Unsolicited post-prescription antibiotic review in surgical and medical wards: factors associated with counselling and physicians’ compliance

[Inadequate antibiotic prescribing and areas for improvement]

Inadequate antibiotic prescribing has been observed in many settings both in hospitals as well as in primary care. Most often there is uncertainty about the indication for antibiotic treatment itself, prescribers are reluctant to deescalate, and therapy duration is too long which results most often in overprescribing. The burden of overprescribing is difficult to estimate, but many studies in the hospital setting report a rate of approximately 30 % of inadequate prescribing - with wide variation. Over- but also underprescribing of antimicrobial agents is a serious patient safety issue that needs to be addressed in specific programmes at different levels of the healthcare system. Interventional studies have shown that programmes implementing or intensifying audit and feedback with clinical reevaluation by experts can be very efficient to reduce inadequate prescribing.

Optimizing adherence to advice from antimicrobial stewardship audit and feedback rounds

We examined adherence to antimicrobial stewardship prospective audit and feedback rounds in a rehabilitation service compared with the remainder of the acute hospital, and explored the reasons for this. Between October 2014 and December 2015, we retrospectively assessed the rate of non-adherence to advice from antimicrobial stewardship prospective audit and feedback rounds between the rehabilitation service and the acute hospital, along with the source of the patient referral. Compared with the rehabilitation service, acute hospital medical staff were almost twice as likely to not adhere to advice provided on antimicrobial stewardship prospective audit and feedback rounds (13.8% vs. 7.6%, p < 0.0001, relative risk 1.8 [95% confidence interval 1.3, 2.5]). In the rehabilitation service, referrals were more likely to come from medical staff (61.9% vs. 16.3%, p < 0.0001). These findings may be explained by regular, direct engagement of the antimicrobial stewardship team with the rehabilitation service clinical team, a model potentially applicable to other settings.

Postprescription review improves in-hospital antibiotic use: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Although review of antibiotic therapy is recommended to optimize antibiotic use, physicians do not always perform it. This trial aimed to evaluate the impact of a systematic postprescription review performed by antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) infectious disease physicians (IDP) on the quality of in-hospital antibiotic use. A multicenter, prospective, randomized, parallel-group trial using the PROBE (Prospective Randomized Open-label Blinded Endpoint) methodology was conducted in eight surgical or medical wards of four hospitals. Two hundred forty-six patients receiving antibiotic therapy prescribed by ward physicians for less than 24 hours were randomized to receive either a systematic review by the ASP IDP at day 1 and days 3 to 4 (intervention group, n = 123) or no systematic review (usual care, n = 123). The primary outcome measure was appropriateness of antimicrobial therapy, a composite score of appropriateness of antibiotic use at days 3 to 4 and appropriate treatment duration, adjudicated by a blinded committee. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. In the intervention group, appropriateness of antimicrobial therapy was more frequent (55/123, 44.7% vs. 35/123, 28.5%; odds ratio 2.03, 95% confidence interval 1.20-3.45). Antibiotic treatment duration was lower in the intervention group (median (interquartile range) 7 (3-9) days vs. 10 (7-12) days; p 0.003). ASP IDP counseling to change therapy was more frequent at days 3 to 4 than at day 1 (114/123; 92.7% vs. 24/123; 19.5%, p <0.001). Clinical outcome was similar between groups. This study suggests that a systematic postprescription antibiotic review performed at days 1 and 3 to 4 results in higher quality of antibiotic use and lower antibiotic duration. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01136200).

Impact of a program combining pre-authorization requirement and post-prescription review of carbapenems: an interrupted time-series analysis

The objective of this study was to assess the impact on carbapenems use of a program combining pre-authorization requirement and systematic post-prescription review of carbapenems prescriptions. The program was implemented in a 1,230-bed teaching tertiary hospital. Monthly carbapenems consumption was analyzed using a controlled interrupted time-series method and compared to that of vancomycin before and after implementation of the intervention. Compared to the pre-intervention period (14 monthly points), a significant and sustained decrease of carbapenems consumption [1.66 defined daily doses (DDD)/1,000 patient-days; p = 0.048] was observed during the intervention period (12 monthly points), despite an increasing trend in incidence of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-PE) isolates (0.02/1,000 patient-days per month; p = 0.093). As expected, vancomycin consumption was unaffected by the intervention. A total of 337 prescriptions were reviewed in the intervention period; most were microbiologically documented (81.3%; ESBL-PE: 39.2%). Three of four (76.6%) carbapenems prescriptions were modified within a median [interquartile range] of 2 [1; 4] days, either after infectious disease physician (IDP) advice (48.4%) or by ward physicians (28.2%). Most changes included de-escalating (52.2%) or reducing the planned duration (22.2%), which resulted in a median duration of treatment of only 3 [2; 7] days. The median length of stay and mortality rate were not influenced by the intervention. This reasonably practicable antimicrobial stewardship program including controlled delivery and systematic reevaluation of carbapenems prescriptions was able to reduce their use in our hospital, despite a rising ESBL-PE incidence.

Global impact of an educational antimicrobial stewardship programme on prescribing practice in a tertiary hospital centre

The misuse of antibiotics has been related to increased morbidity, mortality and bacterial resistance. The development of antimicrobial stewardship programmes (ASPs) has been encouraged by scientific societies as an essential measure. An educational, institutionally supported ASP was developed in our tertiary-care centre. Local guidelines on the management of infectious syndromes were created. Antimicrobial prescriptions were chosen arbitrarily weekly and counselling interviews by expert clinicians were carried out, using a paedagogic, non-restrictive methodology. Satisfaction with the interview was assessed using anonymous questionnaires. The appropriateness of antimicrobial prescriptions as well as consumption was assessed prospectively throughout the year. Feedback regarding the correct use of treatments was communicated to each participating department periodically. The improvement in antimicrobial prescription was included among the annual objectives linked to economic incentives in every department. A total of 1206 counselling interviews were carried out during the first year. Fifty-three per cent of antimicrobial prescriptions (176/332) were inappropriate when the programme started. The rate of inappropriate prescriptions continuously declined to 26.4% (107/405) in the fourth trimester (p <0.001; RR = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23-0.43). Antimicrobial consumption decreased from 1150 defined daily doses (DDDs) per 1000 occupied bed-days in the first trimester to 852 DDDs in the fourth, reflecting a reduction in antimicrobial expenditures of 42%. A total of 352 satisfaction questionnaires were received and 98% described the advice as positive. In conclusion, the implementation of an education-based ASP achieved a significant improvement in all antimicrobial prescriptions in the centre and a reduction in antimicrobial consumption, even when no restrictive measures were implemented. The programme was highly accepted by all prescribers.