Amy L Pakyz1, Leticia R Moczygemba2, Hui Wang3, Michael P Stevens4, Michael B Edmond5. 1. Department of Pharmacotherapy and Outcomes Science, School of Pharmacy, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA apakyz@vcu.edu. 2. Department of Pharmacotherapy and Outcomes Science, School of Pharmacy, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA. 4. Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether an antimicrobial stewardship 'intensity' score predicts hospital antimicrobial usage. METHODS: An antimicrobial stewardship score for 44 academic medical centres was developed that comprised two main categories: resources (antimicrobial stewardship programme personnel and automated surveillance software) and strategies (preauthorization, audit with intervention and feedback, education, guidelines and clinical pathways, parenteral to oral therapy programmes, de-escalation of therapy, antimicrobial order forms and dose optimization). Multiple regression analyses were used to assess whether the composite score and also the categories were associated with either total or antimicrobial stewardship programme-target antimicrobial use as measured in days of therapy. RESULTS: The mean antimicrobial stewardship programme score was 55 (SD 21); the total composite score was not significantly associated with total or target antimicrobial use [estimate -0.49 (95% CI -2.30 to 0.89)], while the category strategies was significantly and negatively associated with target antimicrobial use [-5.91 (95% CI -9.51 to -2.31)]. CONCLUSIONS: The strategy component of a score developed to measure the intensity of antimicrobial stewardship was associated with the amount of antimicrobials used. Thus, the number and types of strategies employed by antimicrobial stewardship programmes may be of particular importance in programme effectiveness.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether an antimicrobial stewardship 'intensity' score predicts hospital antimicrobial usage. METHODS: An antimicrobial stewardship score for 44 academic medical centres was developed that comprised two main categories: resources (antimicrobial stewardship programme personnel and automated surveillance software) and strategies (preauthorization, audit with intervention and feedback, education, guidelines and clinical pathways, parenteral to oral therapy programmes, de-escalation of therapy, antimicrobial order forms and dose optimization). Multiple regression analyses were used to assess whether the composite score and also the categories were associated with either total or antimicrobial stewardship programme-target antimicrobial use as measured in days of therapy. RESULTS: The mean antimicrobial stewardship programme score was 55 (SD 21); the total composite score was not significantly associated with total or target antimicrobial use [estimate -0.49 (95% CI -2.30 to 0.89)], while the category strategies was significantly and negatively associated with target antimicrobial use [-5.91 (95% CI -9.51 to -2.31)]. CONCLUSIONS: The strategy component of a score developed to measure the intensity of antimicrobial stewardship was associated with the amount of antimicrobials used. Thus, the number and types of strategies employed by antimicrobial stewardship programmes may be of particular importance in programme effectiveness.
Authors: Elizabeth D Hermsen; Trevor C VanSchooneveld; Harlan Sayles; Mark E Rupp Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Timothy H Dellit; Robert C Owens; John E McGowan; Dale N Gerding; Robert A Weinstein; John P Burke; W Charles Huskins; David L Paterson; Neil O Fishman; Christopher F Carpenter; P J Brennan; Marianne Billeter; Thomas M