Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T13:22:44.960Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

An electronic antimicrobial stewardship intervention reduces inappropriate parenteral antibiotic therapy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2018

Sean T. H. Liu
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
Mark J. Bailey
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
Allen Zheng
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
Patricia Saunders-Hao
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmacy, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, New York
Adel Bassily-Marcus
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
Maureen Harding
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
Meenakshi Rana
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
Roopa Kohli-Seth
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
Gopi Patel
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
Shirish Huprikar
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
Talia H. Swartz*
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
*
Author for correspondence: Talia Swartz MD, Department of Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, 1 Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 1090, NY, New York 10029. E-mail: talia.swartz@mssm.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Letter to the Editor
Copyright
© 2018 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved. 

To the Editor—A peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) provides outpatient access to long-term parenteral antibiotics.Reference Wai, Frighetto, Marra, Chan and Jewesson 1 , Reference Goodfellow, Wai and Frighetto 2 Most antimicrobial stewardship systems do not have an outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) program or mandatory infectious diseases (ID) consultation prior to patient discharge.Reference Lane, Marschall and Beekmann 3 Such programs ensure that PICC insertions are appropriate to avoid excessive antibiotic usage, line-associated complications, and antimicrobial resistanceReference Shrestha, Bhaskaran, Scalera, Schmitt, Rehm and Gordon 4 Reference Paladino and Poretz 6 . Here, we report a simple intervention that identifies patients at risk for unnecessary parenteral antibiotics and recommends ID consultation. The intervention resulted in an 84% relative risk reduction in patients discharged with PICC insertions without ID consultation.

The study was performed at a 1,134-bed academic medical center. Between January 2016 and May 2016, 181 PICC orders were placed for parenteral antibiotics (Fig. 1A), and 172 of these included ID consultation (95%) while 9 (5%) did not. Two ID attending physicians retrospectively reviewed these 9 cases and concluded that 8 PICC insertions (89%) were inappropriate.

Fig. 1 Pre- and postintervention flowchart. (A) Before the intervention, 181 PICC insertion orders were placed for parenteral antibiotics. Overall, 172 patients received ID consultation, while 9 patients did not, and 8 of those 9 patients had an inappropriate PICC insertions. (B) Postintervention, 234 orders for PICC insertions were placed for parenteral antibiotics. Among 227 patients indicating that ID was consulted, 185 patients had PICC placement and 42 did not. Seven patients were prompted to consult ID. For 3 of those patients, providers consulted ID and the patients ultimately did not have PICC insertions. For 4 of those patients, ID consultation was not obtained. Of those 4 patients, 3 did not require a PICC, while 1 had a PICC placed that was deemed inappropriate.

An electronic intervention was implemented into the PICC insertion order set in November 2016. Three prompts were inserted to ensure ID consultation for all PICC insertions for parenteral antibiotics: (1) “Will the PICC be used for IV antibiotics?” A “No” response prompted the original order set. A “Yes” prompted the following question: (2) “Is ID consulted?” A “No” prompted the statement: “ID consultation is required prior to PICC placement for IV antibiotics. Please consult an ID team.” (3) In this case, the provider would need to select: “ID will be consulted immediately.” This project was a quality improvement initiative conducted by the Quality Improvement Committee at the Mount Sinai Hospital.

After launching the electronic intervention, 234 PICC orders were placed for parenteral antibiotics between December 2016 to May 2017 (Figure 1B). Seven instances triggered “ID will be consulted immediately.” Three patients had ID consultation and did not have a PICC inserted. Four patients did not have ID consultation. Among these, 3 patients were switched to oral antibiotics without ID consultation. Finally, 1 patient (among the 7 instances) was discharged with a PICC insertion without ID consultation and had an unfavorable outcome.

1 of 7 patients was discharged with an inappropriate PICC insertion without an ID consultation, a reduction of 89% (8 of 9 patients) before the intervention. Thus, the EMR intervention resulted in an 84% relative risk reduction of inappropriate PICC insertions. All charts for whom PICC insertions occurred without ID consultation were independently reviewed by 2 ID attending physicians. In 24 of 26 reviews (92%), ID consultation would have changed treatment management to avoid PICC insertion.

In conclusion, this intervention provides a sustainable and cost-effective antimicrobial stewardship approach to reduce inappropriate parenteral antibiotics usage. It also highlights the importance of ID consultation in determining the appropriateness of long-term outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy.

Acknowledgements

We thank the EMR team for implementing the electronic intervention.

Financial support

This work was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) (grant no. K-08AI120806).

Conflicts of interest

All authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

References

1. Wai, AO, Frighetto, L, Marra, CA, Chan, E, Jewesson, PJ. Cost analysis of an adult outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) programme. A Canadian teaching hospital and Ministry of Health perspective. PharmacoEconomics 2000;18:451457.Google Scholar
2. Goodfellow, AF, Wai, AO, Frighetto, L, et al. Quality-of-life assessment in an outpatient parenteral antibiotic program. Ann Pharmacother 2002;36:18511855.Google Scholar
3. Lane, MA, Marschall, J, Beekmann, SE, et al. Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy practices among adult infectious disease physicians. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35:839844.Google Scholar
4. Shrestha, NK, Bhaskaran, A, Scalera, NM, Schmitt, SK, Rehm, SJ, Gordon, SM. Antimicrobial stewardship at transition of care from hospital to community. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33:401404.Google Scholar
5. Tice, AD, Rehm, SJ, Dalovisio, JR, et al. Practice guidelines for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy. IDSA guidelines. Clin Infect Dis 2004;38:16511672.Google Scholar
6. Paladino, JA, Poretz, D. Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy today. Clin Infect Dis 2010;51 Suppl 2:S198S208.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1 Pre- and postintervention flowchart. (A) Before the intervention, 181 PICC insertion orders were placed for parenteral antibiotics. Overall, 172 patients received ID consultation, while 9 patients did not, and 8 of those 9 patients had an inappropriate PICC insertions. (B) Postintervention, 234 orders for PICC insertions were placed for parenteral antibiotics. Among 227 patients indicating that ID was consulted, 185 patients had PICC placement and 42 did not. Seven patients were prompted to consult ID. For 3 of those patients, providers consulted ID and the patients ultimately did not have PICC insertions. For 4 of those patients, ID consultation was not obtained. Of those 4 patients, 3 did not require a PICC, while 1 had a PICC placed that was deemed inappropriate.