Methods: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional chart review at a Midwestern teaching hospital. All patients tested for CDI between June 1, 2016 and May 31, 2017 were initially eligible. Participants were excluded from data collection on the basis of missing information, a previous positive CDI test in the last 8 weeks or age <18 years. Charts were reviewed for age, sex, diarrhea, abdominal pain, antibiotic use, prior positive testing for CDI and length of hospitalization. Data was analyzed using SAS Software
Results: Of the initial 432 charts analyzed, 202 (46.8%) had no documented amount of diarrhea and 16 more were missing other data points, leaving 214 of 432 (49.5%) charts that included all data to be used for analysis. Of these 18 of 214 (8.4%) were positive results. The Katz screen was positive in 85 of 214 (40.2%) cases. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value respectively were 61, 62, 13 and 95.
Conclusion: Katz et al. found a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of 80, 45, 18 and 94 respectively. The differences between these values and our own may be due to changes in the testing methodology and prevalence of CDI compared to a 1992 study population. The negative predictive value remains a strength. If this screening tool had been applied to our population, there may have been 128 (59.8%) fewer tests, but 7 (38.9%) missed positive results.
D. VanBeckum, None
J. Buck, None
C. Holley, None