Dataset Information

Feasibility of Core Antimicrobial Stewardship Interventions in Community Hospitals.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

The feasibility of core Infectious Diseases Society of America-recommended antimicrobial stewardship interventions in community hospitals is unknown.

Objective

To determine the feasibility and results of implementing 2 core stewardship intervention strategies in community hospitals.

Design, setting, and participants

Three-stage, multicenter, prospective nonrandomized clinical trial with crossover design. The setting was 4 community hospitals in North Carolina (median bed size, 305; range, 102-425). Participants were all patients receiving targeted study antibacterial agents or alternative, nonstudy antibacterial agents. The study dates were October 2014 through October 2015. All statistical analyses were completed as of October 2016.

Interventions

Two antimicrobial stewardship strategies targeted vancomycin hydrochloride, piperacillin-tazobactam, and the antipseudomonal carbapenems on formulary at the study hospitals: (1) modified preauthorization (PA), in which the prescriber had to receive pharmacist approval for continued use of the antibiotic after the first dose, and (2) postprescription audit and review (PPR), in which the pharmacist would engage the prescriber about antibiotic appropriateness after 72 hours of therapy. Two hospitals performed modified PA for 6 months, then PPR for 6 months after a 1-month washout. The other 2 hospitals performed the reverse.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was the feasibility of implementing the interventions, determined by (1) approval by hospital administration and committees at each study hospital; (2) completion of pharmacist training; (3) initiation and implementation as determined by number, type, and outcomes of interventions performed; and (4) time required for interventions. Secondary outcomes included antimicrobial use (days of therapy) compared with matched historical periods and length of hospitalization.

Results

A total of 2692 patients (median age, 65 years; interquartile range, 53-76 years) underwent a study intervention; 1413 (52.5%) were female, 1323 (49.1%) were white, and 1047 (38.9%) were African American. Intervention approvals took a median of 95 days (range, 56-119 days); during these discussions, strict PA was deemed not feasible. Instead, the modified PA intervention was used throughout the study. Pharmacists performed 1456 modified PA interventions (median per hospital, 350 [range, 129-628]) and 1236 PPR interventions (median per hospital, 298 [range, 273-366]). Study antimicrobials were determined to be inappropriate 2 times as often during the PPR period (41.0% [435 of 1060] vs 20.4% [253 of 1243]; P < .001). Pharmacists recommended dose change more often during the modified PA intervention (15.9% [232 of 1456] vs 9.6% [119 of 1236]; P < .001) and de-escalation during PPR (29.1% [360 of 1236] vs 13.0% [190 of 1456]; P < .001). The median time dedicated to the stewardship interventions varied by hospital (range of median hours per week, 5-19). Overall antibiotic use decreased during PPR compared with historical controls (mean [SD] days of therapy per 1000 patient-days, 925.2 [109.8] vs 965.3 [109.4]; mean difference, -40.1; 95% CI, -71.7 to -8.6), but not during modified PA (mean [SD] days of therapy per 1000 patient-days, 931.0 [102.0] vs 926.6 [89.7]; mean difference, 4.4; 95% CI, -55.8 to 64.7).

Conclusions and relevance

Strict PA was not feasible in the study hospitals. In contrast, PPR was a feasible and effective strategy for antimicrobial stewardship in settings with limited resources and expertise.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02212808.

SUBMITTER: Anderson DJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6704742 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate the feasibility of establishing hospital-based antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes comprising action-planning, educational interventions and data feedback in two provincial-level hospitals in Viet Nam.Design and settingThis was an implementation research using participatory action process and existing resources from the Duke Antimicrobial Stewardship Outreach Network with local adjustments. A national stakeholder meeting and Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis were conducted to identify gaps and potential interventions.ParticipantsHospital AMS staff implemented activities throughout the study phases. Routinely collected patient data were analysed to support planning, implementation and evaluation.InterventionsHospitals were considered as a complex adaptive system and leveraged their unique characteristics and interconnections to develop 1-year plans containing core interventions (data use, educational training, prospective audit with feedback (PAF) and evaluations).Outcome measuresWe assessed feasibility using outputs from stakeholder meeting, SWOT analysis, baseline data, planning process and implementation.ResultsThe stakeholder meeting identified three gaps for AMS at national level: supportive policies, AMS training and core competencies and collaboration. At the hospitals, AMS programmes took 1 year for planning due to lack of hospital-specific procedures and relevant staff competencies. Baseline data (January-December 2019) showed variations in antibiotic consumption: 951 days of therapy (DOT) per 1000 days present in the control and 496 in the intervention wards in hospital 1, and 737 and 714 in hospital 2, respectively. During 1-year implementation, clinical pharmacists audited 1890 antibiotic prescriptions in hospital 1 (June 2020-May 2021) and 1628 in hospital 2 (July 2020-July 2021), and will continue PAF in their daily work.ConclusionOur data confirmed the need to contextualise AMS programmes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) and demonstrated the usefulness of implementation research design in assessing programme feasibility. Developing staff competencies, using local data to stimulate actions and integrating programme activities in routine hospital work are key to success in LMICs.

