Dataset Information

Early antimicrobial stewardship team intervention on appropriateness of antimicrobial therapy in suspected sepsis: a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

There has been concern that the imperative to administer rapid antimicrobials in septic patients may result in inappropriate antimicrobial use. We aimed to determine the impact of early antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) team intervention in patients with Medical Emergency Team (MET) calls for suspected sepsis.

Methods

We performed a randomized controlled trial of non-ICU inpatients who had a MET call for suspected sepsis. Patients were randomized to standard care (management of antimicrobial therapy by the treating team) or early targeted intervention (AMS review 48 h post-MET call). The primary outcome was appropriateness of antimicrobial therapy 72 h post-MET call, as determined by a panel of blinded infectious diseases physicians.

Results

In total, 90 patients were enrolled; 45 were randomly allocated to the intervention group, and 45 to the control group. More patients in the AMS intervention group were receiving appropriate antimicrobials 72 h following the MET call (67% versus 44%, P = 0.03). In the intervention group, 27 recommendations were made by the AMS team; 74% of recommendations were accepted, including 30% of cases where antimicrobials were discontinued or de-escalated. There were non-significant differences in total duration of antimicrobial therapy (8.7 versus 10.7 days, P = 0.39), sepsis-related ICU-admission rates (13% versus 18%, P = 0.56) and sepsis-related in-hospital mortality (7% versus 9%, P = 0.71) between intervention and control groups, respectively.

Conclusions

AMS team intervention resulted in significant improvement in appropriateness of antimicrobial therapy following MET calls due to suspected sepsis. Targeted AMS review should be implemented to support early antimicrobial de-escalation and optimization in patients with suspected sepsis.

SUBMITTER: Rashidzada Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8390781 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMore than 90% of antibiotics are prescribed in primary care, but 50% may be unnecessary. Reducing unnecessary antibiotic overuse is needed to limit antimicrobial resistance. We conducted a pragmatic trial of a primary care provider-focused antimicrobial stewardship intervention to reduce antibiotic prescriptions in primary care.MethodsPrimary care practitioners from six primary care clinics in Toronto, Ontario were assigned to intervention or control groups to evaluate the effectiveness of a multi-faceted intervention for reducing antibiotic prescriptions to adults with respiratory and urinary tract infections. The intervention included provider education, clinical decision aids, and audit and feedback of antibiotic prescribing. The primary outcome was total antibiotic prescriptions for these infections. Secondary outcomes were delayed prescriptions, prescriptions longer than 7 days, recommended antibiotic use, and outcomes for individual infections. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate treatment effects, adjusting for clustering by clinic and baseline differences.ResultsThere were 1682 encounters involving 54 primary care providers from January until May 31, 2019. In intervention clinics, the odds of any antibiotic prescription was reduced 22% (adjusted Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.78; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 0.64.0.96). The odds that a delay in filling a prescription was recommended was increased (adjusted OR=2.29; 95% CI=1.37, 3.83), while prescription durations greater than 7 days were reduced (adjusted OR=0.24; 95% CI=0.13, 0.43). Recommended antibiotic use was similar in control (85.4%) and intervention clinics (91.8%, p=0.37).ConclusionsA community-based, primary care provider-focused antimicrobial stewardship intervention was associated with a reduced likelihood of antibiotic prescriptions for respiratory and urinary infections, an increase in delayed prescriptions, and reduced prescription durations.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov ( NCT03517215 ).

Project description:BackgroundInterprofessional communication is needed to enhance the early recognition and management of patients with sepsis. Preparing medical and nursing students using virtual reality simulation has been shown to be an effective learning approach for sepsis team training. However, its scalability is constrained by unequal cohort sizes between medical and nursing students. An artificial intelligence (AI) medical team member can be implemented in a virtual reality simulation to engage nursing students in sepsis team training.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of an AI-powered doctor versus a human-controlled doctor in training nursing students for sepsis care and interprofessional communication.MethodsA randomized controlled trial study was conducted with 64 nursing students who were randomly assigned to undertake sepsis team training with an AI-powered doctor (AI-powered group) or with medical students using virtual reality simulation (human-controlled group). Participants from both groups were tested on their sepsis and communication performance through simulation-based assessments (posttest). Participants' sepsis knowledge and self-efficacy in interprofessional communication were also evaluated before and after the study interventions.ResultsA total of 32 nursing students from each group completed the simulation-based assessment, sepsis and communication knowledge test, and self-efficacy questionnaire. Compared with the baseline scores, both the AI-powered and human-controlled groups demonstrated significant improvements in communication knowledge (P=.001) and self-efficacy in interprofessional communication (P<.001) in posttest scores. For sepsis care knowledge, a significant improvement in sepsis care knowledge from the baseline was observed in the AI-powered group (P<.001) but not in the human-controlled group (P=.16). Although no significant differences were found in sepsis care performance between the groups (AI-powered group: mean 13.63, SD 4.23, vs human-controlled group: mean 12.75, SD 3.85, P=.39), the AI-powered group (mean 9.06, SD 1.78) had statistically significantly higher sepsis posttest knowledge scores (P=.009) than the human-controlled group (mean 7.75, SD 2.08). No significant differences were found in interprofessional communication performance between the 2 groups (AI-powered group: mean 29.34, SD 8.37, vs human-controlled group: mean 27.06, SD 5.69, P=.21). However, the human-controlled group (mean 69.6, SD 14.4) reported a significantly higher level of self-efficacy in interprofessional communication (P=.008) than the AI-powered group (mean 60.1, SD 13.3).ConclusionsOur study suggested that AI-powered doctors are not inferior to human-controlled virtual reality simulations with respect to sepsis care and interprofessional communication performance, which supports the viability of implementing AI-powered doctors to achieve scalability in sepsis team training. Our findings also suggested that future innovations should focus on the sociability of AI-powered doctors to enhance users' interprofessional communication training. Perhaps in the nearer term, future studies should examine how to best blend AI-powered training with human-controlled virtual reality simulation to optimize clinical performance in sepsis care and interprofessional communication.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05953441; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05953441.