorship style are a good fit, you can offer to assist in some aspect of their ongoing studies and, in return, ask for mentorship. You may have only a limited interest in the clinical content area, but if there is someone willing to invest their time in teaching, mentoring, and sponsoring you, then you’ve found your bagel.

Think about what you’re hoping to accomplish and keep an open mind to unexpected venues for mentorship and skill development. That bagel may be in your division or department, or it may be somewhere else in your institution, or it may not be in your institution at all but elsewhere regionally or nationally. The sequence is important. What’s your cream cheese? Figured it out? Great, now go find that bagel.

Bacterial infections are a common reason for pediatric hospital admissions in the United States.¹ Antibiotics are the mainstay of treatment, and whether to administer them intravenously (IV) or enterally is an important and, at times, challenging decision. Not all hospitalized patients with infections require IV antibiotics, and safe, effective early transitions to enteral therapy have been described for numerous infections.^2-7 However, guidelines describing the ideal initial route of antibiotic administration and when to transition to oral therapy are lacking.^5,7,8 This lack of high-quality evidence-based guidance may contribute to overuse of IV antibiotics for many hospitalized pediatric patients, even when safe and effective enteral options exist.⁹

Significant costs and harms are associated with the use of IV antibiotics. In particular, studies have demonstrated longer length of stay (LOS), increased costs, and worsened pain or anxiety related to complications (eg, phlebitis, extravasation injury, thrombosis, catheter-associated bloodstream infections) associated with IV antibiotics.^3,4,10-13 Earlier transition to enteral therapy, however, can mitigate these increased risks and costs.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists the transition from IV to oral antibiotics as a key stewardship intervention for improving antibiotic use.¹⁴ The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) antibiotic stewardship program guidelines strongly recommend the timely conversion from IV to oral antibiotics, stating that efforts focusing on this transition should be integrated into routine practice.¹⁵ There are a few metrics in the literature to measure this intervention, but none is universally used, and a modified delphi process could not reach consensus on IV-to-oral transition metrics.¹⁶

Few studies describe the opportunity to transition to enteral antibiotics in hospitalized patients with common bacterial infections or explore variation across hospitals. It is critical to understand current practice of antibiotic administration in order to identify opportunities to optimize patient outcomes and promote high-value care. Furthermore, few studies have evaluated the feasibility of IV-to-oral transition metrics using an administrative database. Thus, the aims of this study were to (1) determine opportunities to transition from IV to enteral antibiotics for pediatric patients hospitalized with common bacterial infections based on their ability to tolerate other enteral medications, (2) describe variation in transition practices among children’s hospitals, and (3) evaluate the feasibility of novel IV-to-oral transition metrics using an administrative database to inform stewardship efforts.

Study Design and Setting

This multicenter, retrospective cohort study used data from the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS), an administrative and billing database containing encounter-level data from 52 tertiary care pediatric hospitals across the United States affiliated with the Children’s Hospital Association (Lenexa, Kansas). Hospitals submit encounter-level data, including demographics, medications, and diagnoses based on International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes. Data were de-identified at the time of submission, and data quality and reliability were assured by joint efforts between the Children’s Hospital Association and participating hospitals.

Study Population

This study included pediatric patients aged 60 days to 18 years who were hospitalized (inpatient or observation status) at one of the participating hospitals between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2018, for one of the following seven common bacterial infections: community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), neck infection (superficial and deep), periorbital/orbital infection, urinary tract infection (UTI), osteomyelitis, septic arthritis, or skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI). The diagnosis cohorts were defined based on ICD-10-CM discharge diagnoses adapted from previous studies (Appendix Table 1).^3,17-23 To define a cohort of generally healthy pediatric patients with an acute infection, we excluded patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit, patients with nonhome discharges, and patients with complex chronic conditions.²⁴ We also excluded hospitals with incomplete data during the study period (n=1). The Institutional Review Board at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center determined this study to be non–human-subjects research.

Outcomes

The primary outcomes were the number of opportunity days and the percent of days with opportunity to transition from IV to enteral therapy. Opportunity days, or days in which there was a potential opportunity to transition from IV to enteral antibiotics, were defined as days patients received only IV antibiotic doses and at least one enteral nonantibiotic medication, suggesting an ability to take enteral medications.¹³ We excluded days patients received IV antibiotics for which there was no enteral alternative (eg, vancomycin, Appendix Table 2). When measuring opportunity, to be conservative (ie, to underestimate rather than overestimate opportunity), we did not count as an opportunity day any day in which patients received both IV and enteral antibiotics. Percent opportunity, or the percent of days patients received antibiotics in which there was potential opportunity to transition from IV to enteral antibiotics, was defined as the number of opportunity days divided by number of inpatient days patients received enteral antibiotics or IV antibiotics with at least one enteral nonantibiotic medication (antibiotic days). Similar to opportunity days, antibiotic days excluded days patients were on IV antibiotics for which there was no enteral alternative. Based on our definition, a lower percent opportunity indicates that a hospital is using enteral antibiotics earlier during the hospitalization (earlier transition), while a higher percent opportunity represents later enteral antibiotic use (later transition).

Statistical Analysis

Demographic and clinical characteristics were summarized by diagnosis with descriptive statistics, including frequency with percentage, mean with standard deviation, and median with interquartile range (IQR). For each diagnosis, we evaluated aggregate opportunity days (sum of opportunity days among all hospitals), opportunity days per encounter, and aggregate percent opportunity using frequencies, mean with standard deviation, and percentages, respectively. We also calculated aggregate opportunity days for diagnosis-antibiotic combinations. To visually show variation in the percent opportunity across hospitals, we displayed the percent opportunity on a heat map, and evaluated percent opportunity across hospitals using chi-square tests. To compare the variability in the percent opportunity across and within hospitals, we used a generalized linear model with two fixed effects (hospital and diagnosis), and parsed the variability using the sum of squares. We performed a sensitivity analysis and excluded days that patients received antiemetic medications (eg, ondansetron, granisetron, prochlorperazine, promethazine), as these suggest potential intolerance of enteral medications. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS v.9.4 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, North Carolina) and GraphPad Prism 8.0 (GraphPad Software Inc., San Diego, California), and P values < .05 were considered statistically significant.

