Cargando…
1596. Thinking Locally: Can Unit-Specific Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Screening Augment Stewardship Interventions for Febrile Neutropenia?
BACKGROUND: Inappropriate IV vancomycin prescribing for febrile neutropenia (FN) is an excellent stewardship target given well-established guidelines specifying indications for its use. As a supplement to an educational initiative with institutional FN guidelines, we conducted methicillin-resistant...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6253358/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy210.1424 |
_version_ | 1783373480747597824 |
---|---|
author | Bartash, Rachel Ostrowsky, Belinda Binder, Adam Cowman, Kelsie Sheridan, Carol Guo, Yi Levi, Michael Szymczak, Wendy Gialanella, Philip Nori, Priya |
author_facet | Bartash, Rachel Ostrowsky, Belinda Binder, Adam Cowman, Kelsie Sheridan, Carol Guo, Yi Levi, Michael Szymczak, Wendy Gialanella, Philip Nori, Priya |
author_sort | Bartash, Rachel |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Inappropriate IV vancomycin prescribing for febrile neutropenia (FN) is an excellent stewardship target given well-established guidelines specifying indications for its use. As a supplement to an educational initiative with institutional FN guidelines, we conducted methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization screening to estimate its prevalence on our hematology/oncology unit. We hypothesize that MRSA prevalence data can augment existing stewardship efforts to improve IV vancomycin use in FN. METHODS: (1) Pre-intervention: we conducted a retrospective chart review of vancomycin receipt for FN on a 32-bed Hematology/Oncology unit, November 2015–May 2016 (control group). (2) Intervention: in January 2017, we implemented an institutional FN guideline with recurring education to hematology/oncology providers emphasizing criteria for appropriate vancomycin initiation. Vancomycin audit was again conducted from February 2017–October 2017 (intervention group). The primary outcome was appropriateness of vancomycin use per guideline indications (chi-squared analysis). Use was considered inappropriate if no guideline indications were met. (3) MRSA screening: cultures were obtained from the nares, axilla and groin on admission and bimonthly for 6 weeks and plated on CHROMagar. Screened patients were followed for 5 months for the occurrence of clinical MRSA infection. RESULTS: Forty-three of 88 controls were started on vancomycin appropriately vs. 60 of 91 intervention group patients (49% vs. 66%, P = 0.02). Results of MRSA screening and follow-up for invasive infection are shown in Table 1. [Image: see text] CONCLUSION: Recurring, guideline-focused education can improve appropriateness of vancomycin for FN. High NPV in our study supports the hypothesis that MRSA screening can augment stewardship efforts to reduce vancomycin use when not indicated. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6253358 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-62533582018-11-28 1596. Thinking Locally: Can Unit-Specific Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Screening Augment Stewardship Interventions for Febrile Neutropenia? Bartash, Rachel Ostrowsky, Belinda Binder, Adam Cowman, Kelsie Sheridan, Carol Guo, Yi Levi, Michael Szymczak, Wendy Gialanella, Philip Nori, Priya Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts BACKGROUND: Inappropriate IV vancomycin prescribing for febrile neutropenia (FN) is an excellent stewardship target given well-established guidelines specifying indications for its use. As a supplement to an educational initiative with institutional FN guidelines, we conducted methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization screening to estimate its prevalence on our hematology/oncology unit. We hypothesize that MRSA prevalence data can augment existing stewardship efforts to improve IV vancomycin use in FN. METHODS: (1) Pre-intervention: we conducted a retrospective chart review of vancomycin receipt for FN on a 32-bed Hematology/Oncology unit, November 2015–May 2016 (control group). (2) Intervention: in January 2017, we implemented an institutional FN guideline with recurring education to hematology/oncology providers emphasizing criteria for appropriate vancomycin initiation. Vancomycin audit was again conducted from February 2017–October 2017 (intervention group). The primary outcome was appropriateness of vancomycin use per guideline indications (chi-squared analysis). Use was considered inappropriate if no guideline indications were met. (3) MRSA screening: cultures were obtained from the nares, axilla and groin on admission and bimonthly for 6 weeks and plated on CHROMagar. Screened patients were followed for 5 months for the occurrence of clinical MRSA infection. RESULTS: Forty-three of 88 controls were started on vancomycin appropriately vs. 60 of 91 intervention group patients (49% vs. 66%, P = 0.02). Results of MRSA screening and follow-up for invasive infection are shown in Table 1. [Image: see text] CONCLUSION: Recurring, guideline-focused education can improve appropriateness of vancomycin for FN. High NPV in our study supports the hypothesis that MRSA screening can augment stewardship efforts to reduce vancomycin use when not indicated. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures. Oxford University Press 2018-11-26 /pmc/articles/PMC6253358/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy210.1424 Text en © The Author(s) 2018. 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 Bartash, Rachel Ostrowsky, Belinda Binder, Adam Cowman, Kelsie Sheridan, Carol Guo, Yi Levi, Michael Szymczak, Wendy Gialanella, Philip Nori, Priya 1596. Thinking Locally: Can Unit-Specific Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Screening Augment Stewardship Interventions for Febrile Neutropenia? |
title | 1596. Thinking Locally: Can Unit-Specific Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Screening Augment Stewardship Interventions for Febrile Neutropenia? |
title_full | 1596. Thinking Locally: Can Unit-Specific Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Screening Augment Stewardship Interventions for Febrile Neutropenia? |
title_fullStr | 1596. Thinking Locally: Can Unit-Specific Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Screening Augment Stewardship Interventions for Febrile Neutropenia? |
title_full_unstemmed | 1596. Thinking Locally: Can Unit-Specific Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Screening Augment Stewardship Interventions for Febrile Neutropenia? |
title_short | 1596. Thinking Locally: Can Unit-Specific Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Screening Augment Stewardship Interventions for Febrile Neutropenia? |
title_sort | 1596. thinking locally: can unit-specific methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus screening augment stewardship interventions for febrile neutropenia? |
topic | Abstracts |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6253358/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy210.1424 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bartashrachel 1596thinkinglocallycanunitspecificmethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureusscreeningaugmentstewardshipinterventionsforfebrileneutropenia AT ostrowskybelinda 1596thinkinglocallycanunitspecificmethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureusscreeningaugmentstewardshipinterventionsforfebrileneutropenia AT binderadam 1596thinkinglocallycanunitspecificmethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureusscreeningaugmentstewardshipinterventionsforfebrileneutropenia AT cowmankelsie 1596thinkinglocallycanunitspecificmethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureusscreeningaugmentstewardshipinterventionsforfebrileneutropenia AT sheridancarol 1596thinkinglocallycanunitspecificmethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureusscreeningaugmentstewardshipinterventionsforfebrileneutropenia AT guoyi 1596thinkinglocallycanunitspecificmethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureusscreeningaugmentstewardshipinterventionsforfebrileneutropenia AT levimichael 1596thinkinglocallycanunitspecificmethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureusscreeningaugmentstewardshipinterventionsforfebrileneutropenia AT szymczakwendy 1596thinkinglocallycanunitspecificmethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureusscreeningaugmentstewardshipinterventionsforfebrileneutropenia AT gialanellaphilip 1596thinkinglocallycanunitspecificmethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureusscreeningaugmentstewardshipinterventionsforfebrileneutropenia AT noripriya 1596thinkinglocallycanunitspecificmethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureusscreeningaugmentstewardshipinterventionsforfebrileneutropenia |