When Antimicrobial Stewardship Isn't Watching: The Educational Impact of Critical Care Prospective Audit and Feedback.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Fleming D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4929488 | biostudies-other | 2016 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Publications
When Antimicrobial Stewardship Isn't Watching: The Educational Impact of Critical Care Prospective Audit and Feedback.
Fleming Dimitra D Ali Karim F KF Matelski John J D'Sa Ryan R Powis Jeff J
Open forum infectious diseases 20160530 3
Prospective audit and feedback (PAF) is an effective strategy to optimize antimicrobial use in the critical care setting, yet whether skills gained during PAF influence future antimicrobial prescribing is uncertain. This multisite study demonstrates that knowledge learned during PAF is translated and incorporated into the practice of critical care physicians even when not supported by an antimicrobial stewardship program. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundProspective audit and feedback is a core antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) strategy; however its impact is difficult to measure.MethodsOur quasi-experimental study measured the effect of an ASP on clinical outcomes, antimicrobial use, resistance, costs, patient safety (adverse drug events [ADE] and Clostridium difficile infection [CDI]), and process metrics pre- (9/10-10/11) and post-ASP (9/12-10/13) using propensity adjusted and matched Cox proportional-hazards regression models and interrupted time series (ITS) methods.ResultsAmong our 2,696 patients, median length of stay was 1 day shorter post-ASP (5, interquartile range [IQR] 3-8 vs. 4, IQR 2-7 days, p<0.001). Mortality was similar in both periods. Mean broad-spectrum (-11.3%), fluoroquinolone (-27.0%), and anti-pseudomonal (-15.6%) use decreased significantly (p<0.05). ITS analyses demonstrated a significant increase in monthly carbapenem use post-ASP (trend: +1.5 days of therapy/1,000 patient days [1000PD] per month; 95% CI 0.1-3.0). Total antimicrobial costs decreased 14%. Resistance rates did not change in the one-year post-ASP period. Mean CDI rates/10,000PD were low pre- and post-ASP (14.2 ± 10.4 vs. 13.8 ± 10.0, p = 0.94). Fewer patients experienced ADEs post-ASP (6.0% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.06).ConclusionsProspective audit and feedback has the potential to improve antimicrobial use and outcomes, and contain bacterial resistance. Our program demonstrated a trend towards decreased length of stay, broad-spectrum antimicrobial use, antimicrobial costs, and adverse events.
| S-EPMC4792438 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Prospective audit and feedback (PAF) is considered an effective procedure for appropriate antibiotic use. However, its effect on the time to de-escalation is unclear. We aimed to evaluate the effect of daily PAF implementation, focusing on the time to de-escalation of anti-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) agents as an outcome measure. To this end, a single-center, retrospective, quasi-experimental study including patients treated with intravenous anti-MRSA agents during pre-PAF (April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015) and post-PAF (April 1, 2015 to March 31, 2016) periods was conducted. The time to de-escalation was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and Cox proportional hazard analysis was performed to assess the effect of daily PAF implementation on the time to de-escalation. Interrupted time series analysis was used to evaluate the relationship between daily PAF implementation and anti-MRSA agent utilization data converted to defined daily dose (DDD) and days of therapy (DOT) per 1,000 patient days. The median time to de-escalation was significantly shorter in the post-PAF period than in the pre-PAF period (6 days vs. 7 days, P < 0.001). According to multivariate analysis, PAF implementation was independently associated with a shorter time to de-escalation (hazard ratio [HR], 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 1.35). There were no significant differences in hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and length of stay between the two periods. Interrupted time series analysis showed significant reductions in the trends of DDD (trend change, -0.65; 95% CI, -1.20 to -0.11) and DOT (trend change, -0.74; 95% CI, -1.33 to -0.15) between the pre-PAF and post-PAF periods. Daily PAF implementation for patients treated with intravenous anti-MRSA agents led to a shorter time to de-escalation and lower consumption of anti-MRSA agents without worsening the clinically important outcomes.
