Cargando…

1261. Prospective Audit and Feedback Approach Differs between Antimicrobial Stewardship Professions

BACKGROUND: Implementing effective antimicrobial stewardship interventions is an important component of antimicrobial stewardship programs. Recently, stewardship research has shown that clinician characteristics may have an impact on antimicrobial stewardship intervention methods and acceptance rate...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ausman, Sara, Mara, Kristin, Brown, Caitlin, Epps, Kevin L, Kooda, Kirstin, Mendez, Julio C, Rivera (O'Connor), Christina G
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10678029/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofad500.1101
_version_ 1785150269092265984
author Ausman, Sara
Mara, Kristin
Brown, Caitlin
Epps, Kevin L
Kooda, Kirstin
Mendez, Julio C
Rivera (O'Connor), Christina G
author_facet Ausman, Sara
Mara, Kristin
Brown, Caitlin
Epps, Kevin L
Kooda, Kirstin
Mendez, Julio C
Rivera (O'Connor), Christina G
author_sort Ausman, Sara
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Implementing effective antimicrobial stewardship interventions is an important component of antimicrobial stewardship programs. Recently, stewardship research has shown that clinician characteristics may have an impact on antimicrobial stewardship intervention methods and acceptance rates. METHODS: A multisite health system antimicrobial stewardship prospective audit and feedback program interventions performed by stewardship staff using a standardized electronic medical record (EMR) tool were compared by stewardship clinician profession (pharmacist, physician, or advanced practice provider, APP) from 7/1/2017 to 6/30/2022. Outcomes assessed were intervention rates, communication methods, and intervention acceptance by patient age and intensive care unit (ICU) status of patient. Generalized estimating equations utilizing logistic regression were used to assess for associations between staff. Associations were assessed both univariately and after adjusting for other factors. RESULTS: Of 69,503 prospective audit and feedback EMR based rules, there were 14,699 rules associated with an intervention. The majority of rules were reviewed by pharmacists (90.7%) followed by physician (9.2%) and APP (< 1%). Of 9,034 interventions with an outcome documented, 7326 (85.5%) pharmacist interventions were accepted and 360 (77.3%) physician interventions were accepted (adjusted p=0.047).  Pharmacists intervened by direct action (ie, adjust a medication order) in 6.6% of interventions; whereas, physicians did so rarely (0.4%). Pharmacists were more likely to use synchronous communication than physicians in the adjusted model (pharmacist vs. physician: 63.8% vs 52.5%; p=0.004). Patients in the ICU had a significantly lower intervention acceptance rate (non-ICU vs. ICU: 86.6% vs. 78.0%; adjusted OR 0.57 [95% CI 0.46-0.70], p< 0.001). [Figure: see text] *% are reported as row % **Multivariable model was also adjusted for day of week and time of day APP-Advanced practice provider; ICU-intensive care unit [Figure: see text] *% are reported as row % **Multivariable model was also adjusted for day of week and time of day APP-Advanced practice provider; ICU-intensive care unit CONCLUSION: Antimicrobial stewardship pharmacists and physicians are both effective at prospective audit and feedback but used different intervention styles. Advanced practice providers were vastly underrepresented. Patients in the ICU may benefit from tailored ASP efforts. DISCLOSURES: Sara Ausman, PharmD, Gilead: Honoraria Caitlin Brown, PharmD, Alexion: Grant/Research Support|Trevena: Advisor/Consultant Christina G. Rivera (O'Connor), Pharm.D, Gilead Sciences: Advisor/Consultant|Gilead Sciences: Board Member|Gilead Sciences: Grant/Research Support|Gilead Sciences: Honoraria
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10678029
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106780292023-11-27 1261. Prospective Audit and Feedback Approach Differs between Antimicrobial Stewardship Professions Ausman, Sara Mara, Kristin Brown, Caitlin Epps, Kevin L Kooda, Kirstin Mendez, Julio C Rivera (O'Connor), Christina G Open Forum Infect Dis Abstract BACKGROUND: Implementing effective antimicrobial stewardship interventions is an important component of antimicrobial stewardship programs. Recently, stewardship research has shown that clinician characteristics may have an impact on antimicrobial stewardship intervention methods and acceptance rates. METHODS: A multisite health system antimicrobial stewardship prospective audit and feedback program interventions performed by stewardship staff using a standardized electronic medical record (EMR) tool were compared by stewardship clinician profession (pharmacist, physician, or advanced practice provider, APP) from 7/1/2017 to 6/30/2022. Outcomes assessed were intervention rates, communication methods, and intervention acceptance by patient age and intensive care unit (ICU) status of patient. Generalized estimating equations utilizing logistic regression were used to assess for associations between staff. Associations were assessed both univariately and after adjusting for other factors. RESULTS: Of 69,503 prospective audit and feedback EMR based rules, there were 14,699 rules associated with an intervention. The majority of rules were reviewed by pharmacists (90.7%) followed by physician (9.2%) and APP (< 1%). Of 9,034 interventions with an outcome documented, 7326 (85.5%) pharmacist interventions were accepted and 360 (77.3%) physician interventions were accepted (adjusted p=0.047).  Pharmacists intervened by direct action (ie, adjust a medication order) in 6.6% of interventions; whereas, physicians did so rarely (0.4%). Pharmacists were more likely to use synchronous communication than physicians in the adjusted model (pharmacist vs. physician: 63.8% vs 52.5%; p=0.004). Patients in the ICU had a significantly lower intervention acceptance rate (non-ICU vs. ICU: 86.6% vs. 78.0%; adjusted OR 0.57 [95% CI 0.46-0.70], p< 0.001). [Figure: see text] *% are reported as row % **Multivariable model was also adjusted for day of week and time of day APP-Advanced practice provider; ICU-intensive care unit [Figure: see text] *% are reported as row % **Multivariable model was also adjusted for day of week and time of day APP-Advanced practice provider; ICU-intensive care unit CONCLUSION: Antimicrobial stewardship pharmacists and physicians are both effective at prospective audit and feedback but used different intervention styles. Advanced practice providers were vastly underrepresented. Patients in the ICU may benefit from tailored ASP efforts. DISCLOSURES: Sara Ausman, PharmD, Gilead: Honoraria Caitlin Brown, PharmD, Alexion: Grant/Research Support|Trevena: Advisor/Consultant Christina G. Rivera (O'Connor), Pharm.D, Gilead Sciences: Advisor/Consultant|Gilead Sciences: Board Member|Gilead Sciences: Grant/Research Support|Gilead Sciences: Honoraria Oxford University Press 2023-11-27 /pmc/articles/PMC10678029/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofad500.1101 Text en © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Abstract
Ausman, Sara
Mara, Kristin
Brown, Caitlin
Epps, Kevin L
Kooda, Kirstin
Mendez, Julio C
Rivera (O'Connor), Christina G
1261. Prospective Audit and Feedback Approach Differs between Antimicrobial Stewardship Professions
title 1261. Prospective Audit and Feedback Approach Differs between Antimicrobial Stewardship Professions
title_full 1261. Prospective Audit and Feedback Approach Differs between Antimicrobial Stewardship Professions
title_fullStr 1261. Prospective Audit and Feedback Approach Differs between Antimicrobial Stewardship Professions
title_full_unstemmed 1261. Prospective Audit and Feedback Approach Differs between Antimicrobial Stewardship Professions
title_short 1261. Prospective Audit and Feedback Approach Differs between Antimicrobial Stewardship Professions
title_sort 1261. prospective audit and feedback approach differs between antimicrobial stewardship professions
topic Abstract
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10678029/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofad500.1101
work_keys_str_mv AT ausmansara 1261prospectiveauditandfeedbackapproachdiffersbetweenantimicrobialstewardshipprofessions
AT marakristin 1261prospectiveauditandfeedbackapproachdiffersbetweenantimicrobialstewardshipprofessions
AT browncaitlin 1261prospectiveauditandfeedbackapproachdiffersbetweenantimicrobialstewardshipprofessions
AT eppskevinl 1261prospectiveauditandfeedbackapproachdiffersbetweenantimicrobialstewardshipprofessions
AT koodakirstin 1261prospectiveauditandfeedbackapproachdiffersbetweenantimicrobialstewardshipprofessions
AT mendezjulioc 1261prospectiveauditandfeedbackapproachdiffersbetweenantimicrobialstewardshipprofessions
AT riveraoconnorchristinag 1261prospectiveauditandfeedbackapproachdiffersbetweenantimicrobialstewardshipprofessions