During the 2-year study period, 100,103 hospitalizations met our inclusion criteria across 51 hospitals and seven diagnosis categories (Table 1). Diagnosis cohorts ranged in size from 1,462 encounters for septic arthritis to 35,665 encounters for neck infections. Overall, we identified 88,522 aggregate opportunity days on which there was an opportunity to switch from IV to enteral treatment in the majority of participants (percent opportunity, 57%).

Opportunity by Diagnosis

The number of opportunity days (aggregate and mean per encounter) and percent opportunity varied by diagnosis (Table 2). The aggregate number of opportunity days ranged from 3,693 in patients with septic arthritis to 25,359 in patients with SSTI, and mean opportunity days per encounter ranged from 0.9 in CAP to 2.8 in septic arthritis. Percent opportunity was highest for septic arthritis at 72.7% and lowest for CAP at 39.7%.

Variation in Opportunity Among Hospitals

The variation in the percent opportunity across hospitals was statistically significant for all diagnoses (Figure). Within hospitals, we observed similar practice patterns across diagnoses. For example, hospitals with a higher percent opportunity for one diagnosis tended to have higher percent opportunity for the other diagnoses (as noted in the top portion of the Figure), and those with lower percent opportunity for one diagnosis tended to also have lower percent opportunity for the other diagnoses studied (as noted in the bottom portion of the Figure). When evaluating variability in the percent opportunity, 45% of the variability was attributable to the hospital-effect and 35% to the diagnosis; the remainder was unexplained variability. Sensitivity analysis excluding days when patients received an antiemetic medication yielded no differences in our results.

Opportunity by Antibiotic

The aggregate number of opportunity days varied by antibiotic (Table 3). Intravenous antibiotics with the largest number of opportunity days included clindamycin (44,293), ceftriaxone (23,896), and ampicillin-sulbactam (15,484). Antibiotic-diagnosis combinations with the largest number of opportunity days for each diagnosis included ceftriaxone and ampicillin in CAP; clindamycin in cellulitis, SSTI, and neck infections; ceftriaxone in UTI; and cefazolin in osteomyelitis and septic arthritis.

In this multicenter study of pediatric patients hospitalized with common bacterial infections, there was the potential to transition from IV to enteral treatment in over half of the antibiotic days. The degree of opportunity varied by infection, antibiotic, and hospital. Antibiotics with a large aggregate number of opportunity days for enteral transition included clindamycin, which has excellent bioavailability; and ampicillin and ampicillin-sulbactam, which can achieve pharmacodynamic targets with oral equivalents.^25-29 The across-hospital variation for a given diagnosis suggests that certain hospitals have strategies in place which permit an earlier transition to enteral antibiotics compared to other institutions in which there were likely missed opportunities to do so. This variability is likely due to limited evidence, emphasizing the need for robust studies to better understand the optimal initial antibiotic route and transition time. Our findings highlight the need for, and large potential impact of, stewardship efforts to promote earlier transition for specific drug targets. This study also demonstrates the feasibility of obtaining two metrics—percent opportunity and opportunity days—from administrative databases to inform stewardship efforts within and across hospitals.

Opportunity days and percent opportunity varied among diagnoses. The variation in aggregate opportunity days was largely a reflection of the number of encounters: Diagnoses such as SSTI, neck infections, and CAP had a large number of both aggregate opportunity days and encounters. The range of opportunity days per encounter (0.9-2.5) suggests potential missed opportunities to transition to enteral antibiotics across all diagnoses (Table 2). The higher opportunity days per encounter in osteomyelitis and septic arthritis may be related to longer LOS and higher percent opportunity. Percent opportunity likely varied among diagnoses due to differences in admission and discharge readiness criteria, diagnostic evaluation, frequency of antibiotic administration, and evidence on the optimal route of initial antibiotics and when to transition to oral formulations. For example, we hypothesize that certain diagnoses, such as osteomyelitis and septic arthritis, have admission and discharge readiness criteria directly tied to the perceived need for IV antibiotics, which may limit in-hospital days on enteral antibiotics and explain the high percent opportunity that we observed. The high percent opportunity seen in musculoskeletal infections also may be due to delays in initiating targeted treatment until culture results were available. Encounters for CAP had the lowest percent opportunity; we hypothesize that this is because admission and discharge readiness may be determined by factors other than the need for IV antibiotics (eg, need for supplemental oxygen), which may increase days on enteral antibiotics and lead to a lower percent opportunity.³⁰

Urinary tract infection encounters had a high percent opportunity. As with musculoskeletal infection, this may be related to delays in initiating targeted treatment until culture results became available. Another reason for the high percent opportunity in UTI could be the common use of ceftriaxone, which, dosed every 24 hours, likely reduced the opportunity to transition to enteral antibiotics. There is strong evidence demonstrating no difference in outcomes based on antibiotic routes for UTI, and we would expect this to result in a low percent opportunity.^2,31 While the observed high opportunity in UTI may relate to an initial unknown diagnosis or concern for systemic infection, this highlights potential opportunities for quality improvement initiatives to promote empiric oral antibiotics in clinically stable patients hospitalized with suspected UTI.

There was substantial variation in percent opportunity across hospitals for a given diagnosis, with less variation across diagnoses for a given hospital. Variation across hospitals but consistency within individual hospitals suggests that some hospitals may promote earlier transition from IV to enteral antibiotics as standard practice for all diagnoses, while other hospitals continue IV antibiotics for the entire hospitalization, highlighting potential missed opportunities at some institutions. While emerging data suggest that traditional long durations of IV antibiotics are not necessary for many infections, the limited evidence on the optimal time to switch to oral antibiotics may have influenced this variation.^2-7 Many guidelines recommend initial IV antibiotics for hospitalized pediatric patients, but there are few studies comparing IV and enteral therapy.^2,5,9 Limited evidence leaves significant room for hospital culture, antibiotic stewardship efforts, reimbursement considerations, and/or hospital workflow to influence transition timing and overall opportunity at individual hospitals.^7,8,32-34 These findings emphasize the importance of research to identify optimal transition time and comparative effectiveness studies to evaluate whether initial IV antibiotics are truly needed for mild—and even severe—disease presentations. Since many patients are admitted for the perceived need for IV antibiotics, earlier use of enteral antibiotics could reduce rates of hospitalizations, LOS, healthcare costs, and resource utilization.

Antibiotics with a high number of opportunity days included clindamycin, ceftriaxone, ampicillin-sublactam, and ampicillin. Our findings are consistent with another study which found that most bioavailable drugs, including clindamycin, were administered via the IV route and accounted for a large number of antibiotic days.³⁵ The Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends that hospitals promote earlier transition to oral formulations for highly bioavailable drugs.⁷ Given the high bioavailability of clindamycin, its common use in high-frequency encounters such as SSTI and neck infections, and the fact that it accounted for a large number of opportunity days, quality improvement initiatives promoting earlier transition to oral clindamycin could have a large impact across health systems.^25,26 Additionally, although beta-lactam antibiotics such as amoxicillin and amoxicillin-sulbactam are not highly bioavailable, oral dosing can achieve sufficient serum concentrations to reach pharmacodynamic targets for common clinical indications; this could be an important quality improvement initiative.^27-29 Several single-site studies have successfully implemented quality improvement initiatives to promote earlier IV-to-enteral transition, with resulting reductions in costs and no adverse events noted, highlighting the feasibility and impact of such efforts.^13,36-38

This study also demonstrates the feasibility of collecting two metrics (percent opportunity and opportunity days) from administrative databases to inform IV-to-oral transition benchmarking and stewardship efforts. While there are several metrics in the literature for evaluating antibiotic transition (eg, days of IV or oral therapy, percentage of antibiotics given via the oral route, time to switch from IV to oral, and acceptance rate of suggested changes to antibiotic route), none are universally used or agreed upon.^15,16,39 The opportunity metrics used in this study have several strengths, including the feasibility of obtaining them from existing databases and the ability to account for intake of other enteral medications; the latter is not evaluated in other metrics. These opportunity metrics can be used together to identify the percent of time in which there is opportunity to transition and total number of days to understand the full extent of potential opportunity for future interventions. As demonstrated in this study, these metrics can be measured by diagnosis, antibiotic, or diagnosis-antibiotic combination, and they can be used to evaluate stewardship efforts at a single institution over time or compare efforts across hospitals.

These findings should be interpreted in the context of important limitations. First, we attempted to characterize potential opportunity to transition to enteral medications based on a patient’s ability to tolerate nonenteral medications. However, there are other factors that could limit the opportunity to transition that we could not account for with an administrative dataset, including the use of antibiotics prior to admission, disease progression, severity of illness, and malabsorptive concerns. Thus, though we may have overestimated the true opportunity to transition to enteral antibiotics, it is unlikely that this would account for all of the variation in transition times that we observed across hospitals. Second, while our study required patients to have one of seven types of infection, we did not exclude any additional infectious diagnoses (eg, concurrent bacteremia, Clostridioides difficile, otitis media) that could have driven the choice of antibiotic type and modality. Although emerging evidence is supporting earlier transitions to oral therapy, bacteremia is typically treated with IV antibiotics; this may have led to an overestimation of true opportunity.⁴⁰ “Clostridioides” difficile and otitis media are typically treated with enteral therapy; concurrent infections such as these may have led to an underestimation of opportunity given the fact that, based on our definition, the days on which patients received both IV and enteral antibiotics were not counted as opportunity days. Third, because PHIS uses billing days to capture medication use, we were unable to distinguish transitions that occurred early in the day vs those that took place later in the day. This could have led to an underestimation of percent opportunity, particularly for diagnoses with a short LOS; it also likely led to an underestimation of the variability observed across hospitals. Fourth, because we used an administrative dataset, we are unable to understand reasoning behind transitioning time from IV to oral antibiotics, as well as provider, patient, and institutional level factors that influenced these decisions.

Children hospitalized with bacterial infections often receive IV antibiotics, and the timing of transition from IV to enteral antibiotics varies significantly across hospitals. Further research is needed to compare the effectiveness of IV and enteral antibiotics and better define criteria for transition to enteral therapy. We identified ample opportunities for quality improvement initiatives to promote earlier transition, which have the potential to reduce healthcare utilization and promote optimal patient-directed high-value care.

Bacterial infections are a common reason for pediatric hospital admissions in the United States.¹ Antibiotics are the mainstay of treatment, and whether to administer them intravenously (IV) or enterally is an important and, at times, challenging decision. Not all hospitalized patients with infections require IV antibiotics, and safe, effective early transitions to enteral therapy have been described for numerous infections.^2-7 However, guidelines describing the ideal initial route of antibiotic administration and when to transition to oral therapy are lacking.^5,7,8 This lack of high-quality evidence-based guidance may contribute to overuse of IV antibiotics for many hospitalized pediatric patients, even when safe and effective enteral options exist.⁹

Significant costs and harms are associated with the use of IV antibiotics. In particular, studies have demonstrated longer length of stay (LOS), increased costs, and worsened pain or anxiety related to complications (eg, phlebitis, extravasation injury, thrombosis, catheter-associated bloodstream infections) associated with IV antibiotics.^3,4,10-13 Earlier transition to enteral therapy, however, can mitigate these increased risks and costs.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists the transition from IV to oral antibiotics as a key stewardship intervention for improving antibiotic use.¹⁴ The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) antibiotic stewardship program guidelines strongly recommend the timely conversion from IV to oral antibiotics, stating that efforts focusing on this transition should be integrated into routine practice.¹⁵ There are a few metrics in the literature to measure this intervention, but none is universally used, and a modified delphi process could not reach consensus on IV-to-oral transition metrics.¹⁶

Few studies describe the opportunity to transition to enteral antibiotics in hospitalized patients with common bacterial infections or explore variation across hospitals. It is critical to understand current practice of antibiotic administration in order to identify opportunities to optimize patient outcomes and promote high-value care. Furthermore, few studies have evaluated the feasibility of IV-to-oral transition metrics using an administrative database. Thus, the aims of this study were to (1) determine opportunities to transition from IV to enteral antibiotics for pediatric patients hospitalized with common bacterial infections based on their ability to tolerate other enteral medications, (2) describe variation in transition practices among children’s hospitals, and (3) evaluate the feasibility of novel IV-to-oral transition metrics using an administrative database to inform stewardship efforts.

Study Design and Setting

This multicenter, retrospective cohort study used data from the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS), an administrative and billing database containing encounter-level data from 52 tertiary care pediatric hospitals across the United States affiliated with the Children’s Hospital Association (Lenexa, Kansas). Hospitals submit encounter-level data, including demographics, medications, and diagnoses based on International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes. Data were de-identified at the time of submission, and data quality and reliability were assured by joint efforts between the Children’s Hospital Association and participating hospitals.

Study Population

This study included pediatric patients aged 60 days to 18 years who were hospitalized (inpatient or observation status) at one of the participating hospitals between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2018, for one of the following seven common bacterial infections: community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), neck infection (superficial and deep), periorbital/orbital infection, urinary tract infection (UTI), osteomyelitis, septic arthritis, or skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI). The diagnosis cohorts were defined based on ICD-10-CM discharge diagnoses adapted from previous studies (Appendix Table 1).^3,17-23 To define a cohort of generally healthy pediatric patients with an acute infection, we excluded patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit, patients with nonhome discharges, and patients with complex chronic conditions.²⁴ We also excluded hospitals with incomplete data during the study period (n=1). The Institutional Review Board at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center determined this study to be non–human-subjects research.

Outcomes

The primary outcomes were the number of opportunity days and the percent of days with opportunity to transition from IV to enteral therapy. Opportunity days, or days in which there was a potential opportunity to transition from IV to enteral antibiotics, were defined as days patients received only IV antibiotic doses and at least one enteral nonantibiotic medication, suggesting an ability to take enteral medications.¹³ We excluded days patients received IV antibiotics for which there was no enteral alternative (eg, vancomycin, Appendix Table 2). When measuring opportunity, to be conservative (ie, to underestimate rather than overestimate opportunity), we did not count as an opportunity day any day in which patients received both IV and enteral antibiotics. Percent opportunity, or the percent of days patients received antibiotics in which there was potential opportunity to transition from IV to enteral antibiotics, was defined as the number of opportunity days divided by number of inpatient days patients received enteral antibiotics or IV antibiotics with at least one enteral nonantibiotic medication (antibiotic days). Similar to opportunity days, antibiotic days excluded days patients were on IV antibiotics for which there was no enteral alternative. Based on our definition, a lower percent opportunity indicates that a hospital is using enteral antibiotics earlier during the hospitalization (earlier transition), while a higher percent opportunity represents later enteral antibiotic use (later transition).

Statistical Analysis

Demographic and clinical characteristics were summarized by diagnosis with descriptive statistics, including frequency with percentage, mean with standard deviation, and median with interquartile range (IQR). For each diagnosis, we evaluated aggregate opportunity days (sum of opportunity days among all hospitals), opportunity days per encounter, and aggregate percent opportunity using frequencies, mean with standard deviation, and percentages, respectively. We also calculated aggregate opportunity days for diagnosis-antibiotic combinations. To visually show variation in the percent opportunity across hospitals, we displayed the percent opportunity on a heat map, and evaluated percent opportunity across hospitals using chi-square tests. To compare the variability in the percent opportunity across and within hospitals, we used a generalized linear model with two fixed effects (hospital and diagnosis), and parsed the variability using the sum of squares. We performed a sensitivity analysis and excluded days that patients received antiemetic medications (eg, ondansetron, granisetron, prochlorperazine, promethazine), as these suggest potential intolerance of enteral medications. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS v.9.4 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, North Carolina) and GraphPad Prism 8.0 (GraphPad Software Inc., San Diego, California), and P values < .05 were considered statistically significant.

During the 2-year study period, 100,103 hospitalizations met our inclusion criteria across 51 hospitals and seven diagnosis categories (Table 1). Diagnosis cohorts ranged in size from 1,462 encounters for septic arthritis to 35,665 encounters for neck infections. Overall, we identified 88,522 aggregate opportunity days on which there was an opportunity to switch from IV to enteral treatment in the majority of participants (percent opportunity, 57%).

Opportunity by Diagnosis

The number of opportunity days (aggregate and mean per encounter) and percent opportunity varied by diagnosis (Table 2). The aggregate number of opportunity days ranged from 3,693 in patients with septic arthritis to 25,359 in patients with SSTI, and mean opportunity days per encounter ranged from 0.9 in CAP to 2.8 in septic arthritis. Percent opportunity was highest for septic arthritis at 72.7% and lowest for CAP at 39.7%.

Variation in Opportunity Among Hospitals

The variation in the percent opportunity across hospitals was statistically significant for all diagnoses (Figure). Within hospitals, we observed similar practice patterns across diagnoses. For example, hospitals with a higher percent opportunity for one diagnosis tended to have higher percent opportunity for the other diagnoses (as noted in the top portion of the Figure), and those with lower percent opportunity for one diagnosis tended to also have lower percent opportunity for the other diagnoses studied (as noted in the bottom portion of the Figure). When evaluating variability in the percent opportunity, 45% of the variability was attributable to the hospital-effect and 35% to the diagnosis; the remainder was unexplained variability. Sensitivity analysis excluding days when patients received an antiemetic medication yielded no differences in our results.

Opportunity by Antibiotic

The aggregate number of opportunity days varied by antibiotic (Table 3). Intravenous antibiotics with the largest number of opportunity days included clindamycin (44,293), ceftriaxone (23,896), and ampicillin-sulbactam (15,484). Antibiotic-diagnosis combinations with the largest number of opportunity days for each diagnosis included ceftriaxone and ampicillin in CAP; clindamycin in cellulitis, SSTI, and neck infections; ceftriaxone in UTI; and cefazolin in osteomyelitis and septic arthritis.

