The impact of the quality improvement program on Clostridioides difficile infection management: a quasi-experimental study

Jung Yun Lee; Jae-Ki Choi; Tae-Geun Gweon; Young Eun An; Hyo Suk Kim; Jae Hyuck Chang; Tae Ho Kim; Chang Whan Kim; Young-Seok Cho

doi:10.5217/ir.2025.00137

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Intest Res > Volume 23(4); 2025 > Article

Original Article Infection The impact of the quality improvement program on Clostridioides difficile infection management: a quasi-experimental study: Jung Yun Lee^1,2,*, Jae-Ki Choi^2,3,*, Tae-Geun Gweon^1,2, Young Eun An², Hyo Suk Kim^1,2, Jae Hyuck Chang^1,2, Tae Ho Kim^1,2, Chang Whan Kim^1,2, Young-Seok Cho^1,4; Intestinal Research 2025;23(4):551-558.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2025.00137
Published online: October 28, 2025

¹Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea

²Department of Internal Medicine, Bucheon St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Bucheon, Korea

³Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea

⁴Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence to Tae-Geun Gweon, Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Bucheon St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 327 Sosa-ro, Wonmi-gu, Bucheon 14647, Korea. E-mail: gweontae@catholic.ac.kr

*These authors contributed equally to this study as first authors.

• Received: July 16, 2025 • Revised: September 23, 2025 • Accepted: October 2, 2025

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

prev next

657 Views
21 Download

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
NOTES
REFERENCES

Abstract

Background/Aims
Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is a major cause of nosocomial diarrhea. This study aimed to implement a quality improvement program to expedite proper CDI treatment, including discontinuing laxatives and associated antibiotics.
Methods
Stool test results positive for CDI were automatically sent via text message to the quality improvement team, specialists in CDI management. The quality improvement team played an advisory role in this treatment. The outcome of this study was the competency of CDI treatment within 24 hours of stool test reporting. Competency was investigated using 3 different models: Model 1, initiation of CDI treatment within 24 hours of positive stool test report; Model 2, Model 1 criteria met with no concurrent laxative use; and Model 3, Model 2 criteria met with no concurrent associated antibiotics. Competency rates were compared between pre- and post-intervention periods (1 year each). Analyses were performed for inpatients with CDI.
Results
In total, 310 inpatients with CDI (129 pre-intervention, 181 post-intervention) were included in this study. The rates of competency for Model 1 (85.3% vs. 95.6%, P=0.006), Model 2 (81.4% vs. 92.3%, P=0.004), and Model 3 (35.7% vs. 56.4%, P<0.001) in the post-intervention group were higher to those in the pre-intervention group.
Conclusions
Quality improvement program enhanced the quality of CDI treatment in terms of prompt treatment and discontinuation of concomitant laxatives and associated antibiotics. (cris.nih.go.kr; KCT0005892)
Keywords: Clostridium infections; Quality improvement; Therapeutics

INTRODUCTION

Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is a major cause of nosocomial diarrhea, leading to worsened underlying diseases, prolonged hospital stays, increased mortality, and increased medical costs [1]. Therefore, prompt diagnosis and appropriate treatment are essential for effective CDI management [2]. However, diagnosing CDI based solely on symptoms and laboratory tests can be challenging [3,4]. No gold standard diagnostic tool for CDI exists. Moreover, several confounding factors are present for CDI, such as medications or patient condition, which can cause diarrhea [5,6].

While gastroenterologists and infectious disease physicians are considered CDI management specialists, the infection can affect patients beyond these specialties [7,8]. Risk factors for CDI include antibiotic use, inpatient status (hospitalization), older age, compromised immune systems, and dysbiosis [8-10]. Although no prior studies have directly investigated the quality of CDI management based on physicians’ specialty, one study showed lower awareness of CDI among non-internal medicine doctors compared with their internal medicine colleagues [11].

Various quality improvement programs (QIP) have been developed to enhance CDI care [12-15], with most previous studies focusing on reducing unnecessary CDI testing. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of using a comprehensive QIP for CDI that addresses testing and improves the overall standard of CDI diagnosis and treatment.

