Carlos A DiazGranados1. 1. Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA. cdiazgr@yahoo.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impact of antimicrobial audit and feedback on outcomes of critically ill adults is unclear. METHODS: A prospective study was performed in the intensive care units (ICU) of a public hospital in Atlanta, GA. Critically ill adults receiving empiric imipenem or piperacillin-tazobactam were eligible. Outcomes for 3 periods were compared: baseline (B, February to May 2006), model 1 (M1, October 2006 to July 2008), and model 2 (M2, September 2008 to February 2009). No audit was performed during B. During M1, an infectious diseases physician evaluated patients, and a critical care pharmacist communicated recommendations to the treating team. During M2, an infectious diseases physician directly participated in interdisciplinary rounds with the medical ICU team. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-four patients were included during B, 415 during M1, and 83 during M2. M1 and M2 were associated with appropriate antimicrobial selection (B, 70%; M1, 78%; M2, 82%; P = .042) and with lower rates of resistance (B, 31%; M1, 25%; M2, 17%; P = .033). Logistic regression analysis confirmed that audit and feedback were independently associated with appropriate antimicrobial selection and prevention of resistance. The association remained strongest for M2. CONCLUSION: Audit and feedback had an influence on antimicrobial prescription patterns in the ICU with a favorable impact on the emergence of resistance.
BACKGROUND: The impact of antimicrobial audit and feedback on outcomes of critically ill adults is unclear. METHODS: A prospective study was performed in the intensive care units (ICU) of a public hospital in Atlanta, GA. Critically ill adults receiving empiric imipenem or piperacillin-tazobactam were eligible. Outcomes for 3 periods were compared: baseline (B, February to May 2006), model 1 (M1, October 2006 to July 2008), and model 2 (M2, September 2008 to February 2009). No audit was performed during B. During M1, an infectious diseases physician evaluated patients, and a critical care pharmacist communicated recommendations to the treating team. During M2, an infectious diseases physician directly participated in interdisciplinary rounds with the medical ICU team. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-four patients were included during B, 415 during M1, and 83 during M2. M1 and M2 were associated with appropriate antimicrobial selection (B, 70%; M1, 78%; M2, 82%; P = .042) and with lower rates of resistance (B, 31%; M1, 25%; M2, 17%; P = .033). Logistic regression analysis confirmed that audit and feedback were independently associated with appropriate antimicrobial selection and prevention of resistance. The association remained strongest for M2. CONCLUSION: Audit and feedback had an influence on antimicrobial prescription patterns in the ICU with a favorable impact on the emergence of resistance.
Authors: Pranita D Tamma; Edina Avdic; John F Keenan; Yuan Zhao; Gobind Anand; James Cooper; Rebecca Dezube; Steven Hsu; Sara E Cosgrove Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Tamar F Barlam; Sara E Cosgrove; Lilian M Abbo; Conan MacDougall; Audrey N Schuetz; Edward J Septimus; Arjun Srinivasan; Timothy H Dellit; Yngve T Falck-Ytter; Neil O Fishman; Cindy W Hamilton; Timothy C Jenkins; Pamela A Lipsett; Preeti N Malani; Larissa S May; Gregory J Moran; Melinda M Neuhauser; Jason G Newland; Christopher A Ohl; Matthew H Samore; Susan K Seo; Kavita K Trivedi Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2016-04-13 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: R Murri; F Taccari; T Spanu; T D'Inzeo; I Mastrorosa; F Giovannenze; G Scoppettuolo; G Ventura; C Palazzolo; M Camici; S Lardo; B Fiori; M Sanguinetti; R Cauda; M Fantoni Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2017-10-19 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Larissa May; Sara Cosgrove; Michelle L'Archeveque; David A Talan; Perry Payne; Jeanne Jordan; Richard E Rothman Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2012-11-02 Impact factor: 5.721