Audit and Feedback-Focused approach to Evidence-based Care in Treating patients with pneumonia in hospital (AFFECT Study)

Clinical impact of antibiograms as an intervention to optimize antimicrobial prescribing and patient outcomes-A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) guidelines advocate for the use of antibiograms (cumulative antimicrobial susceptibility test data) as a tool to guide empirical antibiotic prescribing and inform local treatment guidelines. The objective of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness of antibiograms as an intervention to optimize antimicrobial prescribing and patient outcomes.

METHODS

Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, and International Pharmacy Abstracts (IPA) databases were searched from inception until September 2022, to identify studies of antibiogram-related interventions in all health care settings. The National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tools were used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies.

RESULTS

Of the 37 included studies, the majority of studies were conducted in the United States (n = 25) and in hospital settings (n = 27). All interventions were multifaceted and in 26 (70%) studies, facility-specific antibiograms could be considered as an integral component of the interventions. A positive impact on antibiotic consumption trends (17 studies), appropriateness of prescribing (16 studies), and cost of treatment (6 studies) was found, with minimal evidence for improvement in mortality, hospitalization, and resistance profiles. Due to the heterogeneity in study designs and outcomes, a meta-analysis was not performed.

CONCLUSIONS

AMS interventions including antibiograms may improve antibiotic use, appropriateness, and costs. Multifaceted interventions were often used, which precludes drawing conclusions about the effectiveness of antibiograms alone as an AMS tool.

Implementing a Multifaceted Intervention among Internal Medicine Residents with Audit and Educative Data Feedback Significantly Reduces Low-Value Care in Hospitalized Patients

Background: The dissemination of recommendations on low-value care alone may not lead to physicians’ behavioral changes. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a multifaceted behavioral intervention among internal medicine residents could reduce low-value care in hospitalized patients. Methods: A pre–post quality improvement intervention was conducted at the Internal Medicine Division of La Tour hospital (Geneva, Switzerland) from May 2020 to October 2021. The intervention period (3 months) consisted of a multifaceted informational intervention with audits and educative feedback about low-value care. The pre- and post-intervention periods including the same six calendar months were compared in terms of number of blood samples per patient day, prescription rates of benzodiazepines (BZDs) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), as well as safety indicators including potentially avoidable readmissions, premature deaths and complications. results: A total of 3400 patients were included in this study; 1095 (32.2%) and 1155 (34.0%) were, respectively, hospitalized during the pre- and post-intervention periods. Patient characteristics were comparable between the two periods. Only the number of blood tests per patient day and the BZD prescription rate at discharge were significantly reduced in the post-intervention phase (pre: 0.54 ± 0.43 vs. post: 0.49 ± 0.60, p ≤ 0.001; pre: 4.2% vs. post: 1.7%, p = 0.003, respectively). PPI prescription rates remained comparable. Safety indicators analyses revealed no significant differences between the two periods of interest. Conclusions: Our results demonstrate a modest but statistically significant effect of a multifaceted educative intervention in reducing the number of blood tests and the BZD prescription rate at discharge in hospitalized patients. Limiting low-value services is very challenging and additional long-term interventions are necessary for wider implementation.

Reducing the use of empiric antibiotic therapy in COVID-19 on hospital admission

BACKGROUND

Empiric antibiotics for community acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) are often prescribed to patients with COVID-19, despite a low reported incidence of co-infections. Stewardship interventions targeted at facilitating appropriate antibiotic prescribing for CABP among COVID-19 patients are needed. We developed a guideline for antibiotic initiation and discontinuation for CABP in COVID-19 patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of this intervention on the duration of empiric CABP antibiotic therapy among patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective, quasi-experimental study of adult patients admitted between 3/1/2020 to 4/25/2020 with COVID-19 pneumonia, who were initiated on empiric CABP antibiotics. Patients were excluded if they were initiated on antibiotics > 48 h following admission or if another source of infection was identified. The primary outcome was the duration of antibiotic therapy (DOT) prior to the guideline (March 1 to March27, 2020) and after guideline implementation (March 28 to April 25, 2020). We also evaluated the clinical outcomes (mortality, readmissions, length of stay) among those initiated on empiric CABP antibiotics.

RESULTS

A total of 506 patients with COVID-19 were evaluated, 102 pre-intervention and 404 post-intervention. Prior to the intervention, 74.5% (n = 76) of patients with COVID-19 received empiric antibiotics compared to only 42% of patients post-intervention (n = 170), p < 0.001. The median DOT in the post-intervention group was 1.3 days shorter (p < 0.001) than the pre-intervention group, and antibiotics directed at atypical bacteria DOT was reduced by 2.8 days (p < 0.001). More patients in the post-intervention group were initiated on antibiotics based on criteria consistent with our guideline (68% versus 87%, p = 0.001). There were no differences between groups in terms of clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Following the implementation of a guideline outlining recommendations for initiating and discontinuing antibiotics for CABP among COVID-19 inpatients, we observed a reduction in antibiotic prescribing and DOT. The guideline also resulted in a significant increase in the rate of guideline-congruent empiric antibiotic initiation.

Understanding how and why audits work in improving the quality of hospital care: A systematic realist review

BACKGROUND

Several types of audits have been used to promote quality improvement (QI) in hospital care. However, in-depth studies into the mechanisms responsible for the effectiveness of audits in a given context is scarce. We sought to understand the mechanisms and contextual factors that determine why audits might, or might not, lead to improved quality of hospital care.

METHODS

A realist review was conducted to systematically search and synthesise the literature on audits. Data from individual papers were synthesised by coding, iteratively testing and supplementing initial programme theories, and refining these theories into a set of context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOcs).

RESULTS

From our synthesis of 85 papers, seven CMOcs were identified that explain how audits work: (1) externally initiated audits create QI awareness although their impact on improvement diminishes over time; (2) a sense of urgency felt by healthcare professionals triggers engagement with an audit; (3) champions are vital for an audit to be perceived by healthcare professionals as worth the effort; (4) bottom-up initiated audits are more likely to bring about sustained change; (5) knowledge-sharing within externally mandated audits triggers participation by healthcare professionals; (6) audit data support healthcare professionals in raising issues in their dialogues with those in leadership positions; and (7) audits legitimise the provision of feedback to colleagues, which flattens the perceived hierarchy and encourages constructive collaboration.

CONCLUSIONS

This realist review has identified seven CMOcs that should be taken into account when seeking to optimise the design and usage of audits. These CMOcs can provide policy makers and practice leaders with an adequate conceptual grounding to design contextually sensitive audits in diverse settings and advance the audit research agenda for various contexts.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42016039882.