Cargando…

111. Impact of Microbiology Laboratory Result Presentation on Antibiotic Stewardship: Process Use Evaluation

BACKGROUND: Advancements in laboratory diagnostics are constantly occurring and accuracy in interpreting results directly affects optimal patient care. The purpose of this process use evaluation was to assess the efficacy of our current presentation of microbiology results in facilitating appropriat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Brummett, Christina M, Harding, Stephanie, Beadle, Kathy, Jones, Shelley
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7777856/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.156
_version_ 1783631000817893376
author Brummett, Christina M
Harding, Stephanie
Beadle, Kathy
Jones, Shelley
author_facet Brummett, Christina M
Harding, Stephanie
Beadle, Kathy
Jones, Shelley
author_sort Brummett, Christina M
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Advancements in laboratory diagnostics are constantly occurring and accuracy in interpreting results directly affects optimal patient care. The purpose of this process use evaluation was to assess the efficacy of our current presentation of microbiology results in facilitating appropriate clinical decisions and antibiotic stewardship. METHODS: A six question multiple choice survey was sent to prescribers and pharmacists. Each question used our healthcare system’s current presentation of microbiology results. The recipients were asked to make a clinical decision based on patient history and results presented. The topics surveyed included de-escalation of antibiotics based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for positive blood cultures (Image 1), evaluation of C. difficile PCR and enzyme immunoassays (Image 2), impact of recent immunization on results of S. pneumoniae urine antigen (Image 3), susceptibilities of Group C Streptococcus and H. influenzae (Images 4 and 5), and understanding of minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC, Image 6). The anonymous surveys were collected either electronically or by paper. Image 1 [Image: see text] Image 2 [Image: see text] RESULTS: Several trends were seen in the 64 responses received (n, %). Questions with lab results containing detailed comments with guidance on how to interpret the results had the highest percentage of correct responses. This included our C. difficile (59, 92%) and S. pneumoniae urine antigen (61, 95%) results. Culture results with presumed susceptibilities and/or lack of guidance (H. influenzae (55, 86%); Group C Streptococcus (46, 72%)) had lower rates of correct interpretation and resulted in provider reluctance to de-escalate antibiotics. A similar trend was seen with the word “presumptive” on blood culture results by PCR (37, 58%). MICs were frequently misinterpreted as being able to compare activity between antibiotics (46, 72%). Image 3 [Image: see text] Image 4 [Image: see text] Image 5 [Image: see text] CONCLUSION: This study highlights that stewardship programs should focus on how lab results are reported and interpreted and should work with their microbiology lab to determine the presentation of results. Additions of detailed interpretations to Microbiology results may lead to improved de-escalation and antibiotic selection. Image 6 [Image: see text] DISCLOSURES: All Authors: No reported disclosures
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7777856
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77778562021-01-07 111. Impact of Microbiology Laboratory Result Presentation on Antibiotic Stewardship: Process Use Evaluation Brummett, Christina M Harding, Stephanie Beadle, Kathy Jones, Shelley Open Forum Infect Dis Poster Abstracts BACKGROUND: Advancements in laboratory diagnostics are constantly occurring and accuracy in interpreting results directly affects optimal patient care. The purpose of this process use evaluation was to assess the efficacy of our current presentation of microbiology results in facilitating appropriate clinical decisions and antibiotic stewardship. METHODS: A six question multiple choice survey was sent to prescribers and pharmacists. Each question used our healthcare system’s current presentation of microbiology results. The recipients were asked to make a clinical decision based on patient history and results presented. The topics surveyed included de-escalation of antibiotics based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for positive blood cultures (Image 1), evaluation of C. difficile PCR and enzyme immunoassays (Image 2), impact of recent immunization on results of S. pneumoniae urine antigen (Image 3), susceptibilities of Group C Streptococcus and H. influenzae (Images 4 and 5), and understanding of minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC, Image 6). The anonymous surveys were collected either electronically or by paper. Image 1 [Image: see text] Image 2 [Image: see text] RESULTS: Several trends were seen in the 64 responses received (n, %). Questions with lab results containing detailed comments with guidance on how to interpret the results had the highest percentage of correct responses. This included our C. difficile (59, 92%) and S. pneumoniae urine antigen (61, 95%) results. Culture results with presumed susceptibilities and/or lack of guidance (H. influenzae (55, 86%); Group C Streptococcus (46, 72%)) had lower rates of correct interpretation and resulted in provider reluctance to de-escalate antibiotics. A similar trend was seen with the word “presumptive” on blood culture results by PCR (37, 58%). MICs were frequently misinterpreted as being able to compare activity between antibiotics (46, 72%). Image 3 [Image: see text] Image 4 [Image: see text] Image 5 [Image: see text] CONCLUSION: This study highlights that stewardship programs should focus on how lab results are reported and interpreted and should work with their microbiology lab to determine the presentation of results. Additions of detailed interpretations to Microbiology results may lead to improved de-escalation and antibiotic selection. Image 6 [Image: see text] DISCLOSURES: All Authors: No reported disclosures Oxford University Press 2020-12-31 /pmc/articles/PMC7777856/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.156 Text en © The Author 2020. 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 Poster Abstracts
Brummett, Christina M
Harding, Stephanie
Beadle, Kathy
Jones, Shelley
111. Impact of Microbiology Laboratory Result Presentation on Antibiotic Stewardship: Process Use Evaluation
title 111. Impact of Microbiology Laboratory Result Presentation on Antibiotic Stewardship: Process Use Evaluation
title_full 111. Impact of Microbiology Laboratory Result Presentation on Antibiotic Stewardship: Process Use Evaluation
title_fullStr 111. Impact of Microbiology Laboratory Result Presentation on Antibiotic Stewardship: Process Use Evaluation
title_full_unstemmed 111. Impact of Microbiology Laboratory Result Presentation on Antibiotic Stewardship: Process Use Evaluation
title_short 111. Impact of Microbiology Laboratory Result Presentation on Antibiotic Stewardship: Process Use Evaluation
title_sort 111. impact of microbiology laboratory result presentation on antibiotic stewardship: process use evaluation
topic Poster Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7777856/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.156
work_keys_str_mv AT brummettchristinam 111impactofmicrobiologylaboratoryresultpresentationonantibioticstewardshipprocessuseevaluation
AT hardingstephanie 111impactofmicrobiologylaboratoryresultpresentationonantibioticstewardshipprocessuseevaluation
AT beadlekathy 111impactofmicrobiologylaboratoryresultpresentationonantibioticstewardshipprocessuseevaluation
AT jonesshelley 111impactofmicrobiologylaboratoryresultpresentationonantibioticstewardshipprocessuseevaluation