In this multicenter study of pediatric patients hospitalized with common bacterial infections, there was the potential to transition from IV to enteral treatment in over half of the antibiotic days. The degree of opportunity varied by infection, antibiotic, and hospital. Antibiotics with a large aggregate number of opportunity days for enteral transition included clindamycin, which has excellent bioavailability; and ampicillin and ampicillin-sulbactam, which can achieve pharmacodynamic targets with oral equivalents.^25-29 The across-hospital variation for a given diagnosis suggests that certain hospitals have strategies in place which permit an earlier transition to enteral antibiotics compared to other institutions in which there were likely missed opportunities to do so. This variability is likely due to limited evidence, emphasizing the need for robust studies to better understand the optimal initial antibiotic route and transition time. Our findings highlight the need for, and large potential impact of, stewardship efforts to promote earlier transition for specific drug targets. This study also demonstrates the feasibility of obtaining two metrics—percent opportunity and opportunity days—from administrative databases to inform stewardship efforts within and across hospitals.

Opportunity days and percent opportunity varied among diagnoses. The variation in aggregate opportunity days was largely a reflection of the number of encounters: Diagnoses such as SSTI, neck infections, and CAP had a large number of both aggregate opportunity days and encounters. The range of opportunity days per encounter (0.9-2.5) suggests potential missed opportunities to transition to enteral antibiotics across all diagnoses (Table 2). The higher opportunity days per encounter in osteomyelitis and septic arthritis may be related to longer LOS and higher percent opportunity. Percent opportunity likely varied among diagnoses due to differences in admission and discharge readiness criteria, diagnostic evaluation, frequency of antibiotic administration, and evidence on the optimal route of initial antibiotics and when to transition to oral formulations. For example, we hypothesize that certain diagnoses, such as osteomyelitis and septic arthritis, have admission and discharge readiness criteria directly tied to the perceived need for IV antibiotics, which may limit in-hospital days on enteral antibiotics and explain the high percent opportunity that we observed. The high percent opportunity seen in musculoskeletal infections also may be due to delays in initiating targeted treatment until culture results were available. Encounters for CAP had the lowest percent opportunity; we hypothesize that this is because admission and discharge readiness may be determined by factors other than the need for IV antibiotics (eg, need for supplemental oxygen), which may increase days on enteral antibiotics and lead to a lower percent opportunity.³⁰

Urinary tract infection encounters had a high percent opportunity. As with musculoskeletal infection, this may be related to delays in initiating targeted treatment until culture results became available. Another reason for the high percent opportunity in UTI could be the common use of ceftriaxone, which, dosed every 24 hours, likely reduced the opportunity to transition to enteral antibiotics. There is strong evidence demonstrating no difference in outcomes based on antibiotic routes for UTI, and we would expect this to result in a low percent opportunity.^2,31 While the observed high opportunity in UTI may relate to an initial unknown diagnosis or concern for systemic infection, this highlights potential opportunities for quality improvement initiatives to promote empiric oral antibiotics in clinically stable patients hospitalized with suspected UTI.

There was substantial variation in percent opportunity across hospitals for a given diagnosis, with less variation across diagnoses for a given hospital. Variation across hospitals but consistency within individual hospitals suggests that some hospitals may promote earlier transition from IV to enteral antibiotics as standard practice for all diagnoses, while other hospitals continue IV antibiotics for the entire hospitalization, highlighting potential missed opportunities at some institutions. While emerging data suggest that traditional long durations of IV antibiotics are not necessary for many infections, the limited evidence on the optimal time to switch to oral antibiotics may have influenced this variation.^2-7 Many guidelines recommend initial IV antibiotics for hospitalized pediatric patients, but there are few studies comparing IV and enteral therapy.^2,5,9 Limited evidence leaves significant room for hospital culture, antibiotic stewardship efforts, reimbursement considerations, and/or hospital workflow to influence transition timing and overall opportunity at individual hospitals.^7,8,32-34 These findings emphasize the importance of research to identify optimal transition time and comparative effectiveness studies to evaluate whether initial IV antibiotics are truly needed for mild—and even severe—disease presentations. Since many patients are admitted for the perceived need for IV antibiotics, earlier use of enteral antibiotics could reduce rates of hospitalizations, LOS, healthcare costs, and resource utilization.

Antibiotics with a high number of opportunity days included clindamycin, ceftriaxone, ampicillin-sublactam, and ampicillin. Our findings are consistent with another study which found that most bioavailable drugs, including clindamycin, were administered via the IV route and accounted for a large number of antibiotic days.³⁵ The Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends that hospitals promote earlier transition to oral formulations for highly bioavailable drugs.⁷ Given the high bioavailability of clindamycin, its common use in high-frequency encounters such as SSTI and neck infections, and the fact that it accounted for a large number of opportunity days, quality improvement initiatives promoting earlier transition to oral clindamycin could have a large impact across health systems.^25,26 Additionally, although beta-lactam antibiotics such as amoxicillin and amoxicillin-sulbactam are not highly bioavailable, oral dosing can achieve sufficient serum concentrations to reach pharmacodynamic targets for common clinical indications; this could be an important quality improvement initiative.^27-29 Several single-site studies have successfully implemented quality improvement initiatives to promote earlier IV-to-enteral transition, with resulting reductions in costs and no adverse events noted, highlighting the feasibility and impact of such efforts.^13,36-38

This study also demonstrates the feasibility of collecting two metrics (percent opportunity and opportunity days) from administrative databases to inform IV-to-oral transition benchmarking and stewardship efforts. While there are several metrics in the literature for evaluating antibiotic transition (eg, days of IV or oral therapy, percentage of antibiotics given via the oral route, time to switch from IV to oral, and acceptance rate of suggested changes to antibiotic route), none are universally used or agreed upon.^15,16,39 The opportunity metrics used in this study have several strengths, including the feasibility of obtaining them from existing databases and the ability to account for intake of other enteral medications; the latter is not evaluated in other metrics. These opportunity metrics can be used together to identify the percent of time in which there is opportunity to transition and total number of days to understand the full extent of potential opportunity for future interventions. As demonstrated in this study, these metrics can be measured by diagnosis, antibiotic, or diagnosis-antibiotic combination, and they can be used to evaluate stewardship efforts at a single institution over time or compare efforts across hospitals.

