Dataset Information

Why is the Implementation of Beta-Lactam Therapeutic Drug Monitoring for the Critically Ill Falling Short? A Multicenter Mixed-Methods Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Beta-lactam therapeutic drug monitoring (BL TDM; drug level testing) can facilitate improved outcomes in critically ill patients. However, only 10%-20% of hospitals have implemented BL TDM. This study aimed to characterize provider perceptions and key considerations for successfully implementing BL TDM.

Methods

This was a sequential mixed-methods study from 2020 to 2021 of diverse stakeholders at 3 academic medical centers with varying degrees of BL TDM implementation (not implemented, partially implemented, and fully implemented). Stakeholders were surveyed, and a proportion of participants completed semistructured interviews. Themes were identified, and findings were contextualized with implementation science frameworks.

Results

Most of the 138 survey respondents perceived that BL TDM was relevant to their practice and improved medication effectiveness and safety. Integrated with interview data from 30 individuals, 2 implementation themes were identified: individual internalization and organizational features. Individuals needed to internalize, make sense of, and agree to BL TDM implementation, which was positively influenced by repeated exposure to evidence and expertise. The process of internalization appeared more complex with BL TDM than with other antibiotics (ie, vancomycin). Organizational considerations relevant to BL TDM implementation (eg, infrastructure, personnel) were similar to those identified in other TDM settings.

Conclusions

Broad enthusiasm for BL TDM among participants was found. Prior literature suggested that assay availability was the primary barrier to implementation; however, the data revealed many more individual and organizational attributes, which impacted the BL TDM implementation. Internalization should particularly be focused on to improve the adoption of this evidence-based practice.

SUBMITTER: Barreto EF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10348918 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Why is the Implementation of Beta-Lactam Therapeutic Drug Monitoring for the Critically Ill Falling Short? A Multicenter Mixed-Methods Study.

Barreto Erin F EF Chitre Pooja N PN Pine Kathleen H KH Shepel Kathryn K KK Rule Andrew D AD Alshaer Mohammad H MH Abdul Aziz Mohd Hafiz MH Roberts Jason A JA Scheetz Marc H MH Ausman Sara E SE Moreland-Head Lindsay N LN Rivera Christina G CG Jannetto Paul J PJ Mara Kristin C KC Boehmer Kasey R KR

Therapeutic drug monitoring 20230321 4

<h4>Background</h4>Beta-lactam therapeutic drug monitoring (BL TDM; drug level testing) can facilitate improved outcomes in critically ill patients. However, only 10%-20% of hospitals have implemented BL TDM. This study aimed to characterize provider perceptions and key considerations for successfully implementing BL TDM.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a sequential mixed-methods study from 2020 to 2021 of diverse stakeholders at 3 academic medical centers with varying degrees of BL TDM implementation ( ...[more]

PMID: 37076424

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBeta-lactams (i.e., penicillins, cephalosporins, carbapenems, monobactams) are the most widely used class of antibiotics in critically ill patients. There is substantial interpatient variability in beta-lactam pharmacokinetics which renders their effectiveness and safety largely unpredictable. One strategy to ensure achievement of therapeutic concentrations is drug level testing ("therapeutic drug monitoring"; TDM). While studies have suggested promise with beta-lactam TDM, it is not yet widely available or implemented. This protocol presents a mixed-methods study designed to examine healthcare practitioners' perspectives on the use and implementation of beta-lactam TDM in the critically ill.MethodsAn explanatory sequential mixed-methods design will be used [QUANT → qual]. First, quantitative data will be collected through a web-based questionnaire directed at clinicians at three academic medical centers at different phases of beta-lactam TDM implementation (not yet implemented, partially implemented, fully implemented). The sampling frame will include providers from a variety of disciplines that interact with drug level testing and interpretation in the critical care environment including pharmacists, intensivists, infectious diseases experts, medical/surgical trainees, and advanced practice providers. Second, approximately 30 individuals will be purposively sampled from survey respondents to conduct in-depth qualitative interviews to explain and expand upon the results from the quantitative strand. Normalization Process Theory and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Science will be used to guide data analysis.DiscussionThese data will be used to answer two specific questions: "What are ICU practitioners' perspectives on implementing beta-lactam TDM?" and "What factors contribute to the success of beta-lactam TDM program implementation?" Results of this study will be used to design future implementation strategies for beta-lactam TDM programs in the critically ill.Trial registrationNCT04755777 .