Project description:BackgroundAs meropenem is a restricted antimicrobial, lessons learned from its real-life usage will be applicable to antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) more generally.ObjectivesTo retrospectively evaluate meropenem usage at our institution to identify targets for AMS interventions.MethodsPatients receiving meropenem documented with an 'alert antimicrobial' form at two tertiary care UK hospitals were identified retrospectively. Clinical records and microbiology results were reviewed.ResultsA total of 107 adult inpatients receiving meropenem were identified. This was first-line in 47% and escalation therapy in 53%. Source control was required in 28% of cases after escalation, for predictable reasons. Those ultimately requiring source control had received more prior antimicrobial agents than those who did not (P = 0.03). Meropenem was rationalized in 24% of cases (after median 4 days). Positive microbiology enabled rationalization (OR 12.3, 95% CI 2.7-55.5, P = 0.001) but rates of appropriate sampling varied. In cases with positive microbiology where meropenem was not rationalized, continuation was retrospectively considered clinically and microbiologically necessary in 8/40 cases (0/17 empirical first-line usage). Rationalization was more likely when meropenem susceptibility was not released on the microbiology report (OR 5.2, 95% CI 1.3-20.2, P = 0.02). Input from an infection specialist was associated with a reduced duration of meropenem therapy (P < 0.0001). Early review by an infection specialist has the potential to further facilitate rationalization.ConclusionsIn real-life clinical practice, core aspects of infection management remain tractable targets for AMS interventions: microbiological sampling, source control and infection specialist input. Further targets include supporting rationalization to less familiar carbapenem-sparing antimicrobials, restricting first-line meropenem usage and selectively reporting meropenem susceptibility.

Project description:Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a serious global public-health threat. Evidence suggests that antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) is a valuable tool to facilitate rational antibiotic use within healthcare facilities. A cross-sectional situational analysis using a questionnaire was conducted to determine the current status of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) activities in all public-sector hospitals in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN). The survey had a 79% (57, N = 72) response rate. A total of 75% of hospitals had an antimicrobial stewardship committee (AMSC), 47% (20, N = 43) had a formal written statement of support from leadership, and 7% (3, N = 43) had budgeted financial support. Only 37% (16, N = 43) had on-site or off-site support from a clinical microbiologist, and 5% (2, N = 43) had an on-site infectious disease (ID) physician. Microbiologist input on pathogen surveillance data (aOR: 5.12; 95% CI: 4.08-22.02; p-value = 0.001) and microbiological investigations prior to the commencement of antibiotics (aOR: 5.12; 95% CI: 1.08-42.01; p-value = 0.041) were significantly associated with having either on- or off-site microbiology support. Respondents that had a representative from microbiology on the AMSC were significantly associated with having and interrogating facility-specific antibiograms (P = 0.051 and P = 0.036, respectively). Those facilities that had access to a microbiologist were significantly associated with producing an antibiogram (aOR: 4.80; 95% CI: 1.25-18.42; p-value = 0.022). Facilities with an ID physician were significantly associated with having a current antibiogram distributed to prescribers within the facility (P = 0.010) and significantly associated with sending prescribers personalized communication regarding improving prescribing (P = 0.044). Common challenges reported by the facilities included suboptimal hospital management support; a lack of clinicians, pharmacists, nurses, microbiologists, and dedicated time; the lack of a multidisciplinary approach; low clinician buy-in; inadequate training; a lack of printed antibiotic guidelines; and financial restrictions for microbiological investigations. The survey identified the need for financial, IT, and management support. Microbiology and infectious disease physicians were recognized as scarce human resources.