Impact of a Multidisciplinary Bundle on Time to Antibiotic Administration in Septic SICU Patients

A hidden gem in multidisciplinary antimicrobial stewardship: a systematic review on bedside nurses' activities in daily practice regarding antibiotic use

Background

Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS), the set of actions to ensure antibiotics are used appropriately, is increasingly targeted at all those involved in the antimicrobial pathway, including nurses. Several healthcare organizations have issued position statements on how bedside nurses can be involved in AMS. However, it remains unclear how nurses, in reality, contribute to appropriate antibiotic use.

Objectives

To systematically search the literature to describe the activities bedside nurses perform regarding antibiotic use in daily clinical practice, in relation to the activities proposed by the aforementioned position statements.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and grey literature until March 2021. Studies were included if they described activities regarding antibiotic use performed by bedside nurses. Methodological rigour was assessed by applying the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool.

Results

A total of 118 studies were included. The majority of the proposed nurses' activities were found in daily practice, categorized into assessment of clinical status, collection of specimens, management of antimicrobial medication, prompting review and educating patient and relatives. Nurses may take the lead in these clinical processes and are communicators in all aspects of the antimicrobial pathway. Patient advocacy appears to be a strong driver of bedside nurses' activities.

Conclusions

Nurses' activities are already integrated in the day-to-day nursing practice and are grounded in the essence of nursing, being a patient advocate and showing nursing leadership in safeguarding the antimicrobial treatment process. An essential element of the nursing role is communication with other stakeholders in the patient-centred antimicrobial pathway. Educating, engaging and empowering nurses in this already integrated role, could lead to a solid, impactful nursing contribution to AMS.

Nursing experiences in antimicrobial optimisation in the intensive care unit: A convergent analysis of a national survey

BACKGROUND

Recent evidence highlights the need for an interdisciplinary approach to antimicrobial stewardship (AMS). Nursing involvement in optimising antimicrobials in the intensive care unit (ICU) remains understudied.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to explore nurses' perceptions and experiences of antimicrobial optimisation or stewardship in ICUs in Australia.

METHODS

An anonymous web-based survey was deployed nationally in early 2021 through two ICU nursing networks. Associations between survey responses were analysed descriptively and by using nonparametric tests (with statistical significance established at p ≤ 0.05). Free-text survey responses underwent qualitative thematic analysis. Interpretation and reporting of quantitative and qualitative data were integrated.

RESULTS

A total of 226 ICU nurses completed the survey. The majority (197/226; 87%) responded that lack of education limits engagement in AMS. Only 13% (30/226) reported the presence of AMS education and training for nurses in their ICUs. Only about half (108/226; 48%) of the nurses were confident to question prescribers when they considered that the antimicrobial prescribed was unnecessary, with nurses in senior roles more likely to do so than nurses providing bedside care (p < 0.05). Gaps in education (including unfamiliarity with AMS roles), noninclusive antimicrobial discussions, moral distress, and potential workload burden were seen as potential barriers/challenges to engagement.

CONCLUSION

The multifactorial barriers identified that inhibit nurses from performing AMS tasks could be addressed by strengthening interprofessional education at all levels and by applying practical AMS interventions that are inclusive for nursing participation. A purposeful culture change that fosters psychological safety and collaborative practice is paramount to supporting nurses in these roles.

A Coordinated and Multidisciplinary Strategy can Reduce the Time for Antibiotics in Septic Patients at a University Hospital

Objectives

We carried out this work with the aim of assessing the effectiveness of a set of interventions over time for the administration of antibiotics.

Design

Prospective observational study.

Setting

Patients admitted to the emergency room and ICU of the hospital where the study was conducted are evaluated daily for some sociodemographic and clinical variables. Among them are some quality indicators, such as the time between the diagnosis of sepsis or septic shock until the start of the infusion of antibiotics. This indicator reflects several aspects related to a set of assistance measures (adequacy of antibiotic dispensation, rapid response team (RRT), sepsis care quality improvement program, antimicrobial management program, improvements in emergency department assistance).

Patients or participants

Patients with sepsis or septic shock were admitted to the ICU of a university and public hospital in southern Brazil.

Main variables of interest

The time between the diagnosis of sepsis or septic shock and the beginning of the infusion of antibiotics.

Results

Between 2013 and 2018, 1676 patients were evaluated. The mean time for antibiotic infusion decreased from 6.1 ± 8.6 hours to 1.7 ± 2.9 hours (p < 0.001). The percentage of patients who received antibiotics in the first hour increased from 20.7 to 59.0% (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

In this study, we demonstrated that a set of actions adopted in a large tertiary hospital was associated with decreased time to start antibiotic therapy in septic patients.

How to cite this article

Moraes RB, Haas JS, Vidart J, Nicolaidis R, Deutschendorf C, Moretti MMS, et al. A Coordinated and Multidisciplinary Strategy can Reduce the Time for Antibiotics in Septic Patients at a University Hospital. Indian J Crit Care Med 2023;27(7):465-469.

Adverse drug reaction reporting quality among different health professionals and the contribution of clinical pharmacists: A pilot study

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting is generally of poor quality, which may delay post-marketing regulatory actions. Here, we evaluated the quality of ADR reporting at our institution and examined the roles of clinical pharmacists in this process.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed ADR reports at our hospital between 2017 and 2019 to assess the number, source, drugs, and routes of administration. The quality assessment of ADR case reports form issued by the China Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring Centre was used to assess the quality of ADR reports. Quality scores of ADR reports from pharmacists and nonpharmacists were assessed before and after review by clinical pharmacists.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Reports of adverse drug reaction reporting by healthcare professionals increased annually, with 59, 77 and 82 reports submitted in 2017, 2018 and 2019, respectively. The numbers of new or serious ADR reports by healthcare professionals in 2017, 2018, and 2019 were 5 (8.47%), 77 (11.69%) and 82 (10.98%), respectively. New or serious ADR reports accounted for approximately 10% (23/218) of all reported cases, and more than 70% (158/218) of the reports were from pharmacists. Systemic administration accounted for more than 80% (233/265) of adverse reactions, whereas ADRs due to topical drug use were rarely reported. The drugs that reportedly triggered ADRs were mainly antibacterial and patented Chinese medicines and accounted for more than half of all reported cases. The scores of ADR reports from pharmacists and nonpharmacists before modification by clinical pharmacists were 86.69 ± 8.12 and 68.36 ± 5.94, respectively, and the scores of ADR reports from pharmacists and nonpharmacists after modification by clinical pharmacists were 91.14 ± 6.64 and 90.02 ± 5.63, respectively.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

In a real-world setting, pharmacists are commonly responsible for most ADR reports. The quality of ADR reports from pharmacists and nonpharmacists before review did not reach the standard of excellence. An audit of clinical pharmacists may improve the overall quality of ADR reports. However, under-reporting of adverse reactions still occurs.

Development of a Novel Assessment Tool and Code Sepsis Checklist for Neonatal Late-Onset Sepsis

BACKGROUND

Accurate diagnosis and timely management of neonatal late-onset sepsis (nLOS) have been less well-studied than those of early-onset sepsis. We noticed a delay in nLOS detection and management in our neonatal intensive care unit.

PURPOSE

To develop an assessment tool to aid in the recognition and reporting of nLOS and to standardize the management process once sepsis is recognized.

METHODS

The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) improvement model provided the framework for interventions for our antibiotic stewardship program, including the aims of this project. A literature review was performed to evaluate tools and other literature available to guide the evaluation and management of suspected sepsis. A quality improvement project was initiated to develop tools for the detection and management of nLOS.

RESULTS

An nLOS assessment tool to help identify neonates at risk for nLOS and a Code Sepsis checklist to standardize the process of evaluation and management of nLOS were developed. The guiding principles of this tool development were empowerment of nurses to initiate the assessment process, clarification of team roles, and removal of barriers to appropriate antibiotic administration.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Useful and practical tools valued by nursing and the multidisciplinary team may facilitate timely identification and treatment of infants with nLOS.

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH

Future directions include validation of the nLOS assessment tool and the Code Sepsis checklist as well as ensuring the reliability of the tool to improve detection of nLOS and to reduce time to administer antibiotics in cases of nLOS.

Knowledge, perceptions and experiences of nurses in antimicrobial optimization or stewardship in the intensive care unit

There is an urgent and recognized need for an interprofessional collaborative approach to support global action in addressing antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) refers to systematic approaches for antimicrobial optimization within healthcare organizations. In areas with high antimicrobial utilization such as intensive care units (ICUs), specific roles for nurses in AMS are not clearly defined. This review aimed to identify and to critically evaluate primary studies that examined knowledge, perspectives and experiences of nurses associated with antimicrobial use and optimization in ICUs. A systematic search of Medline, CINAHL, PsychINFO, EMBASE, PubMed, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases for primary studies published from 1^st January 2000 to 20^th March 2020 was performed. A convergent synthesis design was used to synthesize quantitative and qualitative data. Of the 898 studies initially screened, 26 were included. Most (18/26) studies were quantitative. All qualitative studies (6/26) were of high methodological quality. Studies where interventions were used (10/26) identified significant potential for ICU nurses to reduce antimicrobial use, time-to-antibiotic administration, and error rates. Barriers to nursing engagement included knowledge deficits in antimicrobial use, interprofessional dissonance and the culture of deference to physicians. Enhancing education, technology utilization, strong nursing leadership and robust organizational structures that support nurses were perceived as enablers to strengthen their roles in optimizing antimicrobial use. This review showed that nursing initiatives have significant potential to strengthen antimicrobial optimization in ICUs. Barriers and enablers to active engagement were identified.

Why do we fail to deliver evidence-based practice in critical care medicine?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The use of evidence-based practices in clinical practice is frequently inadequate. Recent research has uncovered many barriers to the implementation of evidence-based practices in critical care medicine. Using a comprehensive conceptual framework, this review identifies and classifies the barriers to implementation of several major critical care evidence-based practices.

RECENT FINDINGS

The many barriers that have been recently identified can be classified into domains of the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR). Barriers to the management of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) include ARDS under-recognition. Barriers to the use of the awakening and breathing coordination, delirium monitoring/management, and early exercise/mobility (ABCDE) bundle for mechanically ventilated patients and the sepsis bundle include patient-related, clinician-related, protocol-related, contextual-related, and intervention-related factors. Although these many barriers can be classified into all five CFIR domains (intervention, outer setting, inner setting, individuals, and process), most barriers fall within the individuals and inner setting domains.

SUMMARY

There are many barriers to the implementation of evidence-based practice in critical care medicine. Systematically classifying these barriers allows implementation researchers and clinicians to design targeted implementation strategies, giving them the greatest chance of success in improving the use of evidence-based practice.