Cargando…

Evaluating the Prevalence of Leading Practices in Antimicrobial Stewardship

Background: Most hospitals have a basic infrastructure in place for antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs). Although this is a critical first step, we need to ensure that ASPs are working to implement effective evidence-based approaches nationally. In 2018, a group of leading antibiotic stewardsh...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Braun, Barbara, Chitavi, Salome, Stenehjem, Eddie, Khan, Mushira, Baker, David, Hyun, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cambridge University Press 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9551416/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ash.2021.75
_version_ 1784806094269317120
author Braun, Barbara
Chitavi, Salome
Stenehjem, Eddie
Khan, Mushira
Baker, David
Hyun, David
author_facet Braun, Barbara
Chitavi, Salome
Stenehjem, Eddie
Khan, Mushira
Baker, David
Hyun, David
author_sort Braun, Barbara
collection PubMed
description Background: Most hospitals have a basic infrastructure in place for antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs). Although this is a critical first step, we need to ensure that ASPs are working to implement effective evidence-based approaches nationally. In 2018, a group of leading antibiotic stewardship organizations met and identified specific, effective, and recommended ASP activities based on current scientific evidence and their experience (Baker et al, Joint Comm J Qual Pat Saf 2019;45:517–523). To determine the extent to which hospitals are currently implementing the recommended practices, we conducted an electronic questionnaire–based assessment. Methods: A 50-item questionnaire-based assessment was sent via QualtricsTM to the hospital’s designated ASP leader. The sample comprised 992 Joint Commission accredited hospitals. The practices of interest related to (1) development of facility-specific treatment guidelines, (2) measuring appropriate use and concordance of care with these guidelines, (3) engaging clinicians while the patient is on the unit, (4) diagnostic stewardship, (5) measurement of antimicrobial utilization data, and (6) measuring hospital-acquired Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) rates. Sampling weights were used to adjust the results for nonresponse using R software. Results: In total, 288 hospitals completed the questionnaire. Small and nonteaching hospitals were significantly less likely to respond (p < 0.005, p=0.01 respectively), however there were no differences by healthcare system membership or urban/rural location. 49% of respondents had the specialist term ASP or infectious disease (ID) in their title. Most hospitals (93.1%) had developed facility-specific treatment guidelines for specific inpatient conditions, often community-acquired pneumonia (85%), sepsis (81%), UTI (75%), and SSTI (69%). However, only 37% had formally assessed compliance with 1 or more of these guidelines. Also, 83% reported having a process for prospective audit and feedback, of which 43% do this 4–5 days per week. Similarly, 49% reported that they review all antimicrobials ordered. Recommendations are commonly given by the ASP pharmacist (69%) via some combination of telephone (78%), face-to-face (69%), text message (54%), and/or EHR alert (36%). Overall, 66% of hospitals had procedures in place to prevent inappropriate diagnostic testing for C. difficile, and 39% of hospitals had similar policies for urine specimens. Furthermore, >80% were routinely measuring days of therapy and CDI rates. Conclusions: Most hospitals have facility-specific treatment guidelines and measure CDI and days of therapy. Practices for active engagement with frontline staff in prospective audit and feedback vary widely. Greater understanding of barriers to assessing adherence to hospitals’ treatment guidelines is critical to improving this practice. Funding: The Pew Charitable Trusts Disclosures: None
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9551416
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Cambridge University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95514162022-10-12 Evaluating the Prevalence of Leading Practices in Antimicrobial Stewardship Braun, Barbara Chitavi, Salome Stenehjem, Eddie Khan, Mushira Baker, David Hyun, David Antimicrob Steward Healthc Epidemiol Antibiotic Stewardship Background: Most hospitals have a basic infrastructure in place for antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs). Although this is a critical first step, we need to ensure that ASPs are working to implement effective evidence-based approaches nationally. In 2018, a group of leading antibiotic stewardship organizations met and identified specific, effective, and recommended ASP activities based on current scientific evidence and their experience (Baker et al, Joint Comm J Qual Pat Saf 2019;45:517–523). To determine the extent to which hospitals are currently implementing the recommended practices, we conducted an electronic questionnaire–based assessment. Methods: A 50-item questionnaire-based assessment was sent via QualtricsTM to the hospital’s designated ASP leader. The sample comprised 992 Joint Commission accredited hospitals. The practices of interest related to (1) development of facility-specific treatment guidelines, (2) measuring appropriate use and concordance of care with these guidelines, (3) engaging clinicians while the patient is on the unit, (4) diagnostic stewardship, (5) measurement of antimicrobial utilization data, and (6) measuring hospital-acquired Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) rates. Sampling weights were used to adjust the results for nonresponse using R software. Results: In total, 288 hospitals completed the questionnaire. Small and nonteaching hospitals were significantly less likely to respond (p < 0.005, p=0.01 respectively), however there were no differences by healthcare system membership or urban/rural location. 49% of respondents had the specialist term ASP or infectious disease (ID) in their title. Most hospitals (93.1%) had developed facility-specific treatment guidelines for specific inpatient conditions, often community-acquired pneumonia (85%), sepsis (81%), UTI (75%), and SSTI (69%). However, only 37% had formally assessed compliance with 1 or more of these guidelines. Also, 83% reported having a process for prospective audit and feedback, of which 43% do this 4–5 days per week. Similarly, 49% reported that they review all antimicrobials ordered. Recommendations are commonly given by the ASP pharmacist (69%) via some combination of telephone (78%), face-to-face (69%), text message (54%), and/or EHR alert (36%). Overall, 66% of hospitals had procedures in place to prevent inappropriate diagnostic testing for C. difficile, and 39% of hospitals had similar policies for urine specimens. Furthermore, >80% were routinely measuring days of therapy and CDI rates. Conclusions: Most hospitals have facility-specific treatment guidelines and measure CDI and days of therapy. Practices for active engagement with frontline staff in prospective audit and feedback vary widely. Greater understanding of barriers to assessing adherence to hospitals’ treatment guidelines is critical to improving this practice. Funding: The Pew Charitable Trusts Disclosures: None Cambridge University Press 2021-07-29 /pmc/articles/PMC9551416/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ash.2021.75 Text en © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Antibiotic Stewardship
Braun, Barbara
Chitavi, Salome
Stenehjem, Eddie
Khan, Mushira
Baker, David
Hyun, David
Evaluating the Prevalence of Leading Practices in Antimicrobial Stewardship
title Evaluating the Prevalence of Leading Practices in Antimicrobial Stewardship
title_full Evaluating the Prevalence of Leading Practices in Antimicrobial Stewardship
title_fullStr Evaluating the Prevalence of Leading Practices in Antimicrobial Stewardship
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating the Prevalence of Leading Practices in Antimicrobial Stewardship
title_short Evaluating the Prevalence of Leading Practices in Antimicrobial Stewardship
title_sort evaluating the prevalence of leading practices in antimicrobial stewardship
topic Antibiotic Stewardship
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9551416/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ash.2021.75
work_keys_str_mv AT braunbarbara evaluatingtheprevalenceofleadingpracticesinantimicrobialstewardship
AT chitavisalome evaluatingtheprevalenceofleadingpracticesinantimicrobialstewardship
AT stenehjemeddie evaluatingtheprevalenceofleadingpracticesinantimicrobialstewardship
AT khanmushira evaluatingtheprevalenceofleadingpracticesinantimicrobialstewardship
AT bakerdavid evaluatingtheprevalenceofleadingpracticesinantimicrobialstewardship
AT hyundavid evaluatingtheprevalenceofleadingpracticesinantimicrobialstewardship