Search

BackgroundAntibiotic overuse at hospital discharge is common, but there is no metric to evaluate hospital performance at this transition of care. We built a risk-adjusted metric for comparing hospitals on their overall post-discharge antibiotic use.MethodsThis was a retrospective study across all acute-care admissions within the Veterans Health Administration during 2018-2021. For patients discharged to home, we collected data on antibiotics and relevant covariates. We built a zero-inflated negative binomial mixed-model with two random intercepts for each hospital to predict post-discharge antibiotic exposure and length of therapy (LOT). Data were split into training and testing sets to evaluate model performance using absolute error. Hospital performance was determined by the predicted random intercepts.Results1,804,300 patient-admissions across 129 hospitals were included. Antibiotics were prescribed to 41.5% while hospitalized and 19.5% at discharge. Median LOT among those prescribed post-discharge antibiotics was 7 (IQR 4-10). The predictive model detected post-discharge antibiotic use with fidelity, including accurate identification of any exposure (area under the precision-recall curve=0.97) and reliable prediction of post-discharge LOT (mean absolute error = 1.48). Based on this model, 39 (30.2%) hospitals prescribed antibiotics less often than expected at discharge and used shorter LOT than expected. Twenty-eight (21.7%) hospitals prescribed antibiotics more often at discharge and used longer LOT.ConclusionA model using electronically-available data was able to predict antibiotic use prescribed at hospital discharge and showed that some hospitals were more successful in reducing antibiotic overuse at this transition of care. This metric may help hospitals identify opportunities for improved antibiotic stewardship at discharge.

BackgroundHospitals are required to have antibiotic stewardship programs (ASPs), but there are few models for implementing ASPs without the support of an infectious disease (ID) specialist, defined as an ID physician and/or ID pharmacist.ObjectiveIn this study, we sought to understand ASP implementation at hospitals that lack on-site ID support within the Veterans' Health Administration (VHA).MethodsUsing a mandatory VHA survey, we identified acute-care hospitals that lacked an on-site ID specialist. We conducted semistructured interviews with personnel involved in ASP activities.SettingThe study was conducted across 7 VHA hospitals.ParticipantsIn total, 42 hospital personnel were enrolled in the study.ResultsThe primary responsibility for ASPs fell on the pharmacist champions, who were typically assigned multiple other non-ASP responsibilities. The pharmacist champions were more successful at gaining buy-in when they had established rapport with clinicians, but at some sites, the use of contract physicians and frequent staff turnover were potential barriers. Some sites felt that having access to an off-site ID specialist was important for overcoming institutional barriers and improving the acceptance of their stewardship recommendations. In general, stewardship champions struggled to mobilize institutional resources, which made it difficult to advance their programmatic goals.ConclusionIn this study of 7 hospitals without on-site ID support, we found that ASPs are largely a pharmacy-driven process. Remote ID support, if available, was seen as helpful for implementing stewardship interventions. These findings may inform the future implementation of ASPs in settings lacking local ID expertise.

To investigate factors that influence antibiotic prescribing decisions, we interviewed 49 antibiotic stewardship champions and stakeholders across 15 hospitals. We conducted thematic analysis and subcoding of decisional factors. We identified 31 factors that influence antibiotic prescribing decisions. These factors may help stewardship programs identify educational targets and design more effective interventions.

IntroductionThe optimal method for implementing hospital-level restrictions for antibiotics that carry a high risk of Clostridioides difficile infection has not been identified. We aimed to explore barriers and facilitators to implementing restrictions for fluoroquinolones and third/fourth-generation cephalosporins.MethodsThis mixed-methods study across a purposeful sample of 15 acute-care, geographically dispersed Veterans Health Administration hospitals included electronic surveys and semi-structured interviews (September 2018 to May 2019). Surveys on stewardship strategies were administered at each hospital and summarized with descriptive statistics. Interviews were performed with 30 antibiotic stewardship programme (ASP) champions across all 15 sites and 19 additional stakeholders at a subset of 5 sites; transcripts were analysed using thematic content analysis.ResultsThe most restricted agent was moxifloxacin, which was restricted at 12 (80%) sites. None of the 15 hospitals restricted ceftriaxone. Interviews identified differing opinions on the feasibility of restricting third/fourth-generation cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones. Some participants felt that restrictions could be implemented in a way that was not burdensome to clinicians and did not interfere with timely antibiotic administration. Others expressed concerns about restricting these agents, particularly through prior approval, given their frequent use, the difficulty of enforcing restrictions and potential unintended consequences of steering clinicians towards non-restricted antibiotics. A variety of stewardship strategies were perceived to be effective at reducing the use of these agents.ConclusionsAcross 15 hospitals, there were differing opinions on the feasibility of implementing antibiotic restrictions for third/fourth-generation cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones. While the perceived barrier to implementing restrictions was frequently high, many hospitals were effectively using restrictions and reported few barriers to their use.