METHODS

1. Study Setting

This single-center, quasi-experimental study was conducted at Bucheon St. Mary’s Hospital, a 700-bed tertiary hospital in Korea. The hospital established a comprehensive QIP for inpatients with CDI in March 2021. A preparatory period (January–February 2021) involved recruiting healthcare professionals into the quality improvement team (QIT) and developing program details. Data for the QIP pre-implementation (pre-QIP) period were collected retrospectively over the 12 calendar months before QIP implementation (March 2020 to February 2021). Data for the QIP post-implementation (post-QIP) period were prospectively collected over 12 calendar months after QIP implementation (March 2021 to February 2022). Informed consent was obtained from participants for the post-QIP period. We excluded the following: (1) outpatients, (2) hospice care patients, (3) patients with inflammatory bowel disease, and (4) those who refused participation in the post-QIP group.

2. QIP and CVR

The QIT comprised attending physicians from gastroenterology and infectious diseases, with a registered nurse as the study coordinator. They provided comprehensive guidance on both CDI diagnosis and management. Initially, a critical value report (CVR) system was adopted for the QIP. Positive CDI stool tests were text-messaged to the QIT and displayed in electronic medical records. To avoid alert fatigue, prescribers who ordered the stool test were not messaged. Stool tests were performed at the discretion of the prescriber. They included enzyme immunoassay (EIA) (Tox A/B Quik Chek; TECHLAB Inc., Blacksburg, VA, USA), simultaneous EIA and glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) (C. Diff Quik Complete; TECHLAB Inc.), and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (Xpert C. difficile; Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA).

During both the pre-QIP and post-QIP period, a positive EIA toxin test or PCR met the criteria for CDI diagnosis. The combination of GDH and toxin test was introduced during the post-QIP period in July 2021. Following this change, a diagnosis of CDI for cases that were toxin-negative but GDH-positive required a positive PCR test result [3]. In all instances where GDH yielded a positive result but the toxin test was negative, the QIT recommended that the doctor order a PCR test. CDI was defined as having 3 or more loose stools per 24 hours, along with a positive result from the stool study (Fig. 1) [3].

Initially, the physician who ordered the stool test (resident or attending) determined the treatment plan. The QIT evaluated the patient’s condition within 24 hours of CVR dispatch. When the treatment regimen was not prescribed, the QIT advised the patient’s doctor about the start of the treatment and the regimen. Further, when the treatment regimen was not properly adopted, the QIT advised correction of the treatment regimen. The QIT always advised the prescribers on the general management of CDI, such as discontinuing causative antibiotics and laxatives. When a treatment regimen was initiated for false positive results or colonization, it was advised to be stopped. A false positive was defined as either (1) GDH (+)/toxin (–)/PCR (–) results or (2) a number of diarrheal stools less than 3 per day. In all instances, the QIT evaluated the causes of diarrhea. During treatment, QIT involved treatment escalation, including fecal microbiota transplantation, in case of worsening symptoms [16,17].

3. Outcome

The outcome of this study was the competency of CDI treatment within 24 hours of stool test reporting through CVR, which met the CDI diagnostic criteria. Complete competency for CDI treatment was defined when all the following were met: (1) proper CDI treatment, (2) no concomitant use of laxatives, and (3) no concomitant use of associated antibiotics. Appropriate treatments included oral metronidazole or vancomycin for mild-to-moderate CDIs, oral vancomycin for severe CDIs, and high-dose oral vancomycin and intravenous metronidazole for fulminant CDIs [4]. CDI severity has been presented in a study elsewhere [4,18,19]. Severe CDI was defined as white blood cell count ≥15,000/μL or serum creatinine ≥ 1.5 mg/dL [4]. Fidaxomicin was not considered for CDI management since it was not available in Korea. Inappropriate CDI treatment after 24 hours of CVR dispatch was defined as: (1) use of intravenous metronidazole rather than oral metronidazole for mild-to-moderate CDIs; (2) use of oral metronidazole for severe CDIs; and (3) absence of a treatment regimen. In Korea, oral metronidazole is recognized as a suitable treatment for mild-to-moderate CDI because of its low prevalence in hypervirulent C. difficile strains [20]. CDI recurrence was defined as the recurrence of diarrhea after resolution and a positive stool test result within 8 weeks of CDI’s 1st episode. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Bucheon St. Mary’s Hospital (No. HC20OISI0075) and registered at cris.nih.go.kr (KCT0005892). This study has been conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from participants.

