Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-79b67bcb76-jn9wc Total loading time: 0.357 Render date: 2021-05-13T04:14:46.159Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Long-term outcomes of an electronic medical record (EMR)–integrated antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) intensive care unit (ICU) ward round

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2021

Misha Devchand
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases Department, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia Pharmacy Department, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
Andrew Nolen
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases Department, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia Department of Medicine (Austin Health), University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
Andrew J. Stewardson
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases, The Alfred Hospital, Victoria, Australia Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Stephen J. Warrillow
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine (Austin Health), University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia Department of Intensive Care, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
Kent Garrett
Affiliation:
Pharmacy Department, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
Jason A. Trubiano
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases Department, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia Department of Medicine (Austin Health), University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia The National Centre for Infections in Cancer, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Victoria, Australia
Corresponding
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Letter to the Editor
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.

To the Editor—Intensive care units (ICUs) are an important target for antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programs due to their high usage of antimicrobials. Reference Luyt, Bréchot, Trouillet and Chastre1,Reference Chiotos, Tamma and Gerber2 Audit and feedback, with face-to-face education within the ICU is associated with a short-term decrease in antimicrobial consumption, beneficial effects on resistance rates, and a reduction in antimicrobial costs. Reference Taggart, Leung, Muller, Matukas and Daneman3-Reference Katsios, Burry and Nelson6 We previously demonstrated the impact of an EMR-integrated AMS-ICU ward round over a 9-month period. Reference Devchand, Stewardson and Urbancic7 In this current study, we have demonstrated the long-term (>12 months) sustained improvement in antimicrobial prescribing following the implementation of an EMR-integrated AMS-ICU ward round. Additionally, we explored clinical and patient factors that affect the decision to provide AMS recommendations.

In August 2017, a new 5-day-per-week, EMR-integrated, AMS-ICU ward round was implemented at Austin Health (Melbourne, Australia), a tertiary referral hospital with a 29-bed mixed medical-surgical ICU. Reference Devchand, Stewardson and Urbancic7 From August 2017 to July 2019 (inclusive), we audited the results of this intervention. These recommendations were categorized according to the previously published “Five Moments” metric. Reference Devchand, Stewardson and Urbancic7 Compliance with AMS recommendations was reviewed 24 hours after each ward round by the AMS pharmacist. Multidrug-resistant colonization monitoring was performed routinely in the ICU (see definitions in the Supplementary Material online), and subsequent data were collected.

To monitor antimicrobial use 2 years before and after the intervention, defined daily dose (DDD) per 1,000 occupied bed day (OBD) data were obtained from the National Antimicrobial Utilisation Surveillance Program (NAUSP) (see definitions in the Supplementary Material online). 8 Appropriateness scores from the yearly point-prevalence National Antimicrobial Prescribing Survey (NAPS; see definitions in the Supplementary Material online) were also compared before implementation (2015–2016) and after implementation (2017–2018) of the EMR-integrated AMS-ICU ward rounds. Appropriateness scoring was undertaken by the same infectious diseases clinician each year, independent from this intervention. Reference James, Upjohn and Cotta9

A sensitivity analysis was performed utilizing additional data collected over a 9-week period (February–April 2019). The analysis consisted of all ICU antimicrobials reviewed by the AMS-ICU service within 48 hours of prescription to determine factors (patient vs clinician) associated with recommendations made as a result of the AMS-ICU ward rounds. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were calculated for these factors, correcting for Charleston comorbidity index and ICU physician years of experience (<5 years and ≥5 years). Antimicrobial classes were compared against piperacillin/tazobactam and amoxicillin/clavulanate (IV). Infectious syndromes were compared with infections of unclear source. This study was approved by the Austin Health Ethics Committee (no. CD 18-004).

In the 2-year postintervention period, 1,992 AMS recommendations were given as a result of the AMS-ICU ward rounds for the 916 patients reviewed (Supplementary Table 1 online). The rates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), and multidrug-resistant gram-negative (MDR-GN) colonization before and after the intervention are shown in Supplementary Table 2 (online). We detected a significant increase in MRSA colonisation after the intervention versus before the intervention (2.29% vs 0.06%; P < .0001), with no difference noted for VRE or MDR-GN isolation (P > .05).

Duration of the ward round was collected from November 2017 onward; the median duration was 0.5 hours (IQR, 0.38–0.65). All of the ward rounds had at least an infectious diseases consultant or a registrar present. During the first year after the intervention, 876 (87.6%) of 1,000 recommendations were implemented by the ICU, compared with the second year, during which 886 (89.3%) of 992 recommendations were implemented (P = .23). Recommendations and acceptance rates are outlined in Supplementary Table 3 (online).

Utilizing DDD per 1,000 OBD data, we demonstrated an immediate decrease in the use of ceftriaxone, meropenem, piperacillin/tazobactam, and vancomycin. Additionally, we demonstrated an ongoing significant reduction in the use of vancomycin and ciprofloxacin after the intervention; however, we detected no significant long-term change in the utilization of ceftriaxone or piperacillin/tazobactam postintervention (Fig. 1). Prescribing appropriateness (utilizing yearly NAPS appropriateness scores) increased from 41 (51%) of 80 during the preintervention period (2015–2016) to 62 (73%) of 85 after the intervention was implemented (2017–2018) (P = .0061).

Fig. 1. Change in antimicrobial use after implementation of AMS-ICU intervention. Dotted vertical lines represent commencement of intervention. Solid lines represent preintervention and postintervention trends in antimicrobial use estimated using Poisson segmented regression. The dots on the graph are raw data points. Note. ICU, intensive care unit; AMS, antimicrobial stewardship; DDDs, defined daily doses; OBDs, occupied bed days.

The additional sensitivity analysis was performed for 184 patients (Supplementary Table 4 online) to examine factors that affected the decision to make AMS recommendations. This analysis revealed that significantly more recommendations were made for IV therapy than for oral therapy: adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 2.64 (Supplementary Table 5 online). No antimicrobial class was associated with an increased ratio of recommendations (Supplementary Table 5 online). Pneumonia was the only infectious syndrome associated with a higher ratio of recommendations (aOR, 6.85, IQR, 1.83–25.63).

Similarly to other studies, our audit has demonstrated an immediate decrease in the utilization of our target antimicrobials (ceftriaxone, meropenem, piperacillin/tazobactam and vancomycin) after the intervention. Reference Taggart, Leung, Muller, Matukas and Daneman3,Reference Morris, Bai and Burry4 In addition, we demonstrated an ongoing significant reduction in vancomycin and ciprofloxacin use after this intervention. Interestingly, during the audit period, we noted a significant increase in MRSA colonization. Nevertheless, we achieved an ongoing reduction in vancomycin use. We hypothesize that this is due to our low rates of MRSA before and after the intervention, which allowed us to stratify risk when prescribing vancomycin. In addition, our institution has a strong focus on antibiotic allergy assessment, which could account for some of the ongoing reduction in ciprofloxacin and vancomycin use. Reference Trubiano, Chen, Cheng, Grayson, Slavin and Thursky10

Our study was limited by the provision of a Monday–Friday AMS-ICU service. However, this study included an exploratory sensitivity analysis to examine factors associated with recommendations being made by the AMS-ICU ward rounds. We observed a greater proportion of recommendations for IV compared to oral antimicrobial therapy. Also, 87.2% of prescriptions during this period were for IV therapies, a key target for “de-escalation” and “switch.” Prescriptions for patients with pneumonia were more likely to receive a recommendation supporting earlier findings that pneumonia is a target for AMS-ICU programs. Reference Devchand, Stewardson and Urbancic7

This audit demonstrates that the benefits of an EMR-integrated AMS-ICU ward-round intervention can be sustained in the long term. Future research should focus on risk-stratifying patients who would most benefit from an AMS review within the ICU.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Elizabeth A Grabsch for assistance with obtaining data.

Financial support

J.A.T. is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Early Careers Fellowship (grant no. APP1139902). AJS is supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Early Career Fellowship (GNT1141398). Other authors report no financial support relevant to this article.

Conflicts of interest

AJS reports having received an investigator-initiated research grant funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. All other authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

Supplementary material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2021.71

References

Luyt, CE, Bréchot, N, Trouillet, JL, Chastre, J. Antibiotic stewardship in the intensive care unit. Crit Care 2014;18.Google ScholarPubMed
Chiotos, K, Tamma, PD, Gerber, JS. Antibiotic stewardship in the intensive care unit: challenges and opportunities. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2019;40:693698.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taggart, LR, Leung, E, Muller, MP, Matukas, LM, Daneman, N. Differential outcome of an antimicrobial stewardship audit and feedback program in two intensive care units: a controlled interrupted time series study. BMC Infect Dis 2015;15:480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morris, AM, Bai, A, Burry, L, et al. Long-term effects of phased implementation of antimicrobial stewardship in academic ICUs: 2007–2015. Crit Care Med 2019;47:159166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaki, R, Elligsen, M, Walker, S, Simor, A, Palmay, L, Daneman, N. Impact of antimicrobial stewardship in critical care: a systematic review. J Antimicrob Chemother 2011;66:12231230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Katsios, CM, Burry, L, Nelson, S, et al. An antimicrobial stewardship program improves antimicrobial treatment by culture site and the quality of antimicrobial prescribing in critically ill patients. Crit Care 2012;16:R216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Devchand, M, Stewardson, AJ, Urbancic, KF, et al. Outcomes of an electronic medical record (EMR)–driven intensive care unit (ICU)-antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) ward round: assessing the “Five Moments of Antimicrobial Prescribing.” Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2019;40:11701175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, R, Upjohn, L, Cotta, M, et al. Measuring antimicrobial prescribing quality in Australian hospitals: development and evaluation of a national antimicrobial prescribing survey tool. J Antimicrob Chemother 2015;70:19121918.Google ScholarPubMed
Trubiano, JA, Chen, C, Cheng, AC, Grayson, ML, Slavin, MA, Thursky, KA. Antimicrobial allergy ‘labels’ drive inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing: lessons for stewardship. J Antimicrob Chemother 2016;71:17151722.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Devchand et al. supplementary material

Devchand et al. supplementary material

Download Devchand et al. supplementary material(File)
File 43 KB
You have Access

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Long-term outcomes of an electronic medical record (EMR)–integrated antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) intensive care unit (ICU) ward round
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Long-term outcomes of an electronic medical record (EMR)–integrated antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) intensive care unit (ICU) ward round
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Long-term outcomes of an electronic medical record (EMR)–integrated antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) intensive care unit (ICU) ward round
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *