scholarly journals Estimating the Impact of Post-Prescribing Review on the Quality of Antibiotic Prescribing in Skilled Nursing Facilities

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S160-S160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamanna Hossin ◽  
Mozhdeh Bahranian ◽  
Lyndsay Taylor ◽  
David Nace ◽  
Christopher Crnich
2018 ◽  
Vol 74 (5) ◽  
pp. 689-697 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maricruz Rivera-Hernandez ◽  
Momotazur Rahman ◽  
Dana B Mukamel ◽  
Vincent Mor ◽  
Amal N Trivedi

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. S687-S688 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy P Hanson ◽  
Massimo Pacilli ◽  
Shannon N Xydis ◽  
Kelly Walblay ◽  
Stephanie R Black

Abstract Background Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs (ASPs) in long-term care facilities is a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services requirement as of 2017. The CDC recommends that ASPs in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) fulfill 7 Core Elements: leadership commitment, accountability, drug expertise, action, tracking, reporting and education. Methods An electronic survey utilizing REDCap was sent to the 76 Chicago SNFs representatives (Administrator, Director of Nursing, and/or Assistant Director of Nursing). Survey questions were adopted from the CDC Core Elements of Antimicrobial Stewardship for Nursing Homes Checklist. Results Twenty-seven (36%) of Chicago SNFs responded. Bed size ranged from 36 – 307 (median 150). Although 93% of facilities had a written statement of leadership support for antimicrobial stewardship, only 22% cited any budgeted financial support for antimicrobial stewardship activities. While Pharmacist Consultants visited all SNFs (most visiting monthly), only 33% of SNFs had an Infectious Disease Provider that consulted on-site. Dedicated time for antimicrobial stewardship activities was less than 10 hours per week in 78% of facilities, with half of all respondents reporting less than 5 hours per week. Treatment guidelines were in place for 63% of SNFs, 56% had an antibiogram, and only 7% utilized the Loeb criteria to guide appropriate antibiotic prescribing. Many facilities tracked antimicrobial stewardship metrics (93%) and reported out to staff (70%). Annual nursing training on antimicrobial stewardship occurs more frequently (85%) than prescriber education (56%). The top 3 barriers identified in implementing ASPs were financial limitations (33%), lack of clinical expertise (33%), and provider opposition (30%). Facilities’ compliance in all seven core elements varied from partially compliant (65%), majority compliant (19%), and majority non-compliant (16%). Conclusion Data from this baseline survey informed focused antimicrobial stewardship initiatives for the GAIN Collaborative. Targeted areas to incorporate into facility action plans include treatment guideline development, antibiograms, annual staff antimicrobial stewardship education, and adoption of the Loeb minimum criteria for antibiotic prescribing into clinical practice. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.


2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s101-s101
Author(s):  
Theresa LeGros ◽  
Connor Kelley ◽  
James Romine ◽  
Katherine Ellingson

Background: The CDC Core Elements of Antibiotic Stewardship (AS) include 7 evidence-based best practices adapted for a variety of healthcare settings, including nursing homes. We aimed to identify barriers and facilitators related to AS implementation in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) within 18 months of the CMS mandate for AS implementation in SNFs, and to examine their relevance to the CDC’s Core Elements for Nursing Homes. Methods: We conducted 56 semistructured interviews with administrators, clinicians, and nonclinical staff at 10 SNFs in urban, suburban, rural, and border regions of Arizona. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and imported into NVivo v12.0 software for constant comparative analysis by 3 researchers using a priori and emergent codes. After iterative coding, we confirmed high interrater reliability (κ = 0.8), finalized the code book, and used matrix coding queries to examine relationships and generate themes. Results: We identified 7 themes as “influencers” that were less (barrier) or more (facilitator) supportive of AS in SNFs. Intra- and interfacility communication were the most frequently described: respondents described stronger communication within the SNF and between the SNF and hospitals, labs, and pharmacies as critical to robust AS implementation. Other influencers included AS education, antibiotic tracking systems, SNF prescribing norms, human resources, and diagnostic resources. The Core Elements were reflected in all influencer themes except interfacility communication between SNFs and hospitals. Additionally, themes pertaining to systems emerged as critical to successful AS implementation, including the need to address: the interactions of multiple roles across the traditional SNF hierarchy, stewardship barriers from the lens of patient-level concerns (as opposed to population-level concerns), the distinction between antibiotic prescribing gatekeepers and stewardship gatekeepers, and care transition policies and practices. The Core Elements target many aspects of these systems themes—for example, they recognize the importance of creating a culture of stewardship. However, they do not address care transition policies or procedures beyond recommending that transfer-initiated antibiotics be tracked and verified. Conclusions: Because the interactions of various agents within and beyond the SNF can facilitate or inhibit stewardship in complex ways, our findings suggest the use of a systems approach to AS implementation that prioritizes communication within the SNF hierarchy, and between SNFs and hospitals, diagnostic facilities, and pharmacies. When followed, the CDC’s Core Elements can provide crucial guidance. However, SNFs need support to overcome the challenges of incorporating these elements into policy and practice. Additionally, more work is needed to understand and enhance stewardship-related care transition, which remains under-addressed by the CDC.Disclosures: NoneFunding: None


2017 ◽  
Vol 36 (8) ◽  
pp. 1385-1391 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denise A. Tyler ◽  
Emily A. Gadbois ◽  
John P. McHugh ◽  
Renée R. Shield ◽  
Ulrika Winblad ◽  
...  

2002 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 315-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlene Harrington ◽  
Steffie Woolhandler ◽  
Joseph Mullan ◽  
Helen Carrillo ◽  
David U. Himmelstein

Quality problems have long plagued the nursing home industry. While two-thirds of U.S. nursing homes are investor-owned, few studies have examined the impact of investor-ownership on the quality of care. The authors analyzed 1998 data from inspections of 13,693 nursing facilities representing virtually all U.S. nursing homes. They grouped deficiency citations issued by inspectors into three categories (“quality of care,” “quality of life,” and “other”) and compared deficiency rates in investor-owned, nonprofit, and public nursing homes. A multivariate model was used to control for case mix, percentage of residents covered by Medicaid, whether the facility was hospital-based, whether it was a skilled nursing facility for Medicare only, chain ownership, and location by state. The study also assessed nurse staffing. The authors found that investor-owned nursing homes provide worse care and less nursing care than nonprofit or public homes. Investor-owned facilities averaged 5.89 deficiencies per home, 46.5 percent higher than nonprofit and 43.0 percent higher than public facilities, and also had more of each category of deficiency. In the multivariate analysis, investor-ownership predicted 0.679 additional deficiencies per home; chain-ownership predicted an additional 0.633 deficiencies per home. Nurse staffing ratios were markedly lower at investor-owned homes.


2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (11) ◽  
pp. 1705-1711.e3
Author(s):  
Maricruz Rivera-Hernandez ◽  
Chanee D. Fabius ◽  
Shekinah Fashaw ◽  
Brian Downer ◽  
Amit Kumar ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 796-798 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bianca I. Buijck ◽  
Sytse U. Zuidema ◽  
Monica S. van Eijk ◽  
Debby L. Gerritsen ◽  
Raymond TCM Koopmans ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (S3) ◽  
pp. S56-S61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon P. Furuno ◽  
Angela C. Comer ◽  
J. Kristie Johnson ◽  
Joseph H. Rosenberg ◽  
Susan L. Moore ◽  
...  

Background.Antibiograms have effectively improved antibiotic prescribing in acute-care settings; however, their effectiveness in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) is currently unknown.Objective.To develop SNF-specific antibiograms and identify opportunities to improve antibiotic prescribing.Design and Setting.Cross-sectional and pretest-posttest study among residents of 3 Maryland SNFs.Methods.Antibiograms were created using clinical culture data from a 6-month period in each SNF. We also used admission clinical culture data from the acute care facility primarily associated with each SNF for transferred residents. We manually collected all data from medical charts, and antibiograms were created using WHONET software. We then used a pretest-posttest study to evaluate the effectiveness of an antibiogram on changing antibiotic prescribing practices in a single SNF. Appropriate empirical antibiotic therapy was defined as an empirical antibiotic choice that sufficiently covered the infecting organism, considering antibiotic susceptibilities.Results.We reviewed 839 patient charts from SNF and acute care facilities. During the initial assessment period, 85% of initial antibiotic use in the SNFs was empirical, and thus only 15% of initial antibiotics were based on culture results. Fluoroquinolones were the most frequently used empirical antibiotics, accounting for 54.5% of initial prescribing instances. Among patients with available culture data, only 35% of empirical antibiotic prescribing was determined to be appropriate. In the single SNF in which we evaluated antibiogram effectiveness, prevalence of appropriate antibiotic prescribing increased from 32% to 45% after antibiogram implementation; however, this was not statistically significant (P = .32).Conclusions.Implementation of antibiograms may be effective in improving empirical antibiotic prescribing in SNFs.


ILR Review ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 199-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
John R. Bowblis ◽  
Austin C. Smith

Occupational licensing has grown dramatically in recent years, with more than 25% of the US workforce having a license as of 2008, up from 5% in 1950. Has licensing improved quality or is it simply rent-seeking behavior by incumbent workers? To estimate the impact of increased licensure of social workers in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) on service quality, the authors exploit a federal staffing provision that requires SNFs of a certain size to employ licensed social workers. Using a regression discontinuity design, the authors find that qualified social worker staffing increases by approximately 10%. However, the overall increase in social services staffing is negligible because SNFs primarily meet this requirement in the lowest cost way—substituting qualified social workers for unlicensed social services staff. The authors find no evidence that the increase in licensure improves patient care quality, patient quality of life, or quality of social services provided.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document