4. Statistical Analysis

We analyzed data from patients with at least 1 positive stool test for toxins, PCR, or GDH. Data for continuous and dichotomous variables were presented as mean±standard deviation and percentages, respectively, where appropriate. Demographic characteristics and outcomes of the quality measures were compared between the 2 groups (pre-QIP and post-QIP) using Student t test, chi-square test, or Fisher exact test where appropriate. Competency was investigated using 3 different models: Model 1, initiation of proper CDI treatment within 24 hours of stool test report (CVR dispatch); Model 2, fulfilling criteria for Model 1 and no concomitant use of laxatives; and Model 3, fulfilling criteria for Model 2 and no concomitant use of causative antibiotics. A two-sided P-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were performed using the R software (version 4.2.3; R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

RESULTS

A total of 455 stool tests for CDI were analyzed during the 24-month study period. Of these, 103 patients were diagnosed with false-positive CDI results. The number of false positives or colonization was 39 in the pre-QIP and 64 in the post-QIP groups, respectively. The reasons for the false positive results include the absence of diarrhea, self-limiting diarrhea, and stool test results, which were insufficient for CDI diagnosis. The treatment regimen for CDI, which was considered overtreatment, was prescribed to 29 patients in the pre-QIP group and 10 in the post-QIP group (74.4% vs. 15.6%; P<0.001). In total, 352 patients were diagnosed with CDI. After excluding 42 patients, 310 patients were included in the analysis (Fig. 2).

1. Demographics and Baseline Characteristics

The demographic characteristics are presented in Table 1. Sex was comparable between the 2 groups. Age (pre-QIP 75.2 vs. post-QIP 71.4; P=0.015) and the Charlson Comorbidity Index score (pre-QIP 5.5 vs. post-QIP 4.7; P=0.001) were higher in the pre-QIP group than in the post-QIP group. Antibiotics were used before CDI diagnosis in 93.1% and 91.5% of patients in the pre- and post-QIP periods, respectively, within 2 months of CDI diagnosis (P=0.620). The most common reason for antibiotic use in both groups was pneumonia. Internal medicine departments ordered most stool tests (223/310, 71.9%). Death rates within 2 months of CDI diagnosis were 15.5% and 6.1% in the pre- and post-QIP groups, respectively (P=0.006).

2. Variables Related to CDI

The variables related to CDI are presented in Table 2. The severity of CDI was comparable between the 2 groups. However, diagnostic methods differed between the 2 groups. Additionally, the number of CDI episodes and initial treatment regimens differed between the 2 groups. In the pre-QIP group, the treatment regimen was not prescribed to 7.0% of the patients. Notably, no patient in the post-QIP group was left without a treatment regimen.

3. Quality Improvement

Table 3 compares the competency of CDI treatment assessed 24 hours after the stool test report. The rate of CDI treatment competency was higher in the post-QIP group than in the pre-QIP group in all 3 models (Model 1: pre-QIP 84.5% vs. post-QIP 93.9%, P =0.006; Model 2: pre-QIP 81.4% vs. post-QIP 92.3%, P=0.004; Model 3: pre-QIP 35.7% vs. post-QIP 56.4%, P<0.001). Concomitant laxative use was higher in the pre-QIP group than in the post-QIP group (pre-QIP 8.5% vs. post-QIP 1.7%; P=0.005). Associated antibiotic use was also lower in the post-QIP group than in the pre-QIP group (pre-QIP 56.6% vs. post-QIP 41.4%; P=0.008). At 24 hours after the stool test report, the treatment regimen was not prescribed in 4.4% of post-QIP cases, significantly lower than the pre-QIP rate of 10.9% (P=0.030). Details of the QIP recommendations are as follows: improper regimen changes (n=11); initiation of a treatment regimen for CDI (n=37); cessation for associated antibiotics for CDI or laxative (n=22). Notably, prescribers adopted 70 out of the 80 recommendations made by the QIT. Half of these recommendations involved initiating CDI treatment in patients who had not yet received it.

