Dataset Information

Measuring antimicrobial prescribing quality in outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) services: development and evaluation of a dedicated national antimicrobial prescribing survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Antimicrobial stewardship programmes are important in driving safety and quality of antimicrobial prescribing. The National Antimicrobial Prescribing Survey (NAPS) is a point-prevalence audit of inpatient antimicrobial prescribing in Australian hospitals.

Objectives

To design and adapt the NAPS tool for use in the outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) and hospital-in-the-home (HITH) setting.

Methods

An inter-disciplinary working group with expertise in OPAT and HITH services was established to adapt the NAPS template for use in the OPAT setting-called HITH-NAPS. This was initially trialled in 5 HITH services, subsequently adapted following participant feedback, then offered nationally to 50 services in 2017.

Results

There were 1154 prescriptions for 715 patients audited via the HITH-NAPS. The most common antimicrobials prescribed were cefazolin (22%), flucloxacillin (12%), piperacillin/tazobactam (10%) and ceftriaxone (10%). The most common infections treated were cellulitis (30%) and respiratory tract infections (14%). Eighty-seven percent of prescriptions were assessed as appropriate, 11% inappropriate and 2% not assessable. Prolonged durations of antimicrobials and unnecessarily broad-spectrum antibiotics were used in 9% of prescriptions.

Conclusions

The HITH-NAPS pilot project revealed that auditing of this type is feasible in HITH. It showed that antibiotic use in these HITH services was generally appropriate, but there are some areas for improvement. A national OPAT/HITH-NAPS can facilitate benchmarking between services, identify potentially inappropriate prescribing and help guide quality improvement.

SUBMITTER: Friedman ND

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8210186 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveOutpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) provides opportunities for improved cost savings, but in the UK, implementation is patchy and a variety of service models are in use. The slow uptake in the UK and Europe is due to a number of clinical, financial and logistical issues, including concern about patient safety. The measurement of patient experience data is commonly used to inform commissioning decisions, but these focus on functional aspects of services and fail to examine the relational aspects of care. This qualitative study examines patients' experiences of OPAT.DesignIn-depth, semistructured interviews.SettingPurposive sample of OPAT patients recruited from four acute National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in Northern England. These NHS Trusts between them represented both well-established and recently set-up services running nurse at home, hospital outpatient and/or self-administration models.ParticipantsWe undertook 28 semistructured interviews and one focus group (n=4).ResultsDespite good patient outcomes, experiences were coloured by patients' personal situation and material circumstances. Many found looking after themselves at home more difficult than they expected, while others continued to work despite their infection. Expensive car parking, late running services and the inconvenience of waiting in for the nurse to arrive frustrated patients, while efficient services, staffed by nurses with the specialist skills needed to manage intravenous treatment had the opposite effect. Many patients felt a local, general practitioner or community health centre based service would resolve many of the practical difficulties that made OPAT inconvenient. Patients could find OPAT anxiety provoking but this could be ameliorated by staff taking the time to reassure patients and provide tailored information.ConclusionServices configurations must accommodate the diversity of the local population. Poor communication can leave patients lacking the confidence needed to be a competent collaborator in their own care and affect their perceptions of the service.

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare costs associated with different models of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) delivery with costs of inpatient (IP) care across key infection groups managed via OPAT in the UK.DesignA cost-minimisation design was used due to evidence of similarities in patient and treatment outcomes between OPAT and IP care. A bottom-up approach was undertaken for the evaluation of OPAT associated costs. The British Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy National Outcomes Registry System was used to determine key infection diagnoses, mean duration of treatment and most frequent antibiotics used.SettingSeveral OPAT delivery settings were considered and compared with IP care.InterventionsOPAT models considered were OP clinic model, nurse home visits, self (or carer)-administration by a bolus intravenous, self-administration by a commercially prefilled elastomeric device, continuous intravenous infusion of piperacillin with tazobactam or flucloxacillin with elastomeric device as OP once daily and, specifically for bone and joint and diabetic foot infections, complex outpatient oral antibiotic therapies.ResultsBase case and a range of scenario results showed all evaluated OPAT service delivery models to be less costly than IP stay of equivalent duration. The extent of savings varied by OPAT healthcare delivery models. Estimated OPAT costs as a proportion of IP costs were estimated at 0.23-0.53 (skin and soft-tissue infections), 0.34-0.46 (complex urinary tract infections), 0.23-0.51 (orthopaedic infections), 0.24-0.42 (diabetic foot infections) 0.40-0.56 (exacerbations of bronchiectasis) and 0.25-0.42 (intra-abdominal infections). Partial or full complex oral antibiotic therapies in orthopaedic or diabetic foot infections costs were estimated to be 0.13-0.26 of IP costs. Main OPAT costs were associated with staff time and antimicrobial medications.ConclusionsOPAT is a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources for the treatment of a range of infections in the UK in patients who can be safely managed in a non-IP setting.