These findings should be interpreted in the context of important limitations. First, we attempted to characterize potential opportunity to transition to enteral medications based on a patient’s ability to tolerate nonenteral medications. However, there are other factors that could limit the opportunity to transition that we could not account for with an administrative dataset, including the use of antibiotics prior to admission, disease progression, severity of illness, and malabsorptive concerns. Thus, though we may have overestimated the true opportunity to transition to enteral antibiotics, it is unlikely that this would account for all of the variation in transition times that we observed across hospitals. Second, while our study required patients to have one of seven types of infection, we did not exclude any additional infectious diagnoses (eg, concurrent bacteremia, Clostridioides difficile, otitis media) that could have driven the choice of antibiotic type and modality. Although emerging evidence is supporting earlier transitions to oral therapy, bacteremia is typically treated with IV antibiotics; this may have led to an overestimation of true opportunity.⁴⁰ “Clostridioides” difficile and otitis media are typically treated with enteral therapy; concurrent infections such as these may have led to an underestimation of opportunity given the fact that, based on our definition, the days on which patients received both IV and enteral antibiotics were not counted as opportunity days. Third, because PHIS uses billing days to capture medication use, we were unable to distinguish transitions that occurred early in the day vs those that took place later in the day. This could have led to an underestimation of percent opportunity, particularly for diagnoses with a short LOS; it also likely led to an underestimation of the variability observed across hospitals. Fourth, because we used an administrative dataset, we are unable to understand reasoning behind transitioning time from IV to oral antibiotics, as well as provider, patient, and institutional level factors that influenced these decisions.

Children hospitalized with bacterial infections often receive IV antibiotics, and the timing of transition from IV to enteral antibiotics varies significantly across hospitals. Further research is needed to compare the effectiveness of IV and enteral antibiotics and better define criteria for transition to enteral therapy. We identified ample opportunities for quality improvement initiatives to promote earlier transition, which have the potential to reduce healthcare utilization and promote optimal patient-directed high-value care.

Bacterial infections are a common reason for pediatric hospital admissions in the United States.¹ Antibiotics are the mainstay of treatment, and whether to administer them intravenously (IV) or enterally is an important and, at times, challenging decision. Not all hospitalized patients with infections require IV antibiotics, and safe, effective early transitions to enteral therapy have been described for numerous infections.^2-7 However, guidelines describing the ideal initial route of antibiotic administration and when to transition to oral therapy are lacking.^5,7,8 This lack of high-quality evidence-based guidance may contribute to overuse of IV antibiotics for many hospitalized pediatric patients, even when safe and effective enteral options exist.⁹

Significant costs and harms are associated with the use of IV antibiotics. In particular, studies have demonstrated longer length of stay (LOS), increased costs, and worsened pain or anxiety related to complications (eg, phlebitis, extravasation injury, thrombosis, catheter-associated bloodstream infections) associated with IV antibiotics.^3,4,10-13 Earlier transition to enteral therapy, however, can mitigate these increased risks and costs.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists the transition from IV to oral antibiotics as a key stewardship intervention for improving antibiotic use.¹⁴ The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) antibiotic stewardship program guidelines strongly recommend the timely conversion from IV to oral antibiotics, stating that efforts focusing on this transition should be integrated into routine practice.¹⁵ There are a few metrics in the literature to measure this intervention, but none is universally used, and a modified delphi process could not reach consensus on IV-to-oral transition metrics.¹⁶

Few studies describe the opportunity to transition to enteral antibiotics in hospitalized patients with common bacterial infections or explore variation across hospitals. It is critical to understand current practice of antibiotic administration in order to identify opportunities to optimize patient outcomes and promote high-value care. Furthermore, few studies have evaluated the feasibility of IV-to-oral transition metrics using an administrative database. Thus, the aims of this study were to (1) determine opportunities to transition from IV to enteral antibiotics for pediatric patients hospitalized with common bacterial infections based on their ability to tolerate other enteral medications, (2) describe variation in transition practices among children’s hospitals, and (3) evaluate the feasibility of novel IV-to-oral transition metrics using an administrative database to inform stewardship efforts.

Study Design and Setting

This multicenter, retrospective cohort study used data from the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS), an administrative and billing database containing encounter-level data from 52 tertiary care pediatric hospitals across the United States affiliated with the Children’s Hospital Association (Lenexa, Kansas). Hospitals submit encounter-level data, including demographics, medications, and diagnoses based on International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes. Data were de-identified at the time of submission, and data quality and reliability were assured by joint efforts between the Children’s Hospital Association and participating hospitals.

Study Population

This study included pediatric patients aged 60 days to 18 years who were hospitalized (inpatient or observation status) at one of the participating hospitals between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2018, for one of the following seven common bacterial infections: community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), neck infection (superficial and deep), periorbital/orbital infection, urinary tract infection (UTI), osteomyelitis, septic arthritis, or skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI). The diagnosis cohorts were defined based on ICD-10-CM discharge diagnoses adapted from previous studies (Appendix Table 1).^3,17-23 To define a cohort of generally healthy pediatric patients with an acute infection, we excluded patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit, patients with nonhome discharges, and patients with complex chronic conditions.²⁴ We also excluded hospitals with incomplete data during the study period (n=1). The Institutional Review Board at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center determined this study to be non–human-subjects research.

