To send 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 sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
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.
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.
Fundamental knowledge about the processes that control the functioning of the biophysical workings of ecosystems has expanded exponentially since the late 1960s. Scientists, then, had only primitive knowledge about C, N, P, S, and H2O cycles; plant, animal, and soil microbial interactions and dynamics; and land, atmosphere, and water interactions. With the advent of systems ecology paradigm (SEP) and the explosion of technologies supporting field and laboratory research, scientists throughout the world were able to assemble the knowledge base known today as ecosystem science. This chapter describes, through the eyes of scientists associated with the Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory (NREL) at Colorado State University (CSU), the evolution of the SEP in discovering how biophysical systems at small scales (ecological sites, landscapes) function as systems. The NREL and CSU are epicenters of the development of ecosystem science. Later, that knowledge, including humans as components of ecosystems, has been applied to small regions, regions, and the globe. Many research results that have formed the foundation for ecosystem science and management of natural resources, terrestrial environments, and its waters are described in this chapter. Throughout are direct and implicit references to the vital collaborations with the global network of ecosystem scientists.
To assess the likelihood of antimicrobial streamlining between 2 antimicrobial stewardship methods.
Retrospective cohort study.
Large academic medical center.
Frequency and time to antimicrobial streamlining were compared during a prior authorization and a prospective audit period. Streamlining was defined as an antimicrobial change to a narrower agent if available or to a broader agent if the isolate was resistant to empiric therapy. Patients included were ≥18 years old with monomicrobial bacteremia with S. aureus, Enterococcus spp., or any aerobic Gram-negative organism.
A total of 665 cases of bacteremia met inclusion criteria. Frequency of streamlining was similar between periods for all cases of bacteremia (audit vs restriction: 60.7% vs 53.2%; P=.12), S. aureus bacteremia (73.2% vs 76.9%; P=.671), and Enterococcus bacteremia (81.6% vs 71.9%; P=.335). Compared to restriction, the audit period was associated with an increased frequency of streamlining for cases of Gram-negative bacteremia (51.4% vs 35.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06–3.25), those on the medical service (67.9% vs 53.1%; OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.09–3.16), and those admitted through the emergency department (71.6% vs 51.4%; OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.24–4.34). Characteristics associated with increased streamlining included: absence of β-lactam allergy (P<.001), Gram-negative bacteremia (P<.001), admission through the emergency department (P=.001), and admission to a medical service (P=.011).
Compared with prior authorization, prospective audit increased antimicrobial streamlining for cases of Gram-negative bacteremia, those admitted through the emergency department, and those admitted to a medical but not surgical service.
(See the commentary by Van Schooneveld and Rupp, on pages1100–1102.)
Although prior authorization and prospective audit with feedback are both effective antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) strategies, the relative impact of these approaches remains unclear. We compared these core ASP strategies at an academic medical center.
We compared antimicrobial use during the 24 months before and after implementation of an ASP strategy change. The ASP used prior authorization alone during the preintervention period, June 2007 through May 2009. In June 2009, many antimicrobials were unrestricted and prospective audit was implemented for cefepime, piperacillin/tazobactam, and vancomycin, marking the start of the postintervention period, July 2009 through June 2011. All adult inpatients who received more than or equal to 1 dose of an antimicrobial were included. The primary end point was antimicrobial consumption in days of therapy per 1,000 patient-days (DOT/1,000-PD). Secondary end points included length of stay (LOS).
In total, 55,336 patients were included (29,660 preintervention and 25,676 postintervention). During the preintervention period, both total systemic antimicrobial use (−9.75 DOT/1,000-PD per month) and broad-spectrum anti-gram-negative antimicrobial use (−4.00 DOT/1,000-PD) declined. After the introduction of prospective audit with feedback, however, both total antimicrobial use (+9.65 DOT/1,000-PD per month; P < .001) and broad-spectrum anti-gram-negative antimicrobial use (+4.80 DOT/1,000-PD per month; P < .001) increased significantly. Use of cefepime and piperacillin/tazobactam both significantly increased after the intervention (P = .03). Hospital LOS and LOS after first antimicrobial dose also significantly increased after the intervention (P = .016 and .004, respectively).
Significant increases in antimicrobial consumption and LOS were observed after the change in ASP strategy.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35(9):1092-1099
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.