No established guidelines exist regarding the role of oral antibiotic therapy (OAT) to treat bloodstream infections (BSIs), and practices may vary depending on clinician specialty and experience.

To assess practice patterns regarding oral antibiotic use for treatment of bacteremia in infectious diseases clinicians (IDCs, including physicians and pharmacists and trainees in these groups) and non–infectious diseases clinicians (NIDCs).

Open-access survey.

Clinicians caring for hospitalized patients receiving antibiotics.

An open-access, web-based survey was distributed to clinicians at a Midwestern academic medical center using e-mail and to clinicians outside the medical center using social media. Respondents answered questions regarding confidence prescribing OAT for BSI in different scenarios. We used χ2 analysis for categorical data evaluated association between responses and demographic groups.

Of 282 survey responses, 82.6% of respondents were physicians, 17.4% pharmacists, and IDCs represented 69.2% of all respondents. IDCs were more likely to select routine use of OAT for BSI due to gram-negative anaerobes (84.6% vs 59.8%; P < .0001), Klebsiella spp (84.5% vs 69.0%; P < .009), Proteus spp (83.6% vs 71.3%; P < .027), and other Enterobacterales (79.5% vs 60.9%; P < .004). Our survey results revealed significant differences in selected treatment of Staphylococcus aureus syndromes. Fewer IDCs than NIDCs selected OAT to complete treatment for methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) BSI due to gluteal abscess (11.9% vs 25.6%; P = .012) and methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) BSI due to septic arthritis (13.9% vs 20.9%; P = .219).

Practice variation and discordance with evidence for the use of OAT for BSIs exists among IDCs versus NIDCs, highlighting opportunities for education in both clinician groups.

To demonstrate that a syndromic stewardship intervention can safely reduce antipseudomonal antibiotic use in the treatment of inpatient diabetic foot infections (DFIs).

From November 2017 through March 2018, we performed an antimicrobial stewardship intervention that included creation of a DFI best-practice guideline, implementation of an electronic medical record order set, and targeted education of key providers. We conducted a retrospective before-and-after study evaluating guideline adherent antipseudomonal antibiotic use 1 year before and after the intervention using interrupted time-series analysis.

University of Nebraska Medical Center, a 718-bed academic medical center in Omaha, Nebraska.

The study included 193 adults aged ≥19 years (105 in the preintervention group and 88 in the postintervention group) admitted to non–intensive care units whose primary reason for antibiotic treatment was diabetic foot infection (DFI).

Guideline-adherent use of antipseudomonal antibiotics increased from 39% before the intervention to 68% after the intervention (P ≤ .0001). Antipseudomonal antibiotic use decreased from 538 days of therapy (DOT) per 1,000 DFI patient days (PD) before the intervention to 272 DOT per 1,000 DFI PD after the intervention (P < .0001), with a statistically significant decrease in both level of use and slope of change. We did not detect any changes in length of stay, readmission, amputation rate, subsequent positive Clostridioides difficile testing, or mortality.

Our 3-component intervention of guideline creation, implementation of an order set, and targeted education was associated with a significant decrease in antipseudomonal antibiotic use in the management of inpatient DFIs. DFIs are common and should be considered as opportunities for syndromic stewardship intervention.

To evaluate the need for mandatory infectious diseases consultation (IDC) for candidemia in the setting of antimicrobial stewardship guidance.

Retrospective cohort study from January 2016 to December 2019.

Academic quaternary-care referral center.

All episodes of candidemia in adults (n = 92), excluding concurrent bacterial infection or death or hospice care within 48 hours.

Primary outcome was all-cause 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included guideline-adherence and treatment choice. Guideline-adherence was assessed with the EQUAL Candida score.