Outcomes

The primary outcomes were the number of opportunity days and the percent of days with opportunity to transition from IV to enteral therapy. Opportunity days, or days in which there was a potential opportunity to transition from IV to enteral antibiotics, were defined as days patients received only IV antibiotic doses and at least one enteral nonantibiotic medication, suggesting an ability to take enteral medications.¹³ We excluded days patients received IV antibiotics for which there was no enteral alternative (eg, vancomycin, Appendix Table 2). When measuring opportunity, to be conservative (ie, to underestimate rather than overestimate opportunity), we did not count as an opportunity day any day in which patients received both IV and enteral antibiotics. Percent opportunity, or the percent of days patients received antibiotics in which there was potential opportunity to transition from IV to enteral antibiotics, was defined as the number of opportunity days divided by number of inpatient days patients received enteral antibiotics or IV antibiotics with at least one enteral nonantibiotic medication (antibiotic days). Similar to opportunity days, antibiotic days excluded days patients were on IV antibiotics for which there was no enteral alternative. Based on our definition, a lower percent opportunity indicates that a hospital is using enteral antibiotics earlier during the hospitalization (earlier transition), while a higher percent opportunity represents later enteral antibiotic use (later transition).

Statistical Analysis

Demographic and clinical characteristics were summarized by diagnosis with descriptive statistics, including frequency with percentage, mean with standard deviation, and median with interquartile range (IQR). For each diagnosis, we evaluated aggregate opportunity days (sum of opportunity days among all hospitals), opportunity days per encounter, and aggregate percent opportunity using frequencies, mean with standard deviation, and percentages, respectively. We also calculated aggregate opportunity days for diagnosis-antibiotic combinations. To visually show variation in the percent opportunity across hospitals, we displayed the percent opportunity on a heat map, and evaluated percent opportunity across hospitals using chi-square tests. To compare the variability in the percent opportunity across and within hospitals, we used a generalized linear model with two fixed effects (hospital and diagnosis), and parsed the variability using the sum of squares. We performed a sensitivity analysis and excluded days that patients received antiemetic medications (eg, ondansetron, granisetron, prochlorperazine, promethazine), as these suggest potential intolerance of enteral medications. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS v.9.4 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, North Carolina) and GraphPad Prism 8.0 (GraphPad Software Inc., San Diego, California), and P values < .05 were considered statistically significant.

During the 2-year study period, 100,103 hospitalizations met our inclusion criteria across 51 hospitals and seven diagnosis categories (Table 1). Diagnosis cohorts ranged in size from 1,462 encounters for septic arthritis to 35,665 encounters for neck infections. Overall, we identified 88,522 aggregate opportunity days on which there was an opportunity to switch from IV to enteral treatment in the majority of participants (percent opportunity, 57%).

Opportunity by Diagnosis

The number of opportunity days (aggregate and mean per encounter) and percent opportunity varied by diagnosis (Table 2). The aggregate number of opportunity days ranged from 3,693 in patients with septic arthritis to 25,359 in patients with SSTI, and mean opportunity days per encounter ranged from 0.9 in CAP to 2.8 in septic arthritis. Percent opportunity was highest for septic arthritis at 72.7% and lowest for CAP at 39.7%.

Variation in Opportunity Among Hospitals

The variation in the percent opportunity across hospitals was statistically significant for all diagnoses (Figure). Within hospitals, we observed similar practice patterns across diagnoses. For example, hospitals with a higher percent opportunity for one diagnosis tended to have higher percent opportunity for the other diagnoses (as noted in the top portion of the Figure), and those with lower percent opportunity for one diagnosis tended to also have lower percent opportunity for the other diagnoses studied (as noted in the bottom portion of the Figure). When evaluating variability in the percent opportunity, 45% of the variability was attributable to the hospital-effect and 35% to the diagnosis; the remainder was unexplained variability. Sensitivity analysis excluding days when patients received an antiemetic medication yielded no differences in our results.

Opportunity by Antibiotic

The aggregate number of opportunity days varied by antibiotic (Table 3). Intravenous antibiotics with the largest number of opportunity days included clindamycin (44,293), ceftriaxone (23,896), and ampicillin-sulbactam (15,484). Antibiotic-diagnosis combinations with the largest number of opportunity days for each diagnosis included ceftriaxone and ampicillin in CAP; clindamycin in cellulitis, SSTI, and neck infections; ceftriaxone in UTI; and cefazolin in osteomyelitis and septic arthritis.

In this multicenter study of pediatric patients hospitalized with common bacterial infections, there was the potential to transition from IV to enteral treatment in over half of the antibiotic days. The degree of opportunity varied by infection, antibiotic, and hospital. Antibiotics with a large aggregate number of opportunity days for enteral transition included clindamycin, which has excellent bioavailability; and ampicillin and ampicillin-sulbactam, which can achieve pharmacodynamic targets with oral equivalents.^25-29 The across-hospital variation for a given diagnosis suggests that certain hospitals have strategies in place which permit an earlier transition to enteral antibiotics compared to other institutions in which there were likely missed opportunities to do so. This variability is likely due to limited evidence, emphasizing the need for robust studies to better understand the optimal initial antibiotic route and transition time. Our findings highlight the need for, and large potential impact of, stewardship efforts to promote earlier transition for specific drug targets. This study also demonstrates the feasibility of obtaining two metrics—percent opportunity and opportunity days—from administrative databases to inform stewardship efforts within and across hospitals.

Opportunity days and percent opportunity varied among diagnoses. The variation in aggregate opportunity days was largely a reflection of the number of encounters: Diagnoses such as SSTI, neck infections, and CAP had a large number of both aggregate opportunity days and encounters. The range of opportunity days per encounter (0.9-2.5) suggests potential missed opportunities to transition to enteral antibiotics across all diagnoses (Table 2). The higher opportunity days per encounter in osteomyelitis and septic arthritis may be related to longer LOS and higher percent opportunity. Percent opportunity likely varied among diagnoses due to differences in admission and discharge readiness criteria, diagnostic evaluation, frequency of antibiotic administration, and evidence on the optimal route of initial antibiotics and when to transition to oral formulations. For example, we hypothesize that certain diagnoses, such as osteomyelitis and septic arthritis, have admission and discharge readiness criteria directly tied to the perceived need for IV antibiotics, which may limit in-hospital days on enteral antibiotics and explain the high percent opportunity that we observed. The high percent opportunity seen in musculoskeletal infections also may be due to delays in initiating targeted treatment until culture results were available. Encounters for CAP had the lowest percent opportunity; we hypothesize that this is because admission and discharge readiness may be determined by factors other than the need for IV antibiotics (eg, need for supplemental oxygen), which may increase days on enteral antibiotics and lead to a lower percent opportunity.³⁰

Urinary tract infection encounters had a high percent opportunity. As with musculoskeletal infection, this may be related to delays in initiating targeted treatment until culture results became available. Another reason for the high percent opportunity in UTI could be the common use of ceftriaxone, which, dosed every 24 hours, likely reduced the opportunity to transition to enteral antibiotics. There is strong evidence demonstrating no difference in outcomes based on antibiotic routes for UTI, and we would expect this to result in a low percent opportunity.^2,31 While the observed high opportunity in UTI may relate to an initial unknown diagnosis or concern for systemic infection, this highlights potential opportunities for quality improvement initiatives to promote empiric oral antibiotics in clinically stable patients hospitalized with suspected UTI.

