scholarly journals 57: DIAGNOSTIC STEWARDSHIP FOR BLOOD CULTURES IN CRITICALLY ILL CHILDREN: THE BRIGHT STAR COLLABORATIVE

2021 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-29
Author(s):  
Charlotte Woods-Hill ◽  
Elizabeth Colantuoni ◽  
Danielle Koontz ◽  
Annie Voskertchian ◽  
Anping Xie ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (S1) ◽  
pp. s27-s27
Author(s):  
Danielle Koontz ◽  
Charlotte Woods-Hill ◽  
Annie Voskertchian ◽  
Anping Xie ◽  
Marlene Miller ◽  
...  

Group Name: Bright STAR Authorship GroupBackground: Blood cultures are fundamental in the diagnosis and treatment of sepsis. Culture practices vary widely, and overuse can lead to false-positive results and unnecessary antibiotics. Our objective was to describe the implementation of a multisite quality improvement collaborative to reduce unnecessary blood cultures in pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) patients, and its 18-month impact on blood culture rates and safety metrics. Methods: In 2018, 14 PICUs joined the Blood Culture Improvement Guidelines and Diagnostic Stewardship for Antibiotic Reduction in Critically Ill Children (Bright STAR) Collaborative, designed to understand and improve blood culture practices in critically ill children. Guided by a centralized multidisciplinary study team, sites first reviewed existing evidence for safe reduction of unnecessary blood cultures and assessed local practices and barriers to change. Subsequently, local champions developed and implemented clinical decision-support tools informed by local patient needs to guide new blood-culture practices. The coordinating study team facilitated regular evaluations and discussions of project progress through monthly phone calls, site visits if requested by sites or the study team, and collaborative-wide teleconferences. The study team collected monthly blood culture rates and monitored for possible delays in obtaining blood cultures using a standardized review process as a safety balancing metric. We compared 24 months of baseline data to 18 months of postimplementation using a Poisson regression model accounting for the site-specific patient days and correlation of culture use within a site over time. Results: Across the 14 sites, before implementation, 41,768 blood cultures were collected over 259,701 PICU patient days. The mean preimplementation site-specific blood culture rate was 15.7 cultures per 100 patient days (rate range, 9.6–48.2 cultures per 100 patient days). After implementation, 22,397 blood cultures were collected over 208,171 PICU patient days. The mean postimplementation rate was 10.4 cultures per 100 patient days (rate range, 4.7–28.3 cultures per 100 patient days), which was 33.6% lower than the preimplementation (relative rate 0.66; 95% CI, 0.65–0.68 p <0.01). In 18 months post-implementation, sites reviewed 793 positive blood cultures, and identified only one suspected delay in culture collection possibly attributable to the site’s blood culture reduction program. Conclusions: Multidisciplinary quality improvement teams safely facilitated a 33.6% average reduction in blood culture use in critically ill children at 14 hospitals. Future collaborative work will determine the impact of blood culture diagnostic stewardship on antibiotic use and other important patient safety outcomes.Funding: NoDisclosures: None


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S685-S686
Author(s):  
Charlotte Z Woods-Hill ◽  
Danielle W Koontz ◽  
Annie Voskertchian MPH ◽  
Anping Xie PhD ◽  
Marlene R Miller ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Overuse of blood cultures can lead to false positives and unnecessary antibiotics. Our objective was to describe the implementation and 12-month impact of a multi-site quality improvement collaborative to reduce unnecessary blood cultures in pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) patients. Methods In 2018, 14 PICUs joined the Blood Culture Improvement Guidelines and Diagnostic Stewardship for Antibiotic Reduction in Critically Ill Children (Bright STAR) Collaborative, designed to understand and improve blood culture practices in PICUs. Guided by a multidisciplinary study team, sites 1) reviewed existing evidence for safe blood culture reduction, 2) assessed local practices and barriers to change, and 3) developed and implemented new blood culture practices informed by local context. We facilitated and monitored project progress through phone calls, site visits, and collaborative-wide teleconferences. We collected monthly blood culture rates and monitored for delays in culture collection as a safety balancing metric. We compared 24 months of baseline data to post-implementation data (2-14 months) using a Poisson regression model accounting for the site-specific patient days and correlation of culture use within a site over time. Results Across 14 sites, there were 41,986 pre-implementation blood cultures collected over 238,182 PICU patient days. The mean pre-implementation site-specific blood culture rate was 19.42 cultures/100 patient days (range 9.59 to 48.18 cultures/100 patient days). Post-implementation, there were 12,909 blood cultures collected over 118,600 PICU patient days. The mean post-implementation rate was 14.02 cultures/100 patient days (range 5.40 to 37.57 cultures/100 patient days), a 23% decrease (relative rate 0.77, 95% CI: 0.60, 0.99, p = 0.04). In 12 months post-implementation, sites reviewed 463 positive blood cultures, and identified only one suspected delay in culture collection possibly attributable to the site’s culture reduction program. Bright STAR Collaborative Site Blood Culture Rate 100 Patient Days Conclusion Multidisciplinary teams facilitated a 23% average reduction in blood culture use in 14 PICUs. Future work will determine the impact of blood culture diagnostic stewardship on antibiotic use and other important patient safety outcomes. Disclosures James C. Fackler MD, MD, Rubicon Health LLC (Other Financial or Material Support, Founder)


2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s22-s23
Author(s):  
Charlotte Woods-Hill ◽  
Danielle Koontz ◽  
Annie Voskertchian ◽  
Marlene Miller ◽  
James Fackler ◽  
...  

Background: Blood cultures are essential diagnostic tools used to identify bloodstream infections and to guide antimicrobial therapy. However, collecting cultures without clear indications or that do not inform management can lead to false-positive results and unnecessary use of antibiotics. Blood culture practices vary significantly in critically ill children. Our objective was to create a consensus guideline focusing on when to safely avoid blood cultures in pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) patients. Methods: A panel of multidisciplinary experts, many participating in the Blood Culture Improvement Guidelines and Diagnostic Stewardship for Antibiotic Reduction in Critically Ill Children (Bright STAR) Collaborative, engaged in a 2-part modified Delphi process. Round 1 consisted of a preparatory literature summary and an electronic survey sent to subject matter experts (SMEs). In the survey, SMEs rated a series of recommendations about when to avoid blood cultures on a 5-point Likert scale, 1 being the lowest score and 5 being the highest score. Consensus was achieved for each recommendation if 75% of respondents chose a score of 4 or 5, and these were included in the final guideline. Any recommendations that did not meet these a priori criteria for consensus were set aside for discussion during the in-person expert panel review (round 2). An outside expert in consensus methodology facilitated round 2. After a review of the survey results and comments from round 1 and group discussion, the SMEs voted on these recommendations in real time. Voting was blinded. Participants included Bright STAR site leads, national content experts, and representatives from relevant national societies. Results: We received 29 completed surveys from 34 invited participants for an 85% response rate. Of the 27 round 1 recommendations, 18 met predetermined criteria for consensus. Round 2 included 26 in-person voting participants who (1) discussed and modified the 9 recommendations that had not met round 1 consensus, and (2) modified for clarity or condensed from multiple into single recommendations the 18 recommendations that had met the round 1 consensus. The final document contains 19 recommendations that provide guidance on how to safely improve blood culture use in PICU patients (Table 1). Also, 8 recommendations discussed did not reach consensus for inclusion. Conclusions: Using a modified Delphi process, we created consensus recommendations on when to avoid blood cultures and prevent overuse in critically ill children. These guidelines are a critical step in disseminating diagnostic stewardship and reducing unnecessary testing on a wider scale.Funding: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, R18 HS025642-01, 9/2017 – 9/2020 (Aaron Milstone, PI)Disclosures: None


2019 ◽  
Vol 08 (03) ◽  
pp. 144-147
Author(s):  
Christine Anh-Thu Tran ◽  
Jenna Verena Zschaebitz ◽  
Michael Campbell Spaeder

AbstractBlood culture acquisition is integral in the assessment of patients with sepsis, though there exists a lack of clarity relating to clinical states that warrant acquisition. We investigated the clinical status of critically ill children in the timeframe proximate to acquisition of blood cultures. The associated rates of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (72%) and sepsis (57%) with blood culture acquisition were relatively low suggesting a potential overutilization of blood cultures. Efforts are needed to improve decision making at the time that acquisition of blood cultures is under consideration and promote percutaneous blood draws over indwelling lines.


2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-108
Author(s):  
Thyyar M. Ravindranath ◽  
John S. Baird

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. e213-e218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Itay Berger ◽  
Merav Gil Margolis ◽  
Elhanan Nahum ◽  
Ovdi Dagan ◽  
Itzhak Levy ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 637-637 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Woods-Hill ◽  
James Fackler ◽  
Laura Lee ◽  
Michelle Smith ◽  
Anping Xie ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Rini ◽  
Sharon Manne ◽  
Katherine Duhamel ◽  
Jane Austin ◽  
Jamie Ostroff ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (03) ◽  
Author(s):  
C Jotterand ◽  
J Depeyre ◽  
C Moullet ◽  
MH Perez ◽  
J Cotting

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document