Of 186 episodes of candidemia, 92 episodes in 88 patients were included. Central venous catheters (CVCs) were present in 66 episodes (71.7%) and were the most common infection source (N = 38, 41.3%). The most frequently isolated species was Candida glabrata (40 of 94, 42.6%). IDC was performed in 84 (91.3%) of 92 candidemia episodes. Mortality rates were 20.8% (16 of 77) in the IDC group versus 25% (2 of 8) in the no-IDC group (P = .67). Other comparisons were numerically different but not significant: repeat blood culture (98.8% vs 87.5%; P = .17), echocardiography (70.2% vs 50%; P = .26), CVC removal (91.7% vs 83.3%; P = .45), and initial echinocandin treatment (67.9% vs 50%; P = .44). IDC resulted in more ophthalmology examinations (67.9% vs 12.5%; P = .0035). All patients received antifungal therapy. Antimicrobial stewardship recommendations were performed in 19 episodes (20.7%). The median EQUAL Candida score with CVC was higher with IDC (16 vs 11; P = .001) but not in episodes without CVC (12 vs 11.5; P = .81).

In the setting of an active antimicrobial stewardship program and high consultation rates, mandatory IDC may not be warranted for candidemia.

Antibiotic time-outs (ATOs) have been advocated to improve antibiotic use without dedicated stewardship resources, but their utility is poorly defined. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of an ATO led by a team-based pharmacist.

Cluster randomized controlled trial.

Six medicine teams at an academic medical facility.

Inpatients who received antibiotics and were cared for by a medicine team.

In phase A (2 months) pharmacist-led ATOs were implemented on 3 medicine teams (ATO-A) while 3 teams maintained usual care (UC-A). In phase B (2 months), ATOs were continued in the ATO group (ATO-B) and ATOs were initiated in the UC group (UC ATO-B). We targeted 2 ATO points: early (<72 hours after antibiotics were initiated) and late (after the early period but ≤5 days after antibiotic initiation).

In total, 290 ATOs were documented (181 early, 87 late, and 22 subsequent) among 538 admissions. The most common ATO recommendations were narrow therapy (148 of 290), no change (124 of 290), and change to oral (30 of 290). ATO initiation was lower in the UC ATO-B group than in either ATO group (21.8% UC ATO-B vs 69.2% ATO-A and -B). Overall antibiotic use was not different between the groups (P = .51), although intravenous (IV) levofloxacin use decreased in the UC group after ATO implementation (49 DOT/1,000 PD vs 20 DOT/1,000 PD; P = .022). The ratio of oral (PO) to intravenous (IV) DOT was lower in the UC group than in any of the ATO groups (P = .032). We detected no differences in mortality, length of stay, readmission, C. difficile infection, or antibiotic adverse events.

Implementation of a pharmacist-led ATO was feasible and well accepted but did not change overall antibiotic use. An ATO may promote increased use of oral antibiotics, but more effective strategies for self-stewardship are needed.

To evaluate the impact of a hard stop in the electronic health record (EHR) on inappropriate gastrointestinal pathogen panel testing (GIPP).

We used a quasi-experimental study to evaluate testing before and after the implementation of an EHR alert to stop inappropriate GIPP ordering.

Midwest academic medical center.

Hospitalized patients with diarrhea for which GIPP testing was ordered, between January 2016 through March 2017 (period 1) and April 2017 through June 2018 (period 2).

A hard stop in the EHR prevented clinicians from ordering a GIPP more than once per admission or in patients hospitalized for >72 hours.

During period 1, 1,587 GIPP tests were ordered over 212,212 patient days, at a rate of 7.48 per 1,000 patient days. In period 2, 1,165 GIPP tests were ordered over 222,343 patient days, at a rate of 5.24 per 1,000 patient days. The Poisson model estimated a 30% reduction in total GIPP ordering rates between the 2 periods (relative risk, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63–0.78; P < .001). The rate of inappropriate tests ordered decreased from 21.5% to 4.9% between the 2 periods (P < .001). The total savings calculated factoring only GIPP orders that triggered the hard stop was ∼$67,000, with potential savings of $168,000 when factoring silent best-practice alert data.

A simple hard stop alert in the EHR resulted in significant reduction of inappropriate GIPP testing, which was associated with significant cost savings. Clinicians can practice diagnostic stewardship by avoiding ordering this test more than once per admission or in patients hospitalized >72 hours.