| S-EPMC9337637 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with increased antimicrobial use despite low rates of bacterial co-infection. Prospective audit and feedback is recommended to optimise antibiotic prescribing, but high-quality evidence supporting its use for COVID-19 is absent. We aimed to study the efficacy and safety of prospective audit and feedback in patients admitted to hospital for the treatment of COVID-19.MethodsCOVASP was a prospective, pragmatic, non-inferiority, small-unit, cluster-randomised trial comparing prospective audit and feedback plus standard of care with standard of care alone in adults admitted to three hospitals in Edmonton, AB, Canada, with COVID-19 pneumonia. All patients aged at least 18 years who were admitted from the community to a designated study bed with microbiologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in the preceding 14 days were included if they had an oxygen saturation of 94% or lower on room air, required supplemental oxygen, or had chest-imaging findings compatible with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients were excluded if they were transferred in from another acute care centre, enrolled in another clinical trial that involved antibiotic therapy, expected to progress to palliative care or death within 48 h of hospital admission, or managed by any member of the research team within 30 days of enrolment. COVID-19 unit and critical care unit beds were stratified and randomly assigned (1:1) to the prospective audit and feedback plus standard of care group or the standard of care group. Patients were masked to their bed assignment but the attending physician and study team were not. The primary outcome was clinical status on postadmission day 15, measured using a seven-point ordinal scale. We used a non-inferiority margin of 0·5. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04896866, and is now closed.FindingsBetween March 1 and Oct 29, 2021, 1411 patients were screened and 886 were enrolled: 457 into the prospective audit and feedback plus standard of care group, of whom 429 completed the study, and 429 into the standard of care group, of whom 404 completed the study. Baseline characteristics were similar for both groups, with an overall mean age of 56·7 years (SD 17·3) and a median baseline ordinal scale of 4·0 (IQR 4·0-5·0). 301 audit and feedback events were recorded in the intervention group and 215 recommendations were made, of which 181 (84%) were accepted. Despite lower antibiotic use in the intervention group than in the control group (length of therapy 364·9 vs 384·2 days per 1000 patient days), clinical status at postadmission day 15 was non-inferior (median ordinal score 2·0 [IQR 2·0-3·0] vs 2·0 [IQR 2·0-4·0]; p=0·37, Mann-Whitney U test). Neutropenia was uncommon in both the intervention group (13 [3%] of 420 patients) and the control group (20 [5%] of 396 patients), and acute kidney injury occurred at a similar rate in both groups (74 [18%] of 421 patients in the intervention group and 76 [19%] of 399 patients in the control group). No intervention-related deaths were recorded.InterpretationThis cluster-randomised clinical trial shows that prospective audit and feedback is safe and effective in optimising and reducing antibiotic use in adults admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Despite many competing priorities during the COVID-19 pandemic, antimicrobial stewardship should remain a priority to mitigate the overuse of antibiotics in this population.FundingNone.
| S-EPMC9977404 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAudit and feedback (A&F) has long been used to improve quality of care, albeit with variable results. This meta-analytic study tested whether Feedback Intervention Theory, a framework from industrial/organizational psychology, explains the observed variability in health care A&F research.MethodData sourcestudies cited by Jamtvedt's 2006 Cochrane systematic review of A&F, followed by database searches using the Cochrane review's search strategy to identify more recent studies.Inclusion criteriaCochrane review criteria, plus: presence of a treatment group receiving only A & F; a control group receiving no intervention; a quantitatively measurable outcome; minimum n of 10 per arm; sufficient statistics for effect size calculations. Moderators: presence of discouragement and praise; correct solution, attainment level, velocity, frequency, and normative information; feedback format (verbal, textual, graphic, public, computerized, group vs. individual); goal setting activity.Proceduremeta-analytic procedures using the Hedges-Olkin method.ResultsOf 519 studies initially identified, 19 met all inclusion criteria. Studies were most often excluded due to the lack of a feedback-only arm. A&F has a modest, though significant positive effect on quality outcomes (d = 0.40, 95% confidence interval = +/-0.20); providing specific suggestions for improvement, written, and more frequent feedback strengthened this effect, whereas graphical and verbal feedback attenuated this effect.ConclusionsA&F effectiveness is improved when feedback is delivered with specific suggestions for improvement, in writing, and frequently. Other feedback characteristics could also potentially improve effectiveness; however, research with stricter experimental controls is needed to identify the specific feedback characteristics that maximize its effectiveness.
