Cargando…

Implementation of an Antimicrobial Restriction Policy: Is the “Paper” More Persuasive?

BACKGROUND: Two core interventions recommended by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) for antimicrobial stewardship are pre-authorization (PA) and prospective audit and feedback (PAF). The objective of this study is to examine the impact of implementation of a PA method in the form of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hayes, Lisa, Smith, Russell, Duggan, Joan, Georgescu, Claudiu, Cole, Kelli
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5631933/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx163.574
_version_ 1783269594135265280
author Hayes, Lisa
Smith, Russell
Duggan, Joan
Georgescu, Claudiu
Cole, Kelli
author_facet Hayes, Lisa
Smith, Russell
Duggan, Joan
Georgescu, Claudiu
Cole, Kelli
author_sort Hayes, Lisa
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Two core interventions recommended by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) for antimicrobial stewardship are pre-authorization (PA) and prospective audit and feedback (PAF). The objective of this study is to examine the impact of implementation of a PA method in the form of a restrictive antimicrobial policy (effective January 1, 2016) compared with PAF alone. METHODS: IRB-approved, single-center, pre-post quasi-experiment including all inpatients at the University of Toledo Medical Center from September 1,2015–April 30, 2016 who received >/ = 1 dose of meropenem, linezolid, or micafungin. Patients readmitted in the study period and received additional doses of the same study drug were excluded. Primary endpoint: rate of meeting hospital-approved criteria for use at or before 72 hours. Secondary endpoints: length of therapy (LOT), incidence of C. difficile, in-hospital mortality, and 30-day all-cause mortality. All statistical analyses performed using SPSS V.21. RESULTS: 434 antibiotic courses screened, 366 included: 183 pre-, 183 post-policy, representing 319 unique hospitalizations for 307 unique patients; 55.4% male, median (IQR) age 62.8 (51.1–71.0) years and 41% ICU. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, except diabetes, parenteral nutrition therapy, and The presence of an indwelling device prior to admission. Rate of meeting policy criteria at 72 hours was 49.7% pre- vs. 56.8% post-policy (P = 0.174) and rate of discontinuation/de-escalation at 72 hours was 20.2% vs. 26.8% (P = 0.140). Length of therapy was not significantly different. Additional secondary endpoints are shown in Table 1. CONCLUSION: Although not statistically significant, implementation of a PA policy led to an increase in meeting hospital-approved criteria for use at 72 hours of therapy. The number of orders stopped or de-escalated at 72 hours increased as well. No additional harm was seen, evidenced by similar rates of mortality and C. difficile. Further study is warranted to determine whether the impact of the policy improves over time. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5631933
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56319332017-11-07 Implementation of an Antimicrobial Restriction Policy: Is the “Paper” More Persuasive? Hayes, Lisa Smith, Russell Duggan, Joan Georgescu, Claudiu Cole, Kelli Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts BACKGROUND: Two core interventions recommended by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) for antimicrobial stewardship are pre-authorization (PA) and prospective audit and feedback (PAF). The objective of this study is to examine the impact of implementation of a PA method in the form of a restrictive antimicrobial policy (effective January 1, 2016) compared with PAF alone. METHODS: IRB-approved, single-center, pre-post quasi-experiment including all inpatients at the University of Toledo Medical Center from September 1,2015–April 30, 2016 who received >/ = 1 dose of meropenem, linezolid, or micafungin. Patients readmitted in the study period and received additional doses of the same study drug were excluded. Primary endpoint: rate of meeting hospital-approved criteria for use at or before 72 hours. Secondary endpoints: length of therapy (LOT), incidence of C. difficile, in-hospital mortality, and 30-day all-cause mortality. All statistical analyses performed using SPSS V.21. RESULTS: 434 antibiotic courses screened, 366 included: 183 pre-, 183 post-policy, representing 319 unique hospitalizations for 307 unique patients; 55.4% male, median (IQR) age 62.8 (51.1–71.0) years and 41% ICU. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, except diabetes, parenteral nutrition therapy, and The presence of an indwelling device prior to admission. Rate of meeting policy criteria at 72 hours was 49.7% pre- vs. 56.8% post-policy (P = 0.174) and rate of discontinuation/de-escalation at 72 hours was 20.2% vs. 26.8% (P = 0.140). Length of therapy was not significantly different. Additional secondary endpoints are shown in Table 1. CONCLUSION: Although not statistically significant, implementation of a PA policy led to an increase in meeting hospital-approved criteria for use at 72 hours of therapy. The number of orders stopped or de-escalated at 72 hours increased as well. No additional harm was seen, evidenced by similar rates of mortality and C. difficile. Further study is warranted to determine whether the impact of the policy improves over time. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures. Oxford University Press 2017-10-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5631933/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx163.574 Text en © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Abstracts
Hayes, Lisa
Smith, Russell
Duggan, Joan
Georgescu, Claudiu
Cole, Kelli
Implementation of an Antimicrobial Restriction Policy: Is the “Paper” More Persuasive?
title Implementation of an Antimicrobial Restriction Policy: Is the “Paper” More Persuasive?
title_full Implementation of an Antimicrobial Restriction Policy: Is the “Paper” More Persuasive?
title_fullStr Implementation of an Antimicrobial Restriction Policy: Is the “Paper” More Persuasive?
title_full_unstemmed Implementation of an Antimicrobial Restriction Policy: Is the “Paper” More Persuasive?
title_short Implementation of an Antimicrobial Restriction Policy: Is the “Paper” More Persuasive?
title_sort implementation of an antimicrobial restriction policy: is the “paper” more persuasive?
topic Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5631933/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx163.574
work_keys_str_mv AT hayeslisa implementationofanantimicrobialrestrictionpolicyisthepapermorepersuasive
AT smithrussell implementationofanantimicrobialrestrictionpolicyisthepapermorepersuasive
AT dugganjoan implementationofanantimicrobialrestrictionpolicyisthepapermorepersuasive
AT georgescuclaudiu implementationofanantimicrobialrestrictionpolicyisthepapermorepersuasive
AT colekelli implementationofanantimicrobialrestrictionpolicyisthepapermorepersuasive