Antimicrobial Stewardship and the Infection Control Practitioner

2021 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 771-787
Author(s):  
Shiwei Zhou ◽  
Jerod L. Nagel ◽  
Keith S. Kaye ◽  
Kerry L. LaPlante ◽  
Owen R. Albin ◽  
...  
2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 771-784 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerod L. Nagel ◽  
Keith S. Kaye ◽  
Kerry L. LaPlante ◽  
Jason M. Pogue

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s273-s273
Author(s):  
Christian Pallares ◽  
María Virginia Villegas Botero

Background: More than 50% of antibiotics used in hospitals are unnecessary or inappropriate. The antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) are coordinated efforts to promote the rational and effective use of antibiotics including appropriate selection, dosage, administration, and duration of therapy. When an ASP integrates infection control strategies, it is possible to decrease the transmission of multidrug-resistant pathogens. Methods: In 2018, 5 Colombian hospitals were selected to implement an ASP. Private and public hospitals from different cities were included in the study, ranging from 200 to 700 beds. Our team, consisting of an infectious disease and hospital epidemiologist, visited each hospital to establish the baseline of their ASP program, to define the ASP outcomes according to each hospital’s needs, and to set goals for ASP outcomes in the following 6–12 months. Follow-up was scheduled every 2 months through Skype video conference. The baseline diagnosis or preintervention evaluation was done using a tool adapted from previous reports (ie, international consensus and The Joint Commission international standards). Documentation related to ASPs, such as microbiological profiles, antimicrobial guidelines (AMG) and indicators for the adherence to them as well as antimicrobial resistance (AMR) prevention through protocols, were written and/or updated. Prevention and infection control requirements and protocols were also updated, and cleaning and antiseptic policies were created. Training in rational use of antibiotic, infection control and prevention, and cleaning and disinfection were carried out with the healthcare workers in each institution. Results: Before the intervention, the development of the ASP according to the tool was 27% (range, 5%–47%). The lowest institutional scores were the item related to ASP feedback and reports (11% on average), followed by education and training (14%), defined ASP responsibilities (23%), ASP function according to priorities (26%), and AMR surveillance (27%). After the intervention, the ASP development increased to 57% (range, 39%–81%) in the hospitals. The highest scores achieved were for education and training (90%), surveillance (75%), and the activities of the infection control committee (70%). The items that made the greatest contribution to ASP development were the individual antibiogram, including the bacteria resistance profile, and the development of the AMG based on the local epidemiology in each hospital. Conclusions: The implementation of an ASP should include training and education as well as defining outcomes according to the hospital’s needs. Once the strategy is implemented, follow-up is key to achieving the goals.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None


2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s527-s527
Author(s):  
Gabriela Andujar-Vazquez ◽  
Kirthana Beaulac ◽  
Shira Doron ◽  
David R Snydman

Background: The Tufts Medical Center Antimicrobial Stewardship (ASP) Team has partnered with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) to provide broad-based educational programs (BBEP) to long-term care facilities (LTCFs) in an effort to improve ASP and infection control practices. LTCFs have consistently expressed interest in individualized and hands-on involvement by ASP experts, yet they lack resources. The goal of this study was to determine whether “enhanced” individualized guidance provided by an ASP expert would lead to antibiotic start decreases in LTCFs participating in our pilot study. Methods: A pilot study was conducted to test the feasibility and efficacy of providing enhanced ASP and infection control practices to LTCFs. In total, 10 facilities already participating in MDPH BBEP and submitting monthly antibiotic start data were enrolled, were stratified by bed size and presence of dementia unit, and were randomized 1:1 to the “enhanced” group (defined as reviewing protocols and antibiotic start cases, providing lectures and feedback to staff and answering questions) versus the “nonenhanced” group. Antibiotic start data were validated and collected prospectively from January 2018 to July 2019, and the interventions began in April 2019. Due to staff turnover and lack of engagement, intervention was not possible in 2 of the 5 LTCFs randomized to the enhanced group, which were therefore analyzed as a nonenhanced group. An incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% CIs were calculated comparing the antibiotic start rate per 1,000 resident days between periods in the pilot groups. Results: The average bed sizes for enhanced groups versus nonenhanced groups were 121 (±71.0) versus 108 (±32.8); the average resident days per facility per month were 3,415.7 (±2,131.2) versus 2,911.4 (±964.3). Comparatively, 3 facilities in the enhanced group had dementia unit versus 4 in the nonenhanced group. In the per protocol analysis, the antibiotic start rate in the enhanced group before versus after the intervention was 11.35 versus 9.41 starts per 1,000 resident days (IRR, 0.829; 95% CI, 0.794–0.865). The antibiotic start rate in the nonenhanced group before versus after the intervention was 7.90 versus 8.23 antibiotic starts per 1,000 resident days (IRR, 1.048; 95% CI, 1.007–1.089). Physician hours required for ASP for the enhanced group totaled 8.9 (±2.2) per facility per month. Conclusions: Although the number of hours required for intervention by an expert was not onerous, maintaining engagement proved difficult and in 2 facilities could not be achieved. A statistically significant 20% decrease in the antibiotic start rate was achieved in the enhanced group after interventions, potentially reflecting the benefit of enhanced ASP support by an expert.Funding: This study was funded by the Leadership in Epidemiology, Antimicrobial Stewardship, and Public Health (LEAP) fellowship training grant award from the CDC.Disclosures: None


Antibiotics ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sajal K. Saha ◽  
Chris Barton ◽  
Shukla Promite ◽  
Danielle Mazza

The scope of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) surveys on community pharmacists (CPs) is uncertain. This study examines the breadth and quality of AMS survey tools measuring the stewardship knowledge, perceptions and practices (KPP) of CPs and analyse survey outcomes. Following PRISMA-ScR checklist and Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework seven medical databases were searched. Two reviewers independently screened the literatures, assessed quality of surveys and KPP outcomes were analysed and described. Ten surveys were identified that assessed CPs’ AMS perceptions (n = 7) and practices (n = 8) but none that assessed AMS knowledge. Three survey tools had been formally validated. Most CPs perceived that AMS improved patient care (median 86.0%, IQR, 83.3–93.5%, n = 6), and reduced inappropriate antibiotic use (84.0%, IQR, 83–85%, n = 2). CPs collaborated with prescribers for infection control (54.7%, IQR 34.8–63.2%, n = 4) and for uncertain antibiotic treatment (77.0%, IQR 55.2–77.8%, n = 5). CPs educated patients (53.0%, IQR, 43.2–67.4%, n = 5) and screened guideline-compliance of antimicrobial prescriptions (47.5%, IQR, 25.2–58.3%, n = 3). Guidelines, training, interactions with prescribers, and reimbursement models were major barriers to CP-led AMS implementation. A limited number of validated survey tools are available to assess AMS perceptions and practices of CPs. AMS survey tools require further development to assess stewardship knowledge, stewardship targets, and implementation by CPs.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document