DISCUSSION

In this study, we investigated the effectiveness of a QIP in improving CDI management. We found that the post-QIP group demonstrated significantly higher competency in CDI treatment than the pre-QIP group across all 3 competency models.

To our knowledge, the impact of QIP on CDI treatment has not been investigated in previous studies. During the post-QIP period, stool test results were collected for a year using a CVR system, typically used for critical findings, such as cancer diagnosis and life-threatening laboratory findings [21,22]. Notably, this was the first reported use of a CVR system for CDI treatment.

Effective CDI treatment includes accurate diagnosis, appropriate antibiotic regimens, and general management strategies, such as discontinuing laxatives and associated antibiotics. Physician knowledge of CDI depends on their specialty [11]. Our QIP aimed to address this by guiding various prescribers (often non-specialists in CDI) who ordered stool tests, ultimately improving treatment competency. We evaluated treatment competency 24 hours after the stool test report. In this study, various competency models have been adopted with increasing levels of stringency.

Previous studies reported a considerable proportion of patients receiving laxatives also undergoing C. difficile testing [11,23]. In our analysis, competency rates for Models 1 and 2 exceeded 90% in the post-QIP group. However, the competency rate in Model 3, which considers concomitant antibiotic use, was only 56.4% post-QIP because of the high rate of continued antibiotic use. Although the concomitant use of associated antibiotics was lower following the QIP, the rate 24 hours after the stool test report was still as high as 43.9%. This persistence may be due to the need for antibiotics to treat the original infection even when CDI is diagnosed.

During the post-QIP period, approximately three-fourths of our hospital’s CDI patients were treated by non-specialists(physicians other than gastroenterologists or infectious disease doctors). In the same period, prescribers adopted 70 of the 80 QIT recommendations for inpatient CDI treatment. This suggests that QIP effectively supported physicians who were not CDI specialists, thereby increasing the quality of CDI treatment.

Our QIP focused on achieving prompt treatment initiation with QIT support. However, the QIP, while not focused on treatment initiation, did reduce unnecessary treatment for colonization or false positives. Diagnosing CDI can be complex [3,4]. Overdiagnosis can lead to unnecessary antibiotic treatment, thereby increasing healthcare costs [24]. The rate of overtreatment, in which the treatment regimen was prescribed for false positives, was significantly higher in the pre-QIP group than in the post-QIP group (74.4% vs. 15.6%; P<0.001). In a previous study, a reduction in unnecessary antimicrobial administration was achieved by implementing antimicrobial stewardship programs [14].

In this study, metronidazole was used along with vancomycin for the initial treatment of CDI. When this study was conducted, Korea lacked national guidelines for CDI treatment, and oral metronidazole was a common choice [4,20]. The low prevalence of hypervirulent C. difficile strains in Korea (less than 5%) justifies this approach [25,26]. However, vancomycin use carries the risk of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus infection [27].

This study had some limitations. First, the pre-QIP and post-QIP data were not collected identically. Pre-QIP data were retrospectively investigated, and some patients may not have been followed for treatment outcomes. During the pre-QIP period, 7% of patients did not receive CDI treatment, and their outcomes were not assessed. Second, the study was conducted at a single center, limiting the generalizability of the findings. A multicenter study would be necessary to confirm the effectiveness of the QIP in other settings.

In conclusion, the implementation of a comprehensive QIP for CDI management demonstrably enhanced the quality of CDI treatment by promoting prompt treatment initiation, reducing unnecessary laxative use, and encouraging discontinuation of causative antibiotics. Further research using multicenter designs is needed to confirm these findings and explore the broader applicability of the QIP.

NOTES

Funding Source

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (grant number: NRF-2021R1G1A1094049) and the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant number: HI19C0481, HC20C0099).

Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Data Availability Statement

T he datasets in this study are not publicly available because of privacy policies. Please contact the corresponding author for data requests that are limited and reasonable.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Gweon TG, Kim CW, Cho YS. Data curation: Lee JY, Kim HS. Formal analysis: Lee JY, Kim HS. Funding acquisition: Gweon TG, Cho YS. Investigation: Choi JK, An YE. Methodology: Choi JK, Kim CW. Project administration: Kim TH. Resources: Kim HS, Cho YS. Software: Choi JK, Chang JH. Supervision: Gweon TG, Chang JH. Validation: Kim HS. Visualization: Chang JH, Kim TH. Writing - original draft: Lee JY, Choi JK. Writing - review & editing: Gweon TG, An YE, Kim HS, Chang JH, Kim TH, Kim CW, Cho YS. Approval of final manuscript: all authors.

Fig. 1.

Definition of Clostridioides difficile infection. ^aStool study criteria were considered met when 1 of the 3 conditions was satisfied; ^bCriterion 3 was added after July 2021, at which point the Toxin test was replaced. by a combination Toxin/GDH test. PCR, polymerase chain reaction; GDH, glutamate dehydrogenase.

Fig. 2.

Study schema and enrollment of patients. CDI, Clostridioides difficile infection.

Table 1

Demographic Characteristics and Risk Factors for CDI of the Study Subjects

Characteristics	Pre-intervention (n=129)	Post-intervention (n=181)	P-value
Male sex, No. (%)	62 (48.1)	86 (47.5)	0.924
Age (yr), mean ± SD	75.2 ± 12.9	71.4 ± 13.5	0.015
Charlson Comorbidity Index, mean ± SD	5.5 ± 2.3	4.7 ± 1.8	0.001
Antibiotic use within 2 mo, No. (%)	120 (93.0)	161 (91.5)	0.620
Reason for antibiotic use, No. (%)			< 0.001
No use or unknown	11 (8.5)	17 (9.4)
Pneumonia	42 (32.6)	71 (39.2)
Post operation	10 (7.8)	5 (2.8)
Urinary tract infection	9 (7.0)	32 (17.7)
Fever of unknown origin	5 (3.9)	6 (3.3)
Enteritis, colitis	31 (24.0)	15 (8.3)
Shock	6 (4.7)	1 (0.6)
Cancer or neutropenic fever	5 (3.9)	6 (3.3)
Soft tissue infection	4 (3.1)	12 (6.6)
Others	6 (4.7)	15 (8.3)
Prescriber, No. (%)			0.004
Internal medicine
Gastroenterology or infectious disease	44 (34.1)	50 (27.6)
Oncology	18 (14.0)	9 (5.0)
Pulmonology	25 (19.4)	29 (16.0)
Nephrology	7 (5.4)	25 (13.8)
Other internal medicine	3 (2.3)	13 (7.2)
Non-internal medicine
Neurology or neurosurgeon	12 (9.3)	31 (17.1)
Rehabilitation medicine	10 (7.8)	10 (5.5)
Others	10 (7.8)	14 (7.7)
Death within 2 mo after CDI, No. (%)	20 (15.5)	11 (6.1)	0.006

CDI, Clostridioides difficile infection; SD, standard deviation.

Table 2

Variables Related to CDI

Characteristics	Pre-intervention (n=129)	Post-intervention (n=181)	P-value
Severity, No. (%)			0.917
Mild to moderate	102 (79.1)	144 (79.6)
Severe or fulminant	27 (20.9)	37 (20.4)
Diagnostic modality, No. (%)			0.168
Toxin	109 (84.5)	129 (71.3)
PCR+GDH	0	27 (14.9)
PCR	20 (15.5)	25 (13.8)
No. of CDI, No. (%)			0.001
1st episode	122 (94.6)	149 (82.3)
1st or 2nd recurrence	7 (5.4)	32 (17.7)
Initial treatment regimen, No. (%)			< 0.001
Metronidazole	37 (28.7)	45 (24.9)
Vancomycin	83 (64.3)	136 (75.1)
No treatment	9 (7.0)	0

CDI, Clostridioides difficile infection; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; GDH, glutamate dehydrogenase.