Project description:ImportanceWithdrawal-of-life-sustaining treatments (WOLST) rates vary widely among critically ill neurologic patients (CINPs) and cannot be solely attributed to patient and family characteristics. Research in general critical care has shown that clinicians prognosticate to families with high variability. Little is known about how clinicians disclose prognosis to families of CINPs, and whether any associations exist with WOLST.ObjectivesPrimary: to demonstrate feasibility of audio-recording clinician-family meetings for CINPs at multiple centers and characterize how clinicians communicate prognosis during these meetings. Secondary: to explore associations of 1) clinician, family, or patient characteristics with clinicians' prognostication approaches and 2) prognostication approach and WOLST.Design setting and participantsForty-three audio-recorded clinician-family meetings during which prognosis was discussed from seven U.S. centers for 39 CINPs with 88 family members and 27 clinicians.Main outcomes and measuresTwo investigators qualitatively coded transcripts using inductive methods (inter-rater reliability > 80%) to characterize how clinicians prognosticate. We then applied univariate and multivariable multinomial and binomial logistic regression.ResultsClinicians used four distinct prognostication approaches: Authoritative (21%; recommending treatments without discussing values and preferences); Informational (23%; disclosing just the prognosis without further discussions); advisory (42%; disclosing prognosis followed by discussion of values and preferences); and responsive (14%; eliciting values and preferences, then disclosing prognosis). Before adjustment, prognostication approach was associated with center (p < 0.001), clinician specialty (neurointensivists vs non-neurointensivists; p = 0.001), patient age (p = 0.08), diagnosis (p = 0.059), and meeting length (p = 0.03). After adjustment, only clinician specialty independently predicted prognostication approach (p = 0.027). WOLST decisions occurred in 41% of patients and were most common under the advisory approach (56%). WOLST was more likely in older patients (p = 0.059) and with more experienced clinicians (p = 0.07). Prognostication approach was not independently associated with WOLST (p = 0.198).Conclusions and relevanceIt is feasible to audio-record sensitive clinician-family meetings about CINPs in multiple ICUs. We found that clinicians prognosticate with high variability. Our data suggest that larger studies are warranted in CINPs to examine the role of clinicians' variable prognostication in WOLST decisions.

Project description:BackgroundOliguria diagnosis includes the normalization of urine output (UO) by body weight. However, the rational and the method to apply to normalize UO to body weight are unclear. We aimed to explore the impact of the method applied to normalize UO on oliguria incidence and association with outcomes.MethodsWe included all adult patients admitted to a Swiss (derivation cohort) and a US (MIMIC-IV database, validation cohort) ICU, except those on maintenance hemodialysis, who declined consent or had < 6 consecutive UO measurements. Among a panel of candidate variables (ideal body weight, body mass index, body surface area and adjusted body weight), we identified the best predictor for UO (i.e. the variable that was most closely associated with mean UO during ICU stay). We then compared oliguria incidence and association with 90-day mortality and acute kidney disease (AKD) at hospital discharge, according to whether UO was normalized by actual body weight (ABW) or the identified best UO predictor.ResultsThe derivation and validation cohorts included respectively 15 322 and 28 610 patients. Those in the validation cohort were heavier (mean ABW 81 versus 75 kg) older (65 versus 62 years) and had a lower SAPS-II score (38 versus 43). The best UO predictor was ideal body weight (IBW). Oliguria incidence increased almost linearly across weight categories with ABW normalization but remained constant with IBW normalization. Using IBW for UO normalization rather than ABW improved the association between oliguria and 90-day mortality and AKD. It increased the proportion of patients correctly classified from 37.6 to 48.3% (mortality) and from 37.8 to 47% (AKD). All findings persisted after correction for sex and SAPS-II score and were confirmed in sensitivity analyses.ConclusionUO normalization by IBW lead to a stable incidence of oliguria across categories of weight and improved the association between oliguria and outcomes. IBW should be preferred to normalize UO in critically ill patients.

Project description:Background: Liver injury commonly occurs in patients with COVID-19. There is limited data describing the course of liver injury occurrence in patients with different disease severity, and the causes and risk factors are unknown. We aim to investigate the incidence, characteristics, risk factors, and clinical outcomes of liver injury in patients with COVID-19. Methods: This retrospective observational study was conducted in three hospitals (Zhejiang, China). From January 19, 2020 to February 20, 2020, patients confirmed with COVID-19 (≥18 years) and without liver injury were enrolled and divided into non-critically ill and critically ill groups. The incidence and characteristics of liver injury were compared between the two groups. Demographics, clinical characteristics, treatments, and treatment outcomes between patients with or without liver injury were compared within each group. The multivariable logistic regression model was used to explore the risk factors for liver injury. Results: The mean age of 131 enrolled patients was 51.2 years (standard deviation [SD]: 16.1 years), and 70 (53.4%) patients were male. A total of 76 patients developed liver injury (mild, 40.5%; moderate, 15.3%; severe, 2.3%) with a median occurrence time of 10.0 days. Critically ill patients had higher and earlier occurrence (81.5 vs. 51.9%, 12.0 vs. 5.0 days; p < 0.001), greater injury severity (p < 0.001), and slower recovery (50.0 vs. 61.1%) of liver function than non-critically ill patients. Multivariable regression showed that the number of concomitant medications (odds ratio [OR]: 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.21) and the combination treatment of lopinavir/ritonavir and arbidol (OR: 3.58, 95% CI: 1.44-9.52) were risk factors for liver injury in non-critically ill patients. The metabolism of arbidol can be significantly inhibited by lopinavir/ritonavir in vitro (p < 0.005), which may be the underlying cause of drug-related liver injury. Liver injury was related to increased length of hospital stay (mean difference [MD]: 3.2, 95% CI: 1.3-5.2) and viral shedding duration (MD: 3.0, 95% CI: 1.0-4.9). Conclusions: Critically ill patients with COVID-19 suffered earlier occurrence, greater injury severity, and slower recovery from liver injury than non-critically ill patients. Drug factors were related to liver injury in non-critically ill patients. Liver injury was related to prolonged hospital stay and viral shedding duration in patients with COVID-19. Clinical Trial Registration: World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ChiCTR2000030593. Registered March 8, 2020.

Dataset Information

Why is the Implementation of Beta-Lactam Therapeutic Drug Monitoring for the Critically Ill Falling Short? A Multicenter Mixed-Methods Study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Why is the Implementation of Beta-Lactam Therapeutic Drug Monitoring for the Critically Ill Falling Short? A Multicenter Mixed-Methods Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets