Dataset Information

Content and Mechanism of Action of National Antimicrobial Stewardship Interventions on Management of Respiratory Tract Infections in Primary and Community Care.

ABSTRACT: A major modifiable factor contributing to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is inappropriate use and overuse of antimicrobials, such as antibiotics. This study aimed to describe the content and mechanism of action of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions to improve appropriate antibiotic use for respiratory tract infections (RTI) in primary and community care. This study also aimed to describe who these interventions were aimed at and the specific behaviors targeted for change. Evidence-based guidelines, peer-review publications, and infection experts were consulted to identify behaviors relevant to AMS for RTI in primary care and interventions to target these behaviors. Behavior change tools were used to describe the content of interventions. Theoretical frameworks were used to describe mechanisms of action. A total of 32 behaviors targeting six different groups were identified (patients; prescribers; community pharmacists; providers; commissioners; providers and commissioners). Thirty-nine interventions targeting the behaviors were identified (patients = 15, prescribers = 22, community pharmacy staff = 8, providers = 18, and commissioners = 18). Interventions targeted a mean of 5.8 behaviors (range 1-27). Influences on behavior most frequently targeted by interventions were psychological capability (knowledge and skills); reflective motivation (beliefs about consequences, intentions, social/professional role and identity); and physical opportunity (environmental context and resources). Interventions were most commonly characterized as achieving change by training, enabling, or educating and were delivered mainly through guidelines, service provision, and communications & marketing. Interventions included a mean of four Behavior Change Techniques (BCTs) (range 1-14). We identified little intervention content targeting automatic motivation and social opportunity influences on behavior. The majority of interventions focussed on education and training, which target knowledge and skills though the provision of instructions on how to perform a behavior and information about health consequences. Interventions could be refined with the inclusion of relevant BCTs, such as goal-setting and action planning (identified in only a few interventions), to translate instruction on how to perform a behavior into action. This study provides a platform to refine content and plan evaluation of antimicrobial stewardship interventions.

SUBMITTER: Atkins L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7460499 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Content and Mechanism of Action of National Antimicrobial Stewardship Interventions on Management of Respiratory Tract Infections in Primary and Community Care.

Atkins Lou L Chadborn Tim T Bondaronek Paulina P Ashiru-Oredope Diane D Beech Elizabeth E Herd Natalie N de La Morinière Victoria V González-Iraizoz Marta M Hopkins Susan S McNulty Cliodna C Sallis Anna A

Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) 20200813 8

A major modifiable factor contributing to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is inappropriate use and overuse of antimicrobials, such as antibiotics. This study aimed to describe the content and mechanism of action of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions to improve appropriate antibiotic use for respiratory tract infections (RTI) in primary and community care. This study also aimed to describe who these interventions were aimed at and the specific behaviors targeted for change. Evidence-bas ...[more]

PMID: 32823693

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe feasibility of core Infectious Diseases Society of America-recommended antimicrobial stewardship interventions in community hospitals is unknown.ObjectiveTo determine the feasibility and results of implementing 2 core stewardship intervention strategies in community hospitals.Design, setting, and participantsThree-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.InterventionsTwo 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 measuresThe 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.ResultsA 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 relevanceStrict 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02212808.

Project description:Lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) are a major cause of morbidity and death. Because of changes in how LRTIs are defined coupled with the increasing prevalence of drug resistance, there is a gap in knowledge regarding the current burden of antimicrobial use for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-defined LRTIs. We describe the infection characteristics, antibiotic consumption, and clinical and economic outcomes of patients with Gram-negative (GN) LRTIs treated in intensive care units (ICUs).This was a retrospective, observational, cross-sectional study of adult patients treated in ICUs at two large academic medical centers in metropolitan Detroit, Michigan, from October 2013 to October 2015. To meet the inclusion criteria, patients must have had CDC-defined LRTI caused by a GN pathogen during ICU stay. Microbiological assessment of available Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates included minimum inhibitory concentrations for key antimicrobial agents.Four hundred and seventy-two patients, primarily from the community (346, 73.3%), were treated in medical ICUs (272, 57.6%). Clinically defined pneumonia was common (264, 55.9%). Six hundred and nineteen GN organisms were identified from index respiratory cultures: P. aeruginosa was common (224, 36.2%), with 21.6% of these isolates being multidrug resistant. Cefepime (213, 45.1%) and piperacillin/tazobactam (174, 36.8%) were the most frequent empiric GN therapies. Empiric GN therapy was inappropriate in 44.6% of cases. Lack of in vitro susceptibility (80.1%) was the most common reason for inappropriateness. Patients with inappropriate empiric GN therapy had longer overall stay, which translated to a median total cost of care of $79,800 (interquartile range $48,775 to $129,600) versus $68,000 (interquartile range $38,400 to $116,175), p = 0.013. Clinical failure (31.5% vs 30.0%, p = 0.912) and in-hospital all-cause mortality (26.4% vs 25.9%, p = 0.814) were not different.Drug-resistant pathogens were frequently found and empiric GN therapy was inappropriate in nearly 50% of cases. Inappropriate therapy led to increased lengths of stay and was associated with higher costs of care.

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.

Dataset Information

Content and Mechanism of Action of National Antimicrobial Stewardship Interventions on Management of Respiratory Tract Infections in Primary and Community Care.

Publications

Content and Mechanism of Action of National Antimicrobial Stewardship Interventions on Management of Respiratory Tract Infections in Primary and Community Care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets