The potential utility of QuickFISH™ on positive blood cultures to inform antimicrobial stewardship decisions

Author(s):  
Tehmina Bharucha
2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (S1) ◽  
pp. s36-s36
Author(s):  
Connie Schaefer

Background: Blood culture is a crucial diagnostic tool for healthcare systems, but false-positive results drain clinical resources, imperil patients with an increased length of stay (and associated hospital-acquired infection risk), and undermine global health initiatives when broad-spectrum antibiotics are administered unnecessarily. Considering emerging technologies that mitigate human error factors, we questioned historically acceptable rates of blood culture contamination, which prompted a need to promote and trial these technologies further. In a 3-month trial, 3 emergency departments in a midwestern healthcare system utilized an initial specimen diversion device (ISDD) to draw blood cultures to bring their blood culture contamination rate (4.4% prior to intervention) below the 3% benchmark recommended by the Clinical & Laboratory Standards Institute. Methods: All emergency department nursing staff received operational training on the ISDD for blood culture sample acquisition. From June through August 2019, 1,847 blood cultures were drawn via the ISDD, and 862 were drawn via the standard method. Results: In total, 16 contamination events occurred when utilizing the ISDD (0.9%) and 37 contamination events occurred when utilizing the standard method (4.3%). ISDD utilization resulted in an 80% reduction in blood culture contamination from the rate of 4.4% rate held prior to intervention. Conclusions: A midwestern healthcare system experienced a dramatic reduction in blood culture contamination across 3 emergency departments while pilot testing an ISDD, conserving laboratory and therapeutic resources while minimizing patient exposure to unnecessary risks and procedures. If the results obtained here were sustained and the ISDD utilized for all blood culture draws, nearly 400 contamination events could be avoided annually in this system. Reducing unnecessary antibiotic use in this manner will lower rates of associated adverse events such as acute kidney injury and allergic reaction, which are possible topics for further investigation. The COVID-19 pandemic has recently highlighted both the importance of keeping hospital beds available and the rampant carelessness with which broad-spectrum antibiotics are administered (escalating the threat posed by multidrug-resistant organisms). As more ambitious healthcare benchmarks become attainable, promoting and adhering to higher standards for patient care will be critical to furthering an antimicrobial stewardship agenda and to reducing treatment inequity in the field.Funding: NoDisclosures: None


2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Maya Beganovic ◽  
Tristan T Timbrook ◽  
Sarah M Wieczorkiewicz

Abstract Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programs integrated with rapid diagnostic tests optimize patient outcomes and reduce time to effective therapy (TTET) and time to optimal therapy (TTOT). This study identifies predictors of TTET and TTOT among patients with positive blood cultures and identifies limitations to current TTOT definitions and outcomes.


BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. e030062
Author(s):  
Silvia Jiménez-Jorge ◽  
Zaira R Palacios-Baena ◽  
Clara M Rosso-Fernández ◽  
José A Girón-Ortega ◽  
Jesús Rodriguez-Baño ◽  
...  

IntroductionPatients with negative blood cultures (BCx) represent 85%–90% of all patients with BCx taken during hospital admission. This population usually includes a heterogeneous group of patients admitted with infectious diseases or febrile syndromes that require a blood culture. There is very little evidence of the clinical characteristics and antibiotic treatment given to these patients.Methods and analysisIn a preliminary exploratory prospective cohort study of patients with BCx taken, the clinical/therapeutic characteristics and outcomes/antimicrobial stewardship opportunities of a population of patients with negative BCx will be analysed. In the second phase, using a cluster randomised crossover design, the implementation of an antimicrobial stewardship intervention targeting patients with negative BCx will be evaluated in terms of quality of antimicrobial use (duration and de-escalation), length of hospital stay and mortality.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been and registered with clinicaltrials.gov. The findings of our study may support the implementation in clinical practice of an antimicrobial stewardship intervention to optimise the use of antibiotics in patients with negative BCx. The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated at national and international conferences.Trial registration numberNCT03535324.


2020 ◽  
Vol 105 (9) ◽  
pp. e23.1-e23
Author(s):  
Orlagh McGarrity ◽  
Aliya Pabani

Introduction, Aims and ObjectivesIn 2011 the Start Smart then Focus campaign was launched by Public Health England (PHE) to combat antimicrobial resistance.1 The ‘focus’ element refers to the antimicrobial review at 48–72 hours, when a decision and documentation regarding infection management should be made. [OM1] At this tertiary/quaternary paediatric hospital we treat, immunocompromised, high risk patients. In a recent audit it was identified that 80% of antimicrobial use is IV, this may be due to several factors including good central access, centrally prepared IV therapy and oral agents being challenging to administer to children. The aim of the audit was to assess if patient have a blood culture prior to starting therapy, have a senior review at 48–72 hours, and thirdly if our high proportion of intravenous antimicrobial use is justified.MethodElectronic prescribing data from JAC was collected retrospectively over an 8 day period. IV antimicrobials for which there is a suitable oral alternative, this was defined as >80% bioavailability, were included. Patients were excluded in the ICU, cancer and transplant setting, those with absorption issues and with a high risk infection, such as endocarditis or bacteraemia. Patient were assessed against a set criteria to determine if they were eligible to switch from IV to PO therapy; afebrile, stable blood pressure, heart rate <90/min, respiratory rate < 20/min for 24 hours. Reducing CRP, reducing white cell count, blood cultures negative or sensitive to an antibiotic that can be given orally.Results100% of patients (11) had a blood cultures taken within 72 hours of starting therapy55% of patients had a positive blood culture82% of patients had a senior review at 48–72 hours46% of patients were eligible to switch from IV to PO therapy at 72 hours33% of eligible patients were switched from IV to PO therapy at 72 hoursConclusion and RecommendationsThis audit had a low sample size due to the complexity of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the difficulty in reviewing patient parameters on many different hospital interfaces. It is known that each patient is reviewed at least 24 hourly on most wards and therefore there is a need for improved documentation of prescribing decisions. Implementation of an IV to oral switch guideline is recommended to support prescribing decisions and educate and reassure clinicians on the bioavailability and benefits of PO antimicrobial therapy where appropriate. Having recently changed electronic patient management systems strategies to explore include hard stops on IV antimicrobial therapies, however this will require much consideration. Education of pharmacist and nurses is required to raise awareness about antimicrobial resistance and the benefits of IV to PO switches, despite the ease of this therapy at out Trust. This will promote a culture in which all healthcare professionals are active antimicrobial guardians, leading to better patient outcomes, less service pressures, and long term financial benefit.ReferenceGOV.UK. 2019. Antimicrobial stewardship: Start smart - then focus. [ONLINE]Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/antimicrobial-stewardship-start-smart-then-focus [Accessed 3 July 2019]


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S181-S182
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Gulleen ◽  
Margaret Lubwama ◽  
Alfred Komakech ◽  
Elizabeth M Krantz ◽  
Catherine Liu ◽  
...  

Abstract Background As access to cancer treatment has increased in sub-Saharan Africa (sSA), infection-related complications are a growing concern. Little is known about infection management practices in this setting. Understanding the unique challenges to diagnosing and treating infections can inform the development of targeted strategies to improve infection management for cancer treatment programs throughout sSA. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey of doctors, nurses, and pharmacists at the Uganda Cancer Institute (UCI), a national cancer referral hospital in Kampala, Uganda. The 25-item survey was designed to assess staff knowledge of antimicrobial resistance and antimicrobial stewardship, investigate antibiotic decision-making practices, and identify barriers to diagnosing and treating infections. Results Of the 61 respondents, 25 (41%) were doctors, 7 (11%) were pharmacists, and 29 (48%) were nurses. In total, 98% (60/61) had heard of the term “antimicrobial resistance” and 84% (51/61) agreed that antimicrobial resistance is an important problem at UCI. Multiple factors were felt to contribute to antimicrobial resistance including the use of too many antibiotics, patient insistence on antibiotics, and poor patient adherence (Fig 1). While 72% (44/61) had heard of the term “antimicrobial stewardship”, only 25% (15/61) knew a lot about what it meant. Numerous factors were considered important to antibiotic decision-making including patient white blood cell count and severity of illness (Fig 2). Perceived barriers to infection diagnosis included the inability to obtain blood cultures and to regularly measure patient temperatures; perceived barriers to obtaining blood cultures included patient cost and availability of supplies (Fig 3). Figure 1. Factors that doctors, pharmacists, and nurses working at the Uganda Cancer Institute (UCI) perceive as contributing to antimicrobial resistance at the UCI. Percentages shown next to bars represent the combined total percentage of respondents reporting that the factor does not or usually does not contribute (left of bars, main chart), occasionally or frequently contributes (right of bars, main chart), or neither contributes nor does not contribute (right of neutral chart). Figure 2. Factors that doctors, pharmacists, and nurses working at the Uganda Cancer Institute consider to be important when choosing antibiotics to treat infections. Percentages shown next to bars represent the combined total percentage of respondents reporting that the factor is somewhat or very unimportant (left of bars, main chart), somewhat or very important (right of bars, main chart), or neither important nor unimportant (right of neutral chart). Figure 3. Factors that doctors, pharmacists, and nurses working at the Uganda Cancer Institute perceive as limiting the ability to diagnose infections and obtain blood cultures. Conclusion While most staff recognized the term “antimicrobial resistance” and identified this as a major local problem, fewer were familiar with the term “antimicrobial stewardship”. We identified numerous perceived barriers to infection diagnosis and treatment, including the ability to consistently measure temperatures and the cost of blood cultures. A multipronged approach is needed to improve staff knowledge of antimicrobial stewardship and to address the systematic barriers to infection management at UCI. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document