BackgroundMany US hospitals lack infectious disease (ID) specialists, which may hinder antibiotic stewardship efforts. We sought to compare patient-level antibiotic exposure at Veterans Health Administration (VHA) hospitals with and without an on-site ID specialist, defined as an ID physician and/or ID pharmacist.MethodsThis retrospective VHA cohort included all acute-care patient admissions during 2016. A mandatory survey was used to identify hospitals' antibiotic stewardship processes and their access to an on-site ID specialist. Antibiotic use was quantified as days of therapy per days present and categorized based on National Healthcare Safety Network definitions. A negative binomial regression model with risk adjustment was used to determine the association between presence of an on-site ID specialist and antibiotic use at the level of patient admissions.ResultsEighteen of 122 (14.8%) hospitals lacked an on-site ID specialist; there were 525 451 (95.8%) admissions at ID hospitals and 23 007 (4.2%) at non-ID sites. In the adjusted analysis, presence of an ID specialist was associated with lower total inpatient antibacterial use (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, .85-.99). Presence of an ID specialist was also associated with lower use of broad-spectrum antibacterials (0.61; .54-.70) and higher narrow-spectrum β-lactam use (1.43; 1.22-1.67). Total antibacterial exposure (inpatient plus postdischarge) was lower among patients at ID versus non-ID sites (0.92; .86-.99).ConclusionsPatients at hospitals with an ID specialist received antibiotics in a way more consistent with stewardship principles. The presence of an ID specialist may be important to effective antibiotic stewardship.

BackgroundHospitals are required to have antibiotic stewardship programs (ASPs), but there are few models for implementing ASPs without the support of an infectious disease (ID) specialist, defined as an ID physician and/or ID pharmacist.ObjectiveIn this study, we sought to understand ASP implementation at hospitals that lack on-site ID support within the Veterans' Health Administration (VHA).MethodsUsing a mandatory VHA survey, we identified acute-care hospitals that lacked an on-site ID specialist. We conducted semistructured interviews with personnel involved in ASP activities.SettingThe study was conducted across 7 VHA hospitals.ParticipantsIn total, 42 hospital personnel were enrolled in the study.ResultsThe primary responsibility for ASPs fell on the pharmacist champions, who were typically assigned multiple other non-ASP responsibilities. The pharmacist champions were more successful at gaining buy-in when they had established rapport with clinicians, but at some sites, the use of contract physicians and frequent staff turnover were potential barriers. Some sites felt that having access to an off-site ID specialist was important for overcoming institutional barriers and improving the acceptance of their stewardship recommendations. In general, stewardship champions struggled to mobilize institutional resources, which made it difficult to advance their programmatic goals.ConclusionIn this study of 7 hospitals without on-site ID support, we found that ASPs are largely a pharmacy-driven process. Remote ID support, if available, was seen as helpful for implementing stewardship interventions. These findings may inform the future implementation of ASPs in settings lacking local ID expertise.

BackgroundMany US hospitals lack infectious disease (ID) specialists, which may hinder antibiotic stewardship efforts. We sought to compare patient-level antibiotic exposure at Veterans Health Administration (VHA) hospitals with and without an on-site ID specialist, defined as an ID physician and/or ID pharmacist.MethodsThis retrospective VHA cohort included all acute-care patient admissions during 2016. A mandatory survey was used to identify hospitals' antibiotic stewardship processes and their access to an on-site ID specialist. Antibiotic use was quantified as days of therapy per days present and categorized based on National Healthcare Safety Network definitions. A negative binomial regression model with risk adjustment was used to determine the association between presence of an on-site ID specialist and antibiotic use at the level of patient admissions.ResultsEighteen of 122 (14.8%) hospitals lacked an on-site ID specialist; there were 525 451 (95.8%) admissions at ID hospitals and 23 007 (4.2%) at non-ID sites. In the adjusted analysis, presence of an ID specialist was associated with lower total inpatient antibacterial use (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, .85-.99). Presence of an ID specialist was also associated with lower use of broad-spectrum antibacterials (0.61; .54-.70) and higher narrow-spectrum β-lactam use (1.43; 1.22-1.67). Total antibacterial exposure (inpatient plus postdischarge) was lower among patients at ID versus non-ID sites (0.92; .86-.99).ConclusionsPatients at hospitals with an ID specialist received antibiotics in a way more consistent with stewardship principles. The presence of an ID specialist may be important to effective antibiotic stewardship.

