Search

Background: Guidance on assessment of the quantity and appropriateness of antifungal prescribing is required to assist hospitals to interpret data effectively and structure quality improvement programmes.Objectives: To achieve expert consensus on a core set of antifungal stewardship (AFS) metrics and to determine their feasibility for implementation.Methods: A literature review was undertaken to develop a list of candidate metrics. International experts were invited to participate in sequential web-based surveys to evaluate the importance and feasibility of metrics in the area of AFS using Delphi methodology. Three surveys were completed. Consensus was predefined as ≥80% agreement on the importance of each metric.Results: Eighty-two experts consented to participate from 17 different countries. Response rate for each survey was >80%. The panel included adult and paediatric physicians, microbiologists and pharmacists with diverse content expertise. Consensus was achieved for 38 metrics considered important to routinely include in AFS programmes, and related to antifungal consumption (n = 5), quality of antifungal prescribing and management of invasive fungal infection (IFI) (n = 24), and clinical outcomes (n = 9). Twenty-one consensus metrics were considered to have moderate to high feasibility for routine collection.Conclusions: The identified core AFS metrics will provide a framework to comprehensively assess the quantity and quality of antifungal prescribing within hospitals to develop quality improvement programmes aimed at improving IFI prevention, management and patient-centred outcomes. A standardized approach will support collaboration and benchmarking to monitor the efficacy of current prophylaxis and treatment guidelines, and will provide important feedback to guideline developers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Antibiotic allergy labels (AALs), reported by up to 25% of hospitalized patients, are a significant barrier to appropriate prescribing and a focus of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes.Methods: A prospective audit of a pharmacist-led AMS penicillin allergy de-labelling ward round at Austin Health (Melbourne, Australia) was evaluated. Eligible inpatients with a documented penicillin allergy receiving an antibiotic were identified via an electronic medical report and then reviewed by a pharmacist-led AMS team. The audit outcomes evaluated were: (i) AMS post-prescription review recommendations; (ii) direct de-labelling; (iii) inpatient oral rechallenge referral; (iv) skin prick testing/intradermal testing referral; and (v) outpatient antibiotic allergy clinic assessment.Results: Across a 5 month period, 106 patients were identified from a real-time electronic prescribing antibiotic allergy report. The highest rate of penicillin allergy de-labelling was demonstrated in patients who were referred for an inpatient oral rechallenge with 95.2% (n = 21) successfully having their penicillin AAL removed. From the 22 patients with Type A reactions, 63.6% had their penicillin AAL removed. We demonstrated a significant decrease in the prescribing of restricted antibiotics (defined as third- or fourth-generation cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones, glycopeptides, carbapenems, piperacillin/tazobactam, lincosamides, linezolid or daptomycin) in patients reviewed (pre 42.5% versus post 17.9%, P = 0.0002).Conclusions: A pharmacist-led AMS penicillin allergy de-labelling ward round reduced penicillin AALs and the prescribing of restricted antibiotics. This model could be implemented at other hospitals with existing AMS programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aim Antibiotic allergies are frequently reported and have significant impacts upon appropriate prescribing and clinical outcomes. We surveyed infectious diseases physicians, allergists, clinical immunologists and hospital pharmacists to evaluate antibiotic allergy knowledge and service delivery in Australia and New Zealand. Methods An online multi-choice questionnaire was developed and endorsed by representatives of the Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy ( ASCIA) and the Australasian Society of Infectious Diseases ( ASID). The 37-item survey was distributed in April 2015 to members of ASCIA, ASID, the Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians. Results Of 277 respondents, 94% currently use or would utilise antibiotic allergy testing ( AAT) and reported seeing up to 10 patients/week labelled as antibiotic-allergic. Forty-two per cent were not aware of or did not have AAT available. Most felt that AAT would aid antibiotic selection, antibiotic appropriateness and antimicrobial stewardship (79, 69 and 61% respectively). Patients with the histories of immediate hypersensitivity were more likely to be referred than those with delayed hypersensitivities (76 vs 41%, P = 0.0001). Lack of specialist physicians (20%) and personal experience (17%) were barriers to service delivery. A multidisciplinary approach was a preferred AAT model (53%). Knowledge gaps were identified, with the majority overestimating rates of penicillin/cephalosporin (78%), penicillin/carbapenem (57%) and penicillin/monobactam (39%) cross-reactivity. Conclusions A high burden of antibiotic allergy labelling and demand for AAT is complicated by a relative lack availability or awareness of AAT services in Australia and New Zealand. Antibiotic allergy education and deployment of AAT, accessible to community and hospital-based clinicians, may improve clinical decisions and reduce antibiotic allergy impacts. A collaborative approach involving infectious diseases physicians, pharmacists and allergists/immunologists is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]