To save content items to your account,
please 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 account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.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 saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.
Background: Penicillin allergies are frequently reported and are associated with adverse clinical and antimicrobial stewardship outcomes. Allergy delabeling, either by patient history or skin testing and oral challenge can facilitate removal of penicillin allergy label. However, penicillinallergies are often reinstated in the medical record and data is limited about how and why this occurs. In our center, the departments of allergy and infectious diseases utilize an allergist nurse practitioner for penicillin allergy delabeling. We investigated the prevalence of penicillin allergy reinstatement following removal and associated factors thereof. Methods: We performed a retrospective observational study of patients who previously had penicillin allergy removed by the allergist nurse practitioner between August 2020 and May 2021 (250 days). Patients were followed for a minimum of 8 months and up to 16 months after penicillin allergy removal. We then assessed whether the allergy was reinstated. Clinical characteristics were compared between patients with penicillin allergy reinstated and not reinstated using the χ2 and Mann-Whitney U test. The primary end point was prevalence of penicillin allergy reinstatement following removal. Results: During the study period, 81 patients had penicillin allergy removed, but it was later reinstated in 19 patients (23%) (Fig 1). Median time to reinstatement was 94 days. Allergies were reinstated most frequently by nurses (53%) and medical assistants (37%). Reinstatement occurred in both outpatient (53%) and inpatient (47%) settings. In 18 of 19 cases, there was no acknowledgment that a prior assessment had determined the patient was not allergic to penicillin. Only 1 patient experienced a reaction prompting reinstatement of penicillin allergy. Once the allergy was redocumented, it was subsequently mentioned in a median of 17 notes per patient. Comorbidities did not differ between patients with allergy reinstated versus those without (Table 1). Patients with penicillin allergy reinstated were more often originally delabeled via history rather than skin test followed by oral challenge and were more likely to have been readmitted subsequently. Conclusions: Penicillin allergies were redocumented in almost one-quarter of patients, most frequently by a nonphysician team member and without acknowledgement of prior removal. Patients who undergo skin testing may be less likely to continue to report a penicillin allergy to medical staff compared to those whose allergy is removed based on history. Increased interactions with the healthcare system may have contributed to having the allergy reinstated.
Resource-intensive interventions and education are susceptible to a lack of long-term sustainability and regression to the mean. The respiratory culture nudge changed reporting to “Commensal Respiratory Flora only: No S. aureus/MRSA or P. aeruginosa.” This study demonstrated sustained reduction in broad-spectrum antibiotic duration and long-term sustainability 3 years after implementation.
Background:Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are frequently used to deliver intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy after discharge from the hospital. Infectious disease (ID) physicians are often consulted prior to PICC placement, but whether their approval influences PICC appropriateness and complications is not known. Methods: Using data from the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium (HMS) on PICCs placed in critically ill and hospitalized medical patients between January 1, 2015, and July 26, 2019, we examined the association between ID physician approval of PICC insertion for IV antibiotics and device appropriateness and outcomes. Appropriateness was defined according to the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC) as a composite measure of (1) avoiding PICC use for durations ≤5 days; (2) using single-lumen instead of multilumen catheters; and (3) avoiding PICC use in patients with chronic kidney disease (eGFR>45 mL/min). The associations between ID approval of PICC use and odds of PICC-related complications (eg, deep vein thrombosis, central-line–associated bloodstream infection, and catheter occlusion) were also assessed. Multivariable models adjusting for patient severity of illness and hospital-level clustering were fit to both outcomes. Results were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% CIs. Results: Data from 36,594 patients who underwent PICC placement across 42 Michigan hospitals were included in the analysis. In total, 21,653 (55%) PICCs were placed for the indication of IV antibiotics; 14,935 (69%) of these had a documented ID consultation prior to placement, whereas 6,718 (31%) did not. Of the 14,935 PICCs with an ID consultation, 10,238 (69%) had ID approval documented prior to device placement (Fig. 1). Compared to no approval, PICCs approved by ID prior to insertion were more likely to be appropriate (OR, 3.51; 95% CI, 3.28–3.77; P < .001). Specifically, approval was associated with higher single-lumen use (OR, 5.13; 95% CI, 4.72–5.58; P < .001), less placement of PICCs with dwell times ≤ 5 days (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.25–0.32; P < .001), and less frequent use in patients with chronic kidney disease (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73–0.87; P < .001). ID approval of PICCs prior to insertion was associated with a significantly lower odds of PICC-related complications (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.51–0.64) (Table 1). Conclusions: ID approval of PICC use for IV antibiotic therapy in hospitalized patients was associated with greater appropriateness and fewer complications. Policies aimed at ensuring ID review prior to PICC use may help improve patient and device safety.
Disclosures:Valerie M. Vaughn reports contract research for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, the NIH, the SHEA, and the APIC. She also reports fees from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation Speaker’s Bureau, the CDC, the Pew Research Trust, Sepsis Alliance, and The Hospital and Health System Association of Pennsylvania.
Background: Unnecessary and prolonged antibiotic use is an important driver of antimicrobial resistance, increasing patient harm and resource utilization. Antimicrobials prescribed at hospital discharge represent an important opportunity to intervene and optimize therapy. Objective: We describe the implementation of a pharmacist-led multidisciplinary antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) intervention at transition of care (TOC) to improve antibiotic selection and duration. Methods: This intervention an IRB-approved multihospital, quasi-experimental, 3-phase stepped-wedge project in a 5-hospital health system. The setting included a large, urban, academic medical center in Detroit, Michigan, and 4 community hospitals in southeastern Michigan. AMS is provided by a pharmacist and infectious diseases physician at each site. For the AMS TOC intervention, pharmacists implemented 3 strategies: (1) early identification of patients to be discharged on oral antibiotics; (2) collaborative planning and communication regarding guideline-recommended antibiotic selection and duration; and (3) facilitation of discharge antibiotic prescription with appropriate stop date. Process improvements were modified to fit the academic and community hospital practice models. The process was implemented in general and specialty practice wards at each hospital site. Prior to implementation in October 2018, pharmacists were trained on tools to standardize identification, collaboration, and documentation. Pocket cards were used to augment education and electronic medical record (EMR) templates standardized documentation. Physicians and nurses on participating units were educated on the rationale and process. Following initiation, ongoing feedback was provided regularly to pharmacists to discuss challenges and to identify solutions. Process measures included the total number of patients receiving the intervention monthly, as indicated by pharmacist AMS TOC notes placed. Protocol adherence was evaluated in 25 randomly selected patients in each study phase each month. Adherence was defined as a pharmacist preparing discharge prescriptions and a placing note in the EMR. Results: Over the study period, 1,558 patient encounters received AMS TOC facilitation by a pharmacist. Monthly protocol adherence ranged from 29% to 87% (higher in academic institutions than community) (Fig. 1). Months of low protocol adherence were associated with times of reduced staffing and onboarding a large group of new employees or trainees. Additional barriers included discharges over weekends. The most common area needing clarification was how to count days of therapy to determine the appropriate stop date. A guide of how to count days of therapy was created to assist. Conclusions: Pharmacist-led antimicrobial stewardship at discharge is a feasible intervention in both academic and community settings. Identifying potential barriers and assessing strategies with multidisciplinary healthcare teams allows for optimal implementation and intervention rollout.
Funding: This work was completed under CDC contract number 200-2018-02928.
SHEA endorses adhering to the recommendations by the CDC and ACIP for immunizations of all children and adults. All persons providing clinical care should be familiar with these recommendations and should routinely assess immunization compliance of their patients and strongly recommend all routine immunizations to patients. All healthcare personnel (HCP) should be immunized against vaccine-preventable diseases as recommended by the CDC/ACIP (unless immunity is demonstrated by another recommended method). SHEA endorses the policy that immunization should be a condition of employment or functioning (students, contract workers, volunteers, etc) at a healthcare facility. Only recognized medical contraindications should be accepted for not receiving recommended immunizations.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.