Dataset Information

A "resistance calculator": Simple stewardship intervention for refining empiric practices of antimicrobials in acute-care hospitals.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

In the era of widespread resistance, there are 2 time points at which most empiric prescription errors occur among hospitalized adults: (1) upon admission (UA) when treating patients at risk of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) and (2) during hospitalization, when treating patients at risk of extensively drug-resistant organisms (XDROs). These errors adversely influence patient outcomes and the hospital's ecology.

Design and setting

Retrospective cohort study, Shamir Medical Center, Israel, 2016.

Patients

Adult patients (aged >18 years) hospitalized with sepsis.

Methods

Logistic regressions were used to develop predictive models for (1) MDRO UA and (2) nosocomial XDRO. Their performances on the derivation data sets, and on 7 other validation data sets, were assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC AUC).

Results

In total, 4,114 patients were included: 2,472 patients with sepsis UA and 1,642 with nosocomial sepsis. The MDRO UA score included 10 parameters, and with a cutoff of ≥22 points, it had an ROC AUC of 0.85. The nosocomial XDRO score included 7 parameters, and with a cutoff of ≥36 points, it had an ROC AUC of 0.87. The range of ROC AUCs for the validation data sets was 0.7-0.88 for the MDRO UA score and was 0.66-0.75 for nosocomial XDRO score. We created a free web calculator (https://assafharofe.azurewebsites.net).

Conclusions

A simple electronic calculator could aid with empiric prescription during an encounter with a septic patient. Future implementation studies are needed to evaluate its utility in improving patient outcomes and in reducing overall resistances.

SUBMITTER: Zilberman-Itskovich S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8459314 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAntimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programs promote appropriate use of antimicrobials and reduce antimicrobial resistance. Technological developments have resulted in smartphone applications (apps) facilitating AMS. Yet, their impact is unclear.ObjectivesSystematically review AMS apps and their impact on prescribing by physicians treating in-hospital patients.Data sourcesEMBASE, MEDLINE (Ovid), Cochrane Central, Web of Science and Google Scholar.Study eligibility criteriaStudies focusing on smartphone or tablet apps and antimicrobial therapy published from January 2008 until February 28th 2019 were included.ParticipantsPhysicians treating in-hospital patients.InterventionsAMS apps.MethodsSystematic review.ResultsThirteen studies met the eligibility criteria. None was a randomized controlled trial. Methodological study quality was considered low to moderate in all but three qualitative studies. The primary outcomes were process indicators, adherence to guidelines and user experience. Guidelines were more frequently accessed by app (53.0% - 89.6%) than by desktop in three studies. Adherence to guidelines increased (6.5% - 74.0%) significantly for several indications after app implementation in four studies. Most users considered app use easy (77.4%->90.0%) and useful (71.0%->90%) in three studies and preferred it over guideline access by web viewer or booklet in two studies. However, some physicians regarded app use adjacent to colleagues or patients unprofessional in three qualitative studies. Susceptibility to several antimicrobials changed significantly post-intervention (from 5% decrease to 10% - 14% increase) in one study.ConclusionsUse of AMS apps seems to promote access to and knowledge of antimicrobial prescribing policy, and increase adherence to guidelines in hospitals. However, this has been assessed in a limited number of studies and for specific indications. Good quality studies are necessary to properly assess the impact of AMS apps on antimicrobial prescribing. To improve adherence to antimicrobial guidelines, use of AMS apps could be considered.

Project description:ImportanceInappropriate antimicrobial prescribing leads to antimicrobial resistance and suboptimal clinical outcomes. Changing antimicrobial prescribing is a complex behavioral process that is not often taken into account in antimicrobial stewardship programs.ObjectiveTo examine whether an antimicrobial stewardship approach grounded in behavioral theory and focusing on preserving prescriber autonomy and participation is effective in improving appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing in hospitals.Design, setting, and participantsThe Dutch Unique Method for Antimicrobial Stewardship (DUMAS) study was a prospective, stepped-wedge, participatory intervention study performed from October 1, 2011, through December 31, 2015. Outcomes were measured during a baseline period of 16 months and an intervention period of 12 months. The study was performed at 7 clinical departments (2 medical, 3 surgical, and 2 pediatric) in a tertiary care medical center and a general teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Physicians prescribing systemic antimicrobial drugs for any indication for patients admitted to the participating departments during the study period were included in the study.InterventionsWe offered prescribers a free choice of how to improve their antimicrobial prescribing. Prescribers were stimulated to choose interventions with higher potential for success based on a root cause analysis of inappropriate prescribing.Main outcomes and measuresAppropriateness of antimicrobial prescriptions was determined using a validated approach based on guideline adherence and motivated guideline deviation and measured with repeated point prevalence surveys (6 per year). Appropriateness judgment was masked for the study period. Antimicrobial consumption was extracted from pharmacy records and measured as days of therapy per admission. We used linear and logistic mixed-model regression analysis to model outcomes over time.ResultsA total of 1121 patient cases with 700 antimicrobial prescriptions were assessed during the baseline period and 882 patient cases with 531 antimicrobial prescriptions during the intervention period. The mean antimicrobial appropriateness increased from 64.1% at intervention start to 77.4% at 12-month follow-up (+13.3%; relative risk, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.27), without a change in slope. No decrease in antimicrobial consumption was found.Conclusions and relevanceUse of a behavioral approach preserving prescriber autonomy resulted in an increase in antimicrobial appropriateness sustained for at least 12 months. The approach is inexpensive and could be easily transferable to various health care environments.

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.