Cargando…

1043. Love Thy Steward – Who Does Not Love Antimicrobial Stewardship?

BACKGROUND: The impact of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) depends on physician perception of antimicrobial stewardship and institutional antibiotic prescribing culture. At Rush University Medical Center (RUMC), we conducted an antimicrobial stewardship study targeting inpatient levofloxaci...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kazi, Aamir S, Sansom, Sarah, Varughese, Christy, Hodgson, Hayley A, Won, Sarah Y
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6810971/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.907
_version_ 1783462365236297728
author Kazi, Aamir S
Sansom, Sarah
Varughese, Christy
Hodgson, Hayley A
Won, Sarah Y
author_facet Kazi, Aamir S
Sansom, Sarah
Varughese, Christy
Hodgson, Hayley A
Won, Sarah Y
author_sort Kazi, Aamir S
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The impact of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) depends on physician perception of antimicrobial stewardship and institutional antibiotic prescribing culture. At Rush University Medical Center (RUMC), we conducted an antimicrobial stewardship study targeting inpatient levofloxacin (FQ) use and assessed rates of implementation of recommendations (IORs) by general medicine (GM), vs. surgical services (SS) (general surgery, urology, orthopedics and neurosurgery), vs. transplant surgery-immunocompromised host (T-ICH) teams when made by either infectious disease pharmacists (IDPharmD) or infectious disease fellows (IDMDF). METHODS: Between August 13, 2018 and January 15, 2019 at RUMC, IDPharmDs reviewed 251 inpatients on FQ, and made ASP recommendations on 36 (14%) that were communicated via telephone. No scripted discussion or note was utilized. From January 15, 2019 to April 19, 2019, an IDMDF reviewed 207 inpatients on FQ, and made ASP recommendations on 47 (22%). IDMDF’s recommendations were communicated via a scripted discussion describing the role of ASP, highlighting the importance of optimizing FQ use due to toxicity, low rates of RUMC’s FQ susceptibilities and to decrease rates of resistance. Telephone recommendations were made to the primary team house staff or attending followed by a templated electronic note left in the medical chart. Rates of IORs were assessed during each period and by each group. RESULTS: In 20 out of 83 recommendations (24%), no antibiotic was indicated (Figure 1). GM teams had the highest overall (IDPharmD + IDMDF) IOR (76%), compared with 40% IOR for both SS and T-ICH groups. For all groups, the scripted IDMDF recommendations had higher IOR compared with the nonscripted IDPharmD recommendations (GM 89% vs. 61%; SS 50% vs. 29%; T-ICH 50% vs. 0%). CONCLUSION: ASP interventions using scripted discussions and notes by an IDMDF were more effective than nonscripted IDPharmD interventions across all service lines. Both interventions were less successful with SS or T-ICH compared with GM services. These findings demonstrate the need for further research to understand the importance of scripted vs. nonscripted communication methods by pharmacists and ID physicians, and to develop alternative communication models for nongeneral medicine service providers. [Image: see text] [Image: see text] [Image: see text] DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6810971
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68109712019-10-28 1043. Love Thy Steward – Who Does Not Love Antimicrobial Stewardship? Kazi, Aamir S Sansom, Sarah Varughese, Christy Hodgson, Hayley A Won, Sarah Y Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts BACKGROUND: The impact of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) depends on physician perception of antimicrobial stewardship and institutional antibiotic prescribing culture. At Rush University Medical Center (RUMC), we conducted an antimicrobial stewardship study targeting inpatient levofloxacin (FQ) use and assessed rates of implementation of recommendations (IORs) by general medicine (GM), vs. surgical services (SS) (general surgery, urology, orthopedics and neurosurgery), vs. transplant surgery-immunocompromised host (T-ICH) teams when made by either infectious disease pharmacists (IDPharmD) or infectious disease fellows (IDMDF). METHODS: Between August 13, 2018 and January 15, 2019 at RUMC, IDPharmDs reviewed 251 inpatients on FQ, and made ASP recommendations on 36 (14%) that were communicated via telephone. No scripted discussion or note was utilized. From January 15, 2019 to April 19, 2019, an IDMDF reviewed 207 inpatients on FQ, and made ASP recommendations on 47 (22%). IDMDF’s recommendations were communicated via a scripted discussion describing the role of ASP, highlighting the importance of optimizing FQ use due to toxicity, low rates of RUMC’s FQ susceptibilities and to decrease rates of resistance. Telephone recommendations were made to the primary team house staff or attending followed by a templated electronic note left in the medical chart. Rates of IORs were assessed during each period and by each group. RESULTS: In 20 out of 83 recommendations (24%), no antibiotic was indicated (Figure 1). GM teams had the highest overall (IDPharmD + IDMDF) IOR (76%), compared with 40% IOR for both SS and T-ICH groups. For all groups, the scripted IDMDF recommendations had higher IOR compared with the nonscripted IDPharmD recommendations (GM 89% vs. 61%; SS 50% vs. 29%; T-ICH 50% vs. 0%). CONCLUSION: ASP interventions using scripted discussions and notes by an IDMDF were more effective than nonscripted IDPharmD interventions across all service lines. Both interventions were less successful with SS or T-ICH compared with GM services. These findings demonstrate the need for further research to understand the importance of scripted vs. nonscripted communication methods by pharmacists and ID physicians, and to develop alternative communication models for nongeneral medicine service providers. [Image: see text] [Image: see text] [Image: see text] DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures. Oxford University Press 2019-10-23 /pmc/articles/PMC6810971/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.907 Text en © The Author(s) 2019. 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
Kazi, Aamir S
Sansom, Sarah
Varughese, Christy
Hodgson, Hayley A
Won, Sarah Y
1043. Love Thy Steward – Who Does Not Love Antimicrobial Stewardship?
title 1043. Love Thy Steward – Who Does Not Love Antimicrobial Stewardship?
title_full 1043. Love Thy Steward – Who Does Not Love Antimicrobial Stewardship?
title_fullStr 1043. Love Thy Steward – Who Does Not Love Antimicrobial Stewardship?
title_full_unstemmed 1043. Love Thy Steward – Who Does Not Love Antimicrobial Stewardship?
title_short 1043. Love Thy Steward – Who Does Not Love Antimicrobial Stewardship?
title_sort 1043. love thy steward – who does not love antimicrobial stewardship?
topic Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6810971/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.907
work_keys_str_mv AT kaziaamirs 1043lovethystewardwhodoesnotloveantimicrobialstewardship
AT sansomsarah 1043lovethystewardwhodoesnotloveantimicrobialstewardship
AT varughesechristy 1043lovethystewardwhodoesnotloveantimicrobialstewardship
AT hodgsonhayleya 1043lovethystewardwhodoesnotloveantimicrobialstewardship
AT wonsarahy 1043lovethystewardwhodoesnotloveantimicrobialstewardship