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:ImportanceThe scope of low-value care in children's hospitals is poorly understood.ObjectiveTo develop and apply a calculator of hospital-based pediatric low-value care to estimate prevalence and cost of low-value services.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study developed and applied a calculator of hospital-based pediatric low-value care to estimate the prevalence and cost of low-value services among 1 011 950 encounters reported in 49 US children's hospitals contributing to the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database. To develop the calculator, a multidisciplinary stakeholder group searched existing pediatric low-value care measures and used an iterative process to identify and operationalize relevant hospital-based measures in the PHIS database. Children with an eligible encounter in 2019 were included in the calculator-applied analysis. Two cohorts were analyzed: an emergency department cohort (with encounters resulting in emergency department discharge) and a hospitalized cohort.ExposuresEligible condition-specific hospital encounters.Main outcomes and measuresThe proportion and volume of encounters in which low-value services were delivered and their associated standardized costs. Measures were ranked by those outcomes.ResultsThere were 1 011 950 encounters eligible for 1 or more of 30 calculator-included measures in 2019; encounters were incurred by 816 098 unique patients with a median age of 3 years (IQR, 1-8 years). In the emergency department cohort, low-value services delivered in the greatest percentage of encounters were Group A streptococcal testing among children younger than 3 years with pharyngitis (3679 of 9785 [37.6%]), computed tomography scan for minor head injury (7541 of 42 602 [17.7%]), and bronchodilators for treatment of bronchiolitis (8899 of 55 616 [16.0%]). In the hospitalized cohort, low-value care was most prevalent for broad-spectrum antibiotics in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (3406 of 5658 [60.2%]), acid suppression therapy for infants with esophageal reflux (3814 of 7507 of [50.8%]), and blood cultures for uncomplicated community-acquired pneumonia (2277 of 5823 [39.1%]). Measured low-value services generated nearly $17 million in total standardized cost. The costliest services in the emergency department cohort were computed tomography scan for abdominal pain (approximately $1.8 million) and minor head injury (approximately $1.5 million) and chest radiography for asthma (approximately $1.1 million). The costliest services in the hospitalized cohort were receipt of 2 or more concurrent antipsychotics (approximately $2.4 million), and chest radiography for bronchiolitis ($801 680) and asthma ($625 866).Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional analysis found that low-value care for some pediatric services was prevalent and costly. Measuring receipt of low-value services across conditions informs prioritization of deimplementation efforts. Continued use of this calculator may establish trends in low-value care delivery.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess hospital practices in obstetric quality management activities and identify institutional characteristics associated with utilization of evidence-supported practices. METHODS:Data for this study came from a statewide survey of obstetric hospitals in California regarding their organization and delivery of perinatal care. We analyzed responses from 185 hospitals that completed quality assurance sections of the survey to assess their practices in a broad spectrum of quality enhancement activities. The association between institutional characteristics and adoption of evidence-supported practices (ie, those supported by prior literature or recommended by professional organizations as beneficial for improving birth outcome or patient safety) was examined using bivariate analysis and appropriate statistical tests. RESULTS:Most hospitals regularly audited adherence to written protocols regarding critical areas of care; however, 77.7% and 16.8% reported not having written guidelines on diagnosis of labor arrest and management of abnormal fetal heart rate, respectively. Private nonprofit hospitals were more likely to have a written protocol for management of abnormal fetal heart rate (P=.002). One in 10 hospitals (9.7%) did not regularly review cases with significant morbidity or mortality, and only 69.0% regularly tracked indications for cesarean delivery. Moreover, 26.3%, 14.3%, and 8.7% of the hospitals reported never performing interprofessional simulations for eclampsia, shoulder dystocia, or postpartum hemorrhage, respectively. Teaching status was associated with more frequent simulations in these three areas (P?.04 for all), while larger volume was associated with more frequent simulations for eclampsia (P=.04). CONCLUSION:Hospitals in California engage in a wide range of practices to assure or improve quality of obstetric care, but substantial variation in practice exists among hospitals. There is opportunity for improvement in adoption of evidence-supported practices.

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: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: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.