4.3 Article

Prevalence of diarrhea at a university hospital and association with modifiable risk factors

Journal

ANNALS OF PHARMACOTHERAPY
Volume 40, Issue 6, Pages 1030-1034

Publisher

HARVEY WHITNEY BOOKS CO
DOI: 10.1345/aph.1H028

Keywords

diarrhea; Clostridium difficile; epidemiology; risk factors

Funding

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [M01-RR-02558] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK 56338] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of diarrhea at a university-affiliated medical center and the presence of modifiable risk factors. METHODS: A point prevalence survey was conducted. All patients hospitalized for more than 24 hours were asked if they were experiencing diarrhea. Stools of patients not previously tested were assessed for Clostridium difficile (CD) toxins A and B. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify modifiable variables associated with diarrhea (significance defined as p < 0.05). RESULTS: Four hundred eighty-five hospitalized patients were interviewed, of whom 60 (12.4%) reported 2 or more loose, unformed stools in the last 24 hours. Six of 81 (7.4%) patients tested positive for CID toxin. Three (50%) of the CID toxin-positive patients had not previously been tested during the current admission. Patients with diarrhea were more likely to have tested CD toxin-positive (OR 10.6; p = 0.01), received antibiotics (OR 1.79; p = 0.04), or been hospitalized for a longer period of time (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Diarrhea was prevalent in 12.4% of hospitalized patients at a large university hospital at one point in time. Patients with diarrhea were more likely to have CD infection, receive antibiotics, or experience a longer hospitalization. Half of the CD diarrhea cases occurring in the hospital had been previously unidentified. Hospitalized patients should be evaluated for diarrhea on an ongoing basis with appropriate interventions instituted.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available