Table 3

Competency of CDI Treatment

Characteristics	Pre-intervention (n=129)	Post-intervention (n=181)	P-value
Overall competency for CDI care within 24 hr of stool test report, No. (%)
Model 1^a	109 (84.5)	170 (93.9)	0.006
Model 2^b	105 (81.4)	167 (92.3)	0.004
Model 3^c	46 (35.7)	102 (56.4)	< 0.001
Reason for incompetency^d, No. (%)
Concomitant laxative use	11 (8.5)	3 (1.7)	0.005
Concomitant antibiotic use	73 (56.6)	75 (41.4)	0.008
Improper regimen	6 (4.7)	3 (1.7)	0.171
Delayed treatment	14 (10.9)^e	8 (4.4)	0.030

^a The competency met proper treatment for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI).

^b The competency met proper treatment for CDI and no concomitant use of laxative.

^c The competency met proper treatment for CDI and no concomitant use of laxative and antibiotics.

^d The reason for incompetence was decided at 24 hours of stool test report.

^e Nine patients did not receive any treatment for CDI.

REFERENCES

1. Lessa FC, Mu Y, Bamberg WM, et al. Burden of Clostridium difficile infection in the United States. N Engl J Med 2015;372:825–834.Article PubMed PMC
2. Barbut F, Surgers L, Eckert C, et al. Does a rapid diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection impact on quality of patient management? Clin Microbiol Infect 2014;20:136–144.Article PubMed
3. Crobach MJ, Planche T, Eckert C, et al. European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases: update of the diagnostic guidance document for Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Microbiol Infect 2016;22–Suppl 4:S63-S81.Article PubMed
4. Johnson S, Lavergne V, Skinner AM, et al. Clinical practice guideline by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA): 2021 focused update guidelines on management of Clostridioides difficile infection in adults. Clin Infect Dis 2021;73:755–757.Article PubMed PDF
5. de Graaf H, Pai S, Burns DA, Karas JA, Enoch DA, Faust SN. Co-infection as a confounder for the role of Clostridium difficile infection in children with diarrhoea: a summary of the literature. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2015;34:1281–1287.Article PubMed PDF
6. Kim HS, Kim HM, Gweon TG. Case of pseudomembranous colitis caused by a Clostridioides difficile infection concomitant with cytomegalovirus colitis mimicking ischemic colitis. Korean J Gastroenterol 2023;81:133–136.Article PubMed PMC
7. Zerey M, Paton BL, Lincourt AE, Gersin KS, Kercher KW, Heniford BT. The burden of Clostridium difficile in surgical patients in the United States. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2007;8:557–566.Article PubMed
8. Gweon TG, Choi MG, Baeg MK, et al. Hematologic diseases: high risk of Clostridium difficile associated diarrhea. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20:6602–6607.Article PubMed PMC
9. Czepiel J, Dróżdż M, Pituch H, et al. Clostridium difficile infection: review. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2019;38:1211–1221.Article PubMed PMC PDF
10. Ananthakrishnan AN. Clostridium difficile infection: epidemiology, risk factors and management. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;8:17–26.Article PubMed PDF
11. Jo HB, Ham SY, Jung J, et al. Prevalence of and factors associated with inappropriate Clostridioides difficile testing in a teaching hospital in Korea. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2022;11:70.Article PubMed PMC PDF
12. Howard-Anderson JR, Sexton ME, Robichaux C, et al. The impact of an electronic medical record nudge on reducing testing for hospital-onset Clostridioides difficile infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2020;41:411–417.Article PubMed PMC
13. Berg ML, Baxter C, Ayres AM, et al. The impact of autocancellation of uncollected Clostridioides difficile specimens after 24 hours on reported healthcare-associated infections: a quality improvement intervention. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2023;44:1942–1947.Article PubMed PMC
14. Gaffin N, Spellberg B. Sustained reductions in unnecessary antimicrobial administration and hospital Clostridioides difficile rates via stewardship in a nonacademic setting. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2023;44:491–493.Article PubMed
15. Dunn AN, Radakovich N, Ancker JS, Donskey CJ, Deshpande A. The impact of clinical decision support alerts on Clostridioides difficile testing: a systematic review. Clin Infect Dis 2021;72:987–994.Article PubMed PDF
16. Gweon TG, Lee YJ, Kim KO, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for fecal microbiota transplantation in Korea. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2022;28:28–42.Article PubMed PMC
17. Gweon TG, Lee YJ, Yim SK, Kim SY, Choi CH, Cho YS. Recognition and attitudes of Korean physicians toward fecal microbiota transplantation: a survey study. Korean J Intern Med 2023;38:48–55.Article PubMed PMC PDF
18. Wu T, Davis SL, Church B, Alangaden GJ, Kenney RM. Outcomes of clinical decision support for outpatient management of Clostridioides difficile infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2022;43:1345–1348.Article PubMed
19. Baek JE, Choi IH, Cho YW, et al. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of Clostridioides difficile infection in the intensive care unit: a KASID multi-centre study. J Hosp Infect 2023;139:106–112.Article PubMed
20. Kim J, Kim J, Kim B, Pai H. Which is the preferred regimen for non-severe Clostridioides difficile infection in Korea, vancomycin or metronidazole? Infect Chemother 2022;54:213–219.Article PubMed PMC PDF
21. Genzen JR, Tormey CA. Pathology consultation on reporting of critical values. Am J Clin Pathol 2011;135:505–513.Article PubMed PMC PDF
22. Lynn TJ, Olson JE. Improving critical value notification through secure text messaging. J Pathol Inform 2020;11:21.Article PubMed PMC
23. Bilinskaya A, Goodlet KJ, Nailor MD. Evaluation of a best practice alert to reduce unnecessary Clostridium difficile testing following receipt of a laxative. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2018;92:50–55.Article PubMed
24. Polage CR, Gyorke CE, Kennedy MA, et al. Overdiagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection in the molecular test era. JAMA Intern Med 2015;175:1792–1801.Article PubMed PMC
25. Kim J, Kang JO, Kim H, et al. Epidemiology of Clostridium difficile infections in a tertiary-care hospital in Korea. Clin Microbiol Infect 2013;19:521–527.Article PubMed
26. Choi MH, Kim D, Jeong SH, Lee HM, Kim H. Risk factors of severe Clostridioides difficile infection; sequential organ failure assessment score, antibiotics, and ribotypes. Front Microbiol 2022;13:900681.Article PubMed PMC
27. Fridkin SK, Edwards JR, Courval JM, et al. The effect of vancomycin and third-generation cephalosporins on prevalence of vancomycin-resistant enterococci in 126 U.S. adult intensive care units. Ann Intern Med 2001;135:175–183.Article PubMed PDF

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

The impact of the quality improvement program on Clostridioides difficile infection management: a quasi-experimental study

Intest Res. 2025;23(4):551-558. Published online October 28, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2025.00137

XML Download

Figure

The impact of the quality improvement program on Clostridioides difficile infection management: a quasi-experimental study

Fig. 1. Definition of Clostridioides difficile infection. aStool study criteria were considered met when 1 of the 3 conditions was satisfied; bCriterion 3 was added after July 2021, at which point the Toxin test was replaced. by a combination Toxin/GDH test. PCR, polymerase chain reaction; GDH, glutamate dehydrogenase.

Fig. 2. Study schema and enrollment of patients. CDI, Clostridioides difficile infection.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

The impact of the quality improvement program on Clostridioides difficile infection management: a quasi-experimental study

Table 1

Demographic Characteristics and Risk Factors for CDI of the Study Subjects

Characteristics	Pre-intervention (n=129)	Post-intervention (n=181)	P-value
Male sex, No. (%)	62 (48.1)	86 (47.5)	0.924
Age (yr), mean ± SD	75.2 ± 12.9	71.4 ± 13.5	0.015
Charlson Comorbidity Index, mean ± SD	5.5 ± 2.3	4.7 ± 1.8	0.001
Antibiotic use within 2 mo, No. (%)	120 (93.0)	161 (91.5)	0.620
Reason for antibiotic use, No. (%)			< 0.001
No use or unknown	11 (8.5)	17 (9.4)
Pneumonia	42 (32.6)	71 (39.2)
Post operation	10 (7.8)	5 (2.8)
Urinary tract infection	9 (7.0)	32 (17.7)
Fever of unknown origin	5 (3.9)	6 (3.3)
Enteritis, colitis	31 (24.0)	15 (8.3)
Shock	6 (4.7)	1 (0.6)
Cancer or neutropenic fever	5 (3.9)	6 (3.3)
Soft tissue infection	4 (3.1)	12 (6.6)
Others	6 (4.7)	15 (8.3)
Prescriber, No. (%)			0.004
Internal medicine
Gastroenterology or infectious disease	44 (34.1)	50 (27.6)
Oncology	18 (14.0)	9 (5.0)
Pulmonology	25 (19.4)	29 (16.0)
Nephrology	7 (5.4)	25 (13.8)
Other internal medicine	3 (2.3)	13 (7.2)
Non-internal medicine
Neurology or neurosurgeon	12 (9.3)	31 (17.1)
Rehabilitation medicine	10 (7.8)	10 (5.5)
Others	10 (7.8)	14 (7.7)
Death within 2 mo after CDI, No. (%)	20 (15.5)	11 (6.1)	0.006

CDI, Clostridioides difficile infection; SD, standard deviation.

Table 2

Variables Related to CDI

Characteristics	Pre-intervention (n=129)	Post-intervention (n=181)	P-value
Severity, No. (%)			0.917
Mild to moderate	102 (79.1)	144 (79.6)
Severe or fulminant	27 (20.9)	37 (20.4)
Diagnostic modality, No. (%)			0.168
Toxin	109 (84.5)	129 (71.3)
PCR+GDH	0	27 (14.9)
PCR	20 (15.5)	25 (13.8)
No. of CDI, No. (%)			0.001
1st episode	122 (94.6)	149 (82.3)
1st or 2nd recurrence	7 (5.4)	32 (17.7)
Initial treatment regimen, No. (%)			< 0.001
Metronidazole	37 (28.7)	45 (24.9)
Vancomycin	83 (64.3)	136 (75.1)
No treatment	9 (7.0)	0

CDI, Clostridioides difficile infection; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; GDH, glutamate dehydrogenase.

Table 3

Competency of CDI Treatment

Characteristics	Pre-intervention (n=129)	Post-intervention (n=181)	P-value
Overall competency for CDI care within 24 hr of stool test report, No. (%)
Model 1^a	109 (84.5)	170 (93.9)	0.006
Model 2^b	105 (81.4)	167 (92.3)	0.004
Model 3^c	46 (35.7)	102 (56.4)	< 0.001
Reason for incompetency^d, No. (%)
Concomitant laxative use	11 (8.5)	3 (1.7)	0.005
Concomitant antibiotic use	73 (56.6)	75 (41.4)	0.008
Improper regimen	6 (4.7)	3 (1.7)	0.171
Delayed treatment	14 (10.9)^e	8 (4.4)	0.030

^aThe competency met proper treatment for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI).

^bThe competency met proper treatment for CDI and no concomitant use of laxative.

^cThe competency met proper treatment for CDI and no concomitant use of laxative and antibiotics.

^dThe reason for incompetence was decided at 24 hours of stool test report.

^eNine patients did not receive any treatment for CDI.

Table 1 Demographic Characteristics and Risk Factors for CDI of the Study Subjects

CDI, Clostridioides difficile infection; SD, standard deviation.

Table 2 Variables Related to CDI

CDI, Clostridioides difficile infection; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; GDH, glutamate dehydrogenase.

Table 3 Competency of CDI Treatment

The competency met proper treatment for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI).

The competency met proper treatment for CDI and no concomitant use of laxative.

The competency met proper treatment for CDI and no concomitant use of laxative and antibiotics.