Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T12:43:18.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Driving antimicrobial use improvement: attitudes of providers of adult hospital care on optimal attribution and feedback

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 June 2018

Tara H. Lines*
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmacy, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
Whitney J. Nesbitt
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmacy, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
George E. Nelson
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
*
Author for correspondence: Tara H. Lines, Department of Pharmacy, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1211 Medical Center Dr., VUH B-131, Nashville, TN 37232. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract

Understanding provider perceptions of antimicrobial use (AU) feedback is important for optimal implementation. A survey addressing AU attribution scenarios, feedback methods, and implementation barriers was distributed to inpatient providers. As AU scenarios became more complex, disagreement regarding AU attribution arose. All providers were highly concerned about barriers to AU reporting.

Type
Concise Communication
Copyright
© 2018 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved. 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Presidential Advisory Committee on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria. National action plan for combating antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. https://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/pdf/national_action_plan_for_combating_antibotic-resistant_bacteria.pdf. Published March 2015. Accessed July 25, 2017.Google Scholar
2. Antimicrobial use and resistance (AUR) module. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/PDFs/pscManual/11pscAURcurrent.pdf. Published 2017. Accessed October 17, 2017.Google Scholar
3. Hafner, JM, Williams, SC, Koss, RG, Tschurtz, BA, Schmaltz, SP, Loeb, JM. The perceived impact of public reporting hospital performance data: interviews with hospital staff. Int J Qual Health Care 2011;23:697704.Google Scholar
4. Lindenauer, PK, Lagu, T, Ross, JS, et al. Attitudes of hospital leaders toward publicly reported measures of health care quality. JAMA Intern Med 2014;174:19041911.Google Scholar
5. Hallsworth, M, Chadborn, T, Sallis, A, et al. Provision of social norm feedback to high prescribers of antibiotics in general practice: a pragmatic national randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016;387(10029):17431752.Google Scholar
6. Abbo, L, Sinkowitz-Cochran, R, Smith, L, et al. Faculty and resident physicians’ attitudes, perceptions, and knowledge about antimicrobial use and resistance. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32:714718.Google Scholar
7. Chaves, NJ, Cheng, AC, Runnegar, N, Kirschner, J, Lee, T, Buising, K. Analysis of knowledge and attitude surveys to identify barriers and enablers of appropriate antimicrobial prescribing in three Australian tertiary hospitals. Intern Med J 2014;44:568574.Google Scholar
8. Salsgiver, E, Bernstein, D, Simon, MS, et al. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding antimicrobial use and stewardship among prescribers at acute-care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:316322.Google Scholar
9. McIntyre, MT, Naik, L, Bell, CM, Morris, AM. Development and assessment of a physician-specific antimicrobial usage and spectrum feedback tool. Open Forum Infect Dis 2017;4:ofx124–ofx124.Google Scholar
10. Navathe, AS, Emanuel, EJ. Physician peer comparisons as a nonfinancial strategy to improve the value of care. JAMA 2016;316:17591760.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Lines et al. supplementary material

Lines et al. supplementary material 1

Download Lines et al. supplementary material(File)
File 143.4 KB