Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:16:45.349Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

High versus low intensity: What is the optimal approach to prospective audit and feedback in an antimicrobial stewardship program?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 October 2019

Bradley J. Langford Open the ORCID record for Bradley J. Langford [Opens in a new window] ,
Kevin A. Brown ,
April J. Chan  and
Mark Downing
Bradley J. Langford*
Affiliation:
St Joseph’s Health Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Public Health Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Kevin A. Brown
Affiliation:
Public Health Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
April J. Chan
Affiliation:
St Joseph’s Health Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Mark Downing
Affiliation:
St Joseph’s Health Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
*
Author for correspondence: Bradley Langford, 30 The Queensway, Toronto, ON, M6R 1B5. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) interventions, such as prospective audit and feedback (PAF), have been shown to reduce antimicrobial use and improve patient outcomes. However, the optimal approach to PAF is unknown.

Objective:

We examined the impact of a high–intensity interdisciplinary rounds–based PAF compared to low–intensity PAF on antimicrobial use on internal medicine wards in a 400–bed community hospital.

Methods:

Prior to the intervention, ASP pharmacists performed low–intensity PAF with a focus on targeted antibiotics. Recommendations were made directly to the internist for each patient. High–intensity, rounds–based PAF was then introduced sequentially to 5 internal medicine wards. This PAF format included twice–weekly interdisciplinary rounds, with a review of all internal medicine patients receiving any antimicrobial agent. Antibiotic use and clinical outcomes were measured before and after the transition to high–intensity PAF. An interrupted time–series analysis was performed adjusting for seasonal and secular trends.

Results:

With the transition from low–intensity to high–intensity PAF, a reduction in overall usage was seen from 483 defined daily doses (DDD)/1,000 patient days (PD) during the low–intensity phase to 442 DDD/1,000 PD in the high–intensity phase (difference, −42; 95% confidence interval [CI], −74 to −9). The reduction in usage was more pronounced in the adjusted analysis, in the latter half of the high intensity period, and for targeted agents. There were no differences seen in clinical outcomes in the adjusted analysis.

Conclusions:

High–intensity PAF was associated with a reduction in antibiotic use compared to a low–intensity approach without any adverse impact on patient outcomes. A decision to implement high–intensity PAF approach should be weighed against the increased workload required.

Type
Original Article
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 40 , Issue 12 , December 2019 , pp. 1344 - 1347
Copyright
© 2019 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.)

Footnotes

PREVIOUS PRESENTATION. Part of this study was presented in abstract form at IDWeek 2017, on October 6, 2017, in San Diego, California and at the Health Quality Transformation 2017 conference on October 24, 2017, in Toronto, Ontario.

References

Leung, V, Wu, JH, Langford, BJ, Garber, G. Landscape of antimicrobial stewardship programs in Ontario: a survey of hospitals. CMAJ Open 2018;6:E71–E76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pollack, LA, van Santen, KL, Weiner, LM, Dudeck, MA, Edwards, JR, Srinivasan, A. Antibiotic stewardship programs in US acute care hospitals: findings from the 2014 National Healthcare Safety Network Annual Hospital Survey. Clin Infect Dis 2016;63:443–449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barlam, TF, Cosgrove, SE, Abbo, LM, et al. Implementing an antibiotic stewardship program: guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Clin Infect Dis 2016;62:e51–e77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michie, S, van Stralen, MM, West, R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci 2011;6:42-5908-6-42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davey, P, Marwick, CA, Scott, CL, et al. Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;2:CD003543.Google ScholarPubMed
Bernal, JL, Cummins, S, Gasparrini, A. Interrupted time series regression for the evaluation of public health interventions: a tutorial. Int J Epidemiol 2017;46:348–355.Google ScholarPubMed
Hemming, K, Taljaard, M, Forbes, A. Analysis of cluster randomised stepped wedge trials with repeated cross-sectional samples. Trials 2017;18:101-017-1833-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrill, HJ, Caffrey, AR, Gaitanis, MM, LaPlante, KL. Impact of a prospective audit and feedback antimicrobial stewardship program at a Veterans Affairs medical center: a six-point assessment. PLoS One 2016;11:e0150795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langford, BJ, Wu, JH, Brown, KA, et al. Assessing the impact of antibiotic stewardship program elements on antibiotic use across acute-care hospitals: an observational study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:941–946.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hurst, AL, Child, J, Pearce, K, Palmer, C, Todd, JK, Parker, SK. Handshake stewardship: a highly effective rounding-based antimicrobial optimization service. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2016;35:1104–1110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DiDiodato, G, McAthur, L. Transition from a dedicated to a non-dedicated, ward-based pharmacist antimicrobial stewardship programme model in a non-academic hospital and its impact on length of stay of patients admitted with pneumonia: a prospective observational study. BMJ Open Qual 2017;6:e000060-2017-000060. eCollection 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klatte, JM, Kopcza, K, Knee, A, Horton, ER, Housman, E, Fisher, DJ. Implementation and impact of an antimicrobial stewardship program at a non-freestanding children’s hospital. J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther 2018;23:84–91.Google Scholar
Palmay, L, Elligsen, M, Walker, SA, et al. Hospital-wide rollout of antimicrobial stewardship: a stepped-wedge randomized trial. Clin Infect Dis 2014;59:867–874.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, TJ, Decloe, M, Gill, S, Ho, G, McCready, J, Powis, J. Every antibiotic, every day: maximizing the impact of prospective audit and feedback on total antibiotic use. PLoS One 2017;12:e0178434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peterson, LR. Squeezing the antibiotic balloon: the impact of antimicrobial classes on emerging resistance. Clin Microbiol Infect 2005;11 Suppl 5:4–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ohashi, K, Matsuoka, T, Shinoda, Y, Mori, T, Yoshida, S, Yoshimura, T, Sugiyama, T. Clinical outcome of pharmacist-led prospective audit with intervention and feedback after expansion from patients using specific antibiotics to those using whole injectable antibiotics. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2019;38:593–600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Langford et al. supplementary material

Langford et al. supplementary material

Download Langford et al. supplementary material(File)
File 115.6 KB