Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T00:04:15.433Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quality Standard for the Treatment of Bacteremia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Peter A. Gross ,
Trisha L. Barrett ,
E. Patchen Dellinger ,
Peter J. Krause ,
William J. Martone ,
John E. McGowan Jr ,
Richard L. Sweet  and
Richard P. Wenzel
Peter A. Gross*
Affiliation:
Hackensack Medical Center, Hackensack, and, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey
Trisha L. Barrett
Affiliation:
Alta Bates Medical Center, Berkeley, California
E. Patchen Dellinger
Affiliation:
University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, Washington
Peter J. Krause
Affiliation:
Hartford Hospital, Hartford, and the University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Connecticut
William J. Martone
Affiliation:
Hospital Infections Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
John E. McGowan Jr
Affiliation:
Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
Richard L. Sweet
Affiliation:
Magee Women's Hospital and University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Richard P. Wenzel
Affiliation:
University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa
*
Department of Internal Medicine, Hackensack Medical Center, 30 Prospect Ave., Hackensack, NJ 07601
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

The objective of this quality standard is to optimize the treatment of bacteremia in hospitalized patients by ensuring that the antibiotic given is appropriate in terms of the blood culture susceptibility of the pathogen. Although this standard may appear to be minimal in scope, it is needed because appropriate antimicrobial treatment is not given in 5% to 17% of cases. To implement the standard, physicians, pharmacists, and microbiologists will need to devise a coordinated strategy.

Options:

We considered criteria for appropriate dosing, most cost-effective selection, proper antibiotic levels in serum, least toxicity, narrowest spectrum, specific clinical indications, and optimal duration of treatment. All these criteria were rejected as the basis for the standard because they were too controversial and too difficult to be applied by a nonphysician chart reviewer. In contrast, the selection of an antibiotic to which the pathogen is sensitive is a non-controversial criterion and easy for a chart reviewer to apply.

Outcomes:

The standard is designed to reduce the incidence of adverse outcomes of septicemia such as renal failure, prolonged hos-pitalization, and death.

Evidence:

Several well-designed clinical trials without randomization as well as case-controlled studies have confirmed the benefit of using an antibiotic that is appropriate in light of the susceptibility of the isolate in blood culture. Prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trials are not available.

Values:

Our premise is that the presence of bacteremia is a risk factor for serious adverse outcomes. We also believe that the administration of antibiotics must always be guided by the susceptibility report for the pathogen(s) obtained from blood cultures. This concern is more critical for pathogens from the blood than for those from most other body sites. We had evidence that susceptibility reports for pathogens from positive blood cultures were not always used properly. We used group discussion to reach a consensus among the members of the Quality Standards Subcommittee.

Benefits, Harms, and Costs:

Through the implementation of this standard, at least 5% of bacteremias could be treated more appropriately. An unknown number of deaths would likely be prevented, and mortality from bacteremia treated inappropriately would probably be reduced. The primary undesirable feature of the standard is an increased workload of pharmacists and microbiologists.

Recommendations:

Treatment of bacteremia with an antibiotic that is appropriate in terms of the pathogen's blood-culture susceptibility is a minimal standard of care for all patients.

Validation:

We consulted more than 50 experts in infectious diseases from the fields of medicine, surgery, pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, nursing, epidemiology, pharmacology, and government. In addition, the methods for its implementation were reviewed by the American Society of Hospital Pharmacists and were tested by one of the members of the Quality Standards Subcommittee.

Sponsors:

The Quality Standards Subcommittee of the Clinical Affairs Committee of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) developed the standard. The subcommittee was composed of representatives of the IDSA (Drs. Gross and McGowan), the Society for Hospital Epidemiology of America (Dr. Wenzel), the Surgical Infection Society (Dr. Dellinger), the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (Dr. Krause), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Dr. Martone), the Obstetrics and Gynecology Infectious Diseases Society (Dr. Sweet), and the Association of Practitioners of Infection Control (Ms. Barrett). Funding was provided by the IDSA and the other cooperating organizations. This standard is endorsed by the IDSA.

Type
Consensus Paper
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , March 1994 , pp. 189 - 192
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1994

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. Bryan, CS. Clinical implications of positive blood cultures. Clin Microbiol Reviews 1989;2:329–353.Google Scholar
2. Setia, U, Gross, PA. Bacteremia in a community hospital. Arch Intern Med 1977;137:1698–1701.Google Scholar
3. Maki, DG, Schuna, AA. A study of antimicrobial misuse in a university hospital. Am J Med Sci 1978;275:271–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Dunagan, WC, Woodward, RS, Medoff, G, et al. Antimicrobial misuse in patients with positive blood cultures. Am J Med 1989;87:253–259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Castle, M, Wilfert, CN, Cate, TR, Osterhout, S. Antimicrobial use at Duke University Medical Center. JAMA 1977;237:2819–2822.Google Scholar
6. Weinstein, MR Murphy, IR, Reiler, LB, Lichenstein, KA. The clinical significance of positive blood cultures: a comprehensive analysis of 500 episodes of bacteremia and fungemia in adults. II. Clinical observations with special reference to factors influencing prognosis. Rev Infect Dis 1983;5:54–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Kunin, CM, Tupasi, T, Craig, WA. Use of antimicrobials: a brief exposition of the problem and some tentative solutions. Ann Intern Med 1973;79:555–560.Google Scholar
8. Kunin, CM. Problems in antibiotic usage. In: Mandeli, GL, Douglas, RG Jr, Bennett, JE, eds. Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone, 1990:427–434.Google Scholar
9. Matsen, JM. Means to facilitate physician acceptance and use of rapid test results. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1985;3(suppl):73S–78S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Washington, JA. In vitro testing of antimicrobial agents. Infect Dis Clin North Am 1989;3:375–387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Pestotnik, SL, Evans, RS, Burke, JR Gardner, RM, Classen, DC. Therapeutic antibiotic monitoring: surveillance using a computerized expert system. Am J Med 1990;88:43–48.Google Scholar
12. Gross, PA, Barrett, TL, Dellinger, ER et al. Consensus develop ment of quality standards. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994;15:180–181.Google Scholar
13. McGowan, JE Jr, Chesney, PJ, Crossley, KB, LaForce, FM. Guidelines for the use of systemic glucocorticosteroids in the management of selected infections. J Infect Dis 1992;165:1–13.Google Scholar
14. Raad, II, Bodey, GE Infectious complications of indwelling vascular catheters. Clin Infect Dis 1992;15:197–210.Google Scholar
15. Hughes, WT, Armstrong, D, Bodey, GP, et al. Guidelines for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with unexplained fever. J Infect Dis 1990;161:381–396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; Fourth Information Supplement. Document M100-S4. Villanova, PA National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, 1992.Google Scholar
17. Gross, PA, Saul, ZK, Kuyumcu, A Applying a standard of care to the quality assessment of bacteremia. Infect Control Hasp Epidemiol 1992;13:403–406.Google Scholar
18. Lipton, HL, Bero, IA, Bird, JA, McPhee, SJ. The impact of clinical pharmacists' consultations on physicians' geriatric drug prescribing: a randomized controlled trial. Med Care 1992;30:646–658.Google Scholar
19. American Society of Hospital Pharmacists. ASHP statement on the pharmacist's clinical role in organized health-care settings. Am J Hosp Pharm 1989;46:805–806.Google Scholar