There was substantial variation in percent opportunity across hospitals for a given diagnosis, with less variation across diagnoses for a given hospital. Variation across hospitals but consistency within individual hospitals suggests that some hospitals may promote earlier transition from IV to enteral antibiotics as standard practice for all diagnoses, while other hospitals continue IV antibiotics for the entire hospitalization, highlighting potential missed opportunities at some institutions. While emerging data suggest that traditional long durations of IV antibiotics are not necessary for many infections, the limited evidence on the optimal time to switch to oral antibiotics may have influenced this variation.^2-7 Many guidelines recommend initial IV antibiotics for hospitalized pediatric patients, but there are few studies comparing IV and enteral therapy.^2,5,9 Limited evidence leaves significant room for hospital culture, antibiotic stewardship efforts, reimbursement considerations, and/or hospital workflow to influence transition timing and overall opportunity at individual hospitals.^7,8,32-34 These findings emphasize the importance of research to identify optimal transition time and comparative effectiveness studies to evaluate whether initial IV antibiotics are truly needed for mild—and even severe—disease presentations. Since many patients are admitted for the perceived need for IV antibiotics, earlier use of enteral antibiotics could reduce rates of hospitalizations, LOS, healthcare costs, and resource utilization.

Antibiotics with a high number of opportunity days included clindamycin, ceftriaxone, ampicillin-sublactam, and ampicillin. Our findings are consistent with another study which found that most bioavailable drugs, including clindamycin, were administered via the IV route and accounted for a large number of antibiotic days.³⁵ The Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends that hospitals promote earlier transition to oral formulations for highly bioavailable drugs.⁷ Given the high bioavailability of clindamycin, its common use in high-frequency encounters such as SSTI and neck infections, and the fact that it accounted for a large number of opportunity days, quality improvement initiatives promoting earlier transition to oral clindamycin could have a large impact across health systems.^25,26 Additionally, although beta-lactam antibiotics such as amoxicillin and amoxicillin-sulbactam are not highly bioavailable, oral dosing can achieve sufficient serum concentrations to reach pharmacodynamic targets for common clinical indications; this could be an important quality improvement initiative.^27-29 Several single-site studies have successfully implemented quality improvement initiatives to promote earlier IV-to-enteral transition, with resulting reductions in costs and no adverse events noted, highlighting the feasibility and impact of such efforts.^13,36-38

This study also demonstrates the feasibility of collecting two metrics (percent opportunity and opportunity days) from administrative databases to inform IV-to-oral transition benchmarking and stewardship efforts. While there are several metrics in the literature for evaluating antibiotic transition (eg, days of IV or oral therapy, percentage of antibiotics given via the oral route, time to switch from IV to oral, and acceptance rate of suggested changes to antibiotic route), none are universally used or agreed upon.^15,16,39 The opportunity metrics used in this study have several strengths, including the feasibility of obtaining them from existing databases and the ability to account for intake of other enteral medications; the latter is not evaluated in other metrics. These opportunity metrics can be used together to identify the percent of time in which there is opportunity to transition and total number of days to understand the full extent of potential opportunity for future interventions. As demonstrated in this study, these metrics can be measured by diagnosis, antibiotic, or diagnosis-antibiotic combination, and they can be used to evaluate stewardship efforts at a single institution over time or compare efforts across hospitals.

These findings should be interpreted in the context of important limitations. First, we attempted to characterize potential opportunity to transition to enteral medications based on a patient’s ability to tolerate nonenteral medications. However, there are other factors that could limit the opportunity to transition that we could not account for with an administrative dataset, including the use of antibiotics prior to admission, disease progression, severity of illness, and malabsorptive concerns. Thus, though we may have overestimated the true opportunity to transition to enteral antibiotics, it is unlikely that this would account for all of the variation in transition times that we observed across hospitals. Second, while our study required patients to have one of seven types of infection, we did not exclude any additional infectious diagnoses (eg, concurrent bacteremia, Clostridioides difficile, otitis media) that could have driven the choice of antibiotic type and modality. Although emerging evidence is supporting earlier transitions to oral therapy, bacteremia is typically treated with IV antibiotics; this may have led to an overestimation of true opportunity.⁴⁰ “Clostridioides” difficile and otitis media are typically treated with enteral therapy; concurrent infections such as these may have led to an underestimation of opportunity given the fact that, based on our definition, the days on which patients received both IV and enteral antibiotics were not counted as opportunity days. Third, because PHIS uses billing days to capture medication use, we were unable to distinguish transitions that occurred early in the day vs those that took place later in the day. This could have led to an underestimation of percent opportunity, particularly for diagnoses with a short LOS; it also likely led to an underestimation of the variability observed across hospitals. Fourth, because we used an administrative dataset, we are unable to understand reasoning behind transitioning time from IV to oral antibiotics, as well as provider, patient, and institutional level factors that influenced these decisions.

Children hospitalized with bacterial infections often receive IV antibiotics, and the timing of transition from IV to enteral antibiotics varies significantly across hospitals. Further research is needed to compare the effectiveness of IV and enteral antibiotics and better define criteria for transition to enteral therapy. We identified ample opportunities for quality improvement initiatives to promote earlier transition, which have the potential to reduce healthcare utilization and promote optimal patient-directed high-value care.