| S-EPMC4170834 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Antimicrobial resistance is escalating and triggers clinical decision-making challenges when treating infections in patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU). Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) may help combat this problem, but it can be difficult to implement in critical care settings. The implementation of multidisciplinary AMS in ICUs could be more challenging than what is currently suggested in the literature. Our main goal was to analyze the reduction in duration of treatment (DOT) for the most commonly used antibacterial and antifungal agents during the first six months of 2014, and during the same period two years later (2016). A total of 426 and 424 patient encounters, respectively, were documented and collected from the intensive care unit's electronic patient record system. Daily multidisciplinary ward rounds were conducted for approximately 30?40 min, with the goal of optimizing antimicrobial therapy in order to analyze the feasibility of implementing AMS. The only antimicrobial agent which showed a significant reduction in the number of prescriptions and in the duration of treatment during the second audit was vancomycin, while linezolid showed an increase in the number of prescriptions with no significant prolongation of the duration of treatment. A trend of reduction was also seen in the DOT for co-amoxiclavulanate and in the number of prescriptions of anidulafungin without any corresponding increases being observed for other broad-spectrum anti-infective agents (p-values of 0.07 and 0.05, respectively).
| S-EPMC6024547 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImplementation of antibiotic stewardship programmes (ASPs) in hospitals is challenging and there is a knowledge gap on how to pursue this process efficiently.ObjectivesTo evaluate whether audit and feedback (A&F) is a feasible and useful methodology to assess and support the implementation of ASPs in hospitals.MethodsA multidisciplinary team performed document reviews and on-site interviews with professionals involved in the implementation of ASPs. Oral feedback on preliminary findings and areas of improvement were provided on-site, followed by feedback reports summarizing major findings and recommendations. Descriptive statistics were used to present number of hospital trusts, interviewees, professions, disciplines, workload and costs.ResultsAll 22 hospital trusts in Norway participated in the A&F conducted October 2017 to April 2019. Altogether, 446 leaders and healthcare workers were interviewed: 110 leaders, 336 health professionals of whom 89 were antimicrobial stewardship team members. Median number of days from audits were performed till reporting were 36 (IQR 30-49). Median workload for auditors per visit was 7 days (6-8). Total costs were €133 952. Main audit findings were that ASP structures were established in most hospital trusts, but leadership commitment and implementation of interventions were often lacking. The hospital trusts received feedback on establishing governance structures, setting local targets, implementing interventions and increased involvement of nurses.ConclusionsNationwide A&F provides a unique and comprehensive insight into the implementation of ASPs in hospitals and is feasible with a reasonable amount of resources. This approach can identify targets for improved implementation of ASPs in hospitals.
| S-EPMC8210241 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) in hematological patients are especially relevant. However, information about ASPs in this population is scarce. For 11 years, we quarterly assessed antimicrobial consumption and incidence and death rates of multidrug-resistant (MDR) bloodstream infections (BSI) in the hematology Department. Healthcare activity indicators were also monitored yearly. We performed an interrupted time-series analysis. Antimicrobials showed a sustained reduction with a relative effect of -62.3% (95% CI -84.5 to -40.1) nine years after the inception of the ASP, being especially relevant for antifungals (relative effect -80.4%, -90.9 to -69.9), quinolones (relative effect -85.0%, -102.0 to -68.1), and carbapenems (relative effect -68.8%, -126.0 to -10.6). Incidence density of MDR BSI remained low and stable (mean 1.10 vs. 0.82 episodes per 1000 occupied bed days for the pre-intervention and the ASP period, respectively) with a quarterly percentage of change of -0.3% (95% CI -2.0 to 1.4). Early and late mortality of MDR BSI presented a steady trend (quarterly percentage of change -0.7%, 95% CI -1.7 to 0.3 and -0.6%, 95% CI -1.5 to 0.3, respectively). Volume and complexity of healthcare activity increased over the years. The ASP effectively achieved long-term reductions in antimicrobial consumption and improvements in the prescription profile, without increasing the mortality of MDR BSI.
| S-EPMC7911074 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLaboratory tests and transfusions are sometimes ordered inappropriately, particularly in the critical care setting, which sees frequent use of both. Audit and Feedback (A&F) is a potentially useful intervention for modifying healthcare provider behaviors, but its application to the complex, team-based environment of critical care is not well understood. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on A&F interventions for improving test or transfusion ordering in the critical care setting.MethodsFive databases, two registries, and the bibliographies of relevant articles were searched. We included critical care studies that assessed the use of A&F targeting healthcare provider behaviors, alone or in combination with other interventions to improve test and transfusion ordering, as compared to historical practice, no intervention, or another healthcare behaviour change intervention. Studies were included only if they reported laboratory test or transfusion orders, or the appropriateness of orders, as outcomes. There were no restrictions based on study design, date of publication, or follow-up time. Intervention characteristics and absolute differences in outcomes were summarized. The quality of individual studies was assessed using a modified version of the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Cochrane Review Group's criteria.ResultsWe identified 16 studies, including 13 uncontrolled before-after studies, one randomized controlled trial, one controlled before-after study, and one controlled clinical trial (quasi-experimental). These studies described 17 interventions, mostly (88%) multifaceted interventions with an A&F component. Feedback was most often provided in a written format only (41%), more than once (53%), and most often only provided data aggregated to the group-level (41%). Most studies saw a change in the hypothesized direction, but not all studies provided statistical analyses to formally test improvement. Overall study quality was low, with studies often lacking a concurrent control group.ConclusionsOur review summarizes characteristics of A&F interventions implemented in the critical care context, points to some mechanisms by which A&F might be made more effective in this setting, and provides an overview of how the appropriateness of orders was reported. Our findings suggest that A&F can be effective in the context of critical care; however, further research is required to characterize approaches that optimize the effectiveness in this setting alongside more rigorous evaluation methods.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42016051941.
| S-EPMC7303577 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrimary care is a critical partner for antimicrobial stewardship efforts given its high human antibiotic usage. Peer comparison audit and feedback (A&F) is often used to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. The design and implementation of A&F may impact its effectiveness. There are no best practice guidelines for peer comparison A&F in antibiotic prescribing in primary care.ObjectiveTo develop best practice guidelines for peer comparison A&F for antibiotic prescribing in primary care in high income countries by leveraging international expertise via the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance-Primary Care Antibiotic Audit and Feedback Network.MethodsWe used a modified Delphi process to achieve convergence of expert opinions on best practice statements for peer comparison A&F based on existing evidence and theory. Three rounds were performed, each with online surveys and virtual meetings to enable discussion and rating of each best practice statement. A five-point Likert scale was used to rate consensus with a median threshold score of 4 to indicate a consensus statement.ResultsThe final set of guidelines include 13 best practice statements in four categories: general considerations (n = 3), selecting feedback recipients (n = 1), data and indicator selection (n = 4), and feedback delivery (n = 5).ConclusionWe report an expert-derived best practice recommendations for designing and evaluating peer comparison A&F for antibiotic prescribing in primary care. These 13 statements can be used by A&F designers to optimize the impact of their quality improvement interventions, and improve antibiotic prescribing in primary care.
| S-EPMC10387210 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProspective review and feedback (PRF) of antibiotic prescriptions and compulsory computerized decision support system (CDSS) are 2 strategies of antimicrobial stewardship. There are limited studies investigating their combined effects. We hypothesized that the use of on-demand (voluntary) CDSS would achieve similar patient outcomes compared with automatically triggered (compulsory) CDSS whenever broad-spectrum antibiotics are ordered.MethodsA parallel-group, 1:1 block cluster randomized crossover study was conducted in 32 medical and surgical wards from March to August 2017. CDSS use for piperacillin-tazobactam or carbapenem in the intervention clusters was at the demand of the doctor, while in the control clusters CDSS use was compulsory. PRF was continued for both arms. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality.ResultsSix hundred forty-one and 616 patients were randomized to voluntary and compulsory CDSS, respectively. There were no differences in 30-day mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.67-1.12), re-infection and re-admission rates, antibiotic duration, length of stay, or hospitalization cost. The proportion of patients receiving PRF recommendations was not significantly lower in the voluntary CDSS arm (62 [10%] vs 81 [13%]; P = .05). Appropriate indication of antibiotics was high in both arms (351/448 [78%] vs 330/433 [74%]; P = .18). However, in geriatric medicine patients where antibiotic appropriateness was <50%, prescription via compulsory CDSS resulted in a shorter length of stay and lower hospitalization cost.ConclusionsVoluntary broad-spectrum antibiotics with PRF via CDSS did not result in differing clinical outcomes, antibiotic duration, or length of stay. However, in the setting of low antibiotic appropriateness, compulsory CDSS may be beneficial.
| S-EPMC7368373 | biostudies-literature