Many US hospitals lack Infectious Disease (ID) specialists, which may hinder antibiotic stewardship efforts. We sought to compare patient-level antibiotic exposure at Veterans Health Administration (VHA) hospitals with and without an on-site ID specialist, defined as an ID physician and/or ID pharmacist. This retrospective VHA cohort included all acute-care patient-admissions during 2016. A mandatory survey was used to identify hospitals' antibiotic stewardship processes and their access to an on-site ID specialist. Antibiotic use was quantified as days of therapy (DOT) per days-present and categorized based on National Healthcare Safety Network definitions. A negative binomial regression model with risk adjustment was used to determine the association between presence of an on-site ID specialist and antibiotic use at the level of patient-admissions. Eighteen of 122 (14.8%) hospitals lacked an on-site ID specialist; there were 525,451 (95.8%) admissions at ID hospitals and 23,007 (4.2%) at non-ID sites. In the adjusted analysis, presence of an ID specialist was associated with lower total inpatient antibacterial use [OR 0.92, (95% CI, 0.85-0.99)]. Presence of an ID specialist was also associated with lower use of broad-spectrum antibacterials [OR 0.61 (95% CI, 0.54-0.70)] and higher narrow-spectrum beta-lactam use [OR 1.43 (95% CI, 1.22-1.67)]. Total antibacterial exposure (inpatient plus post-discharge) was lower among patients at ID versus non-ID sites [OR 0.92 (95% CI, 0.86-0.99)]. Patients at hospitals with an ID specialist received antibiotics in a way more consistent with stewardship principles. The presence of an ID specialist may be important to effective antibiotic stewardship.

Antimicrobial stewardship is vital to reducing the spread of antimicrobial resistance. A group of investigators and clinicians within the Veterans Health Administration set forth a research agenda for antimicrobial stewardship, including research targets for inpatient and outpatient stewardship activities, metrics, and antimicrobial dosing and duration.

Background Randomized controlled trials have shown that procalcitonin-guided algorithms can reduce antibiotic duration for lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs). The goal of this study was to compare antibiotic duration for LRTIs with and without procalcitonin testing in real-life practice. Methods This retrospective cohort study included all acute care hospital admissions for presumed LRTIs between 1/2018 and 12/2021 at 81 Veterans Affairs facilities with on-site procalcitonin testing. The exposure was procalcitonin testing; the primary outcome was antibiotic duration. We used 1:1 nearest-neighbor propensity score matching to estimate the difference in outcome between procalcitonin-tested and nontested patients. Results A total of 35 610 patients with LRTIs were included (6015 [16.9%] with procalcitonin testing; 29 595 [83.1%] without testing). In tested patients, the median number of procalcitonin levels checked (interquartile range) was 2 (1–3). The mean antibiotic duration was 10.0 days in the procalcitonin group compared with 8.3 days in nontested patients (unadjusted difference, 1.7 days; P <.0001). After propensity score matching with 3903 pairs, antibiotic duration remained greater in the procalcitonin group (9.6 days vs 9.2 days; P <.0001). In a subgroup analysis of 2241 tested patients with a procalcitonin value at the standard threshold for antibiotic discontinuation, antibiotic duration was shorter in tested vs nontested patients, with a mean difference of 0.1 days (P <.01). Conclusions In this retrospective propensity-matched cohort of patients with presumed LRTIs across a geographically diverse group of hospitals, patients who underwent procalcitonin testing did not have a meaningful reduction in antibiotic duration compared with those who were not tested. Poor implementation of procalcitonin testing may have undermined its effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite advances in public health and medical care, bacteremia is still a major cause of illness and death (1-3). Bacteremia caused by gram-negative bacteria is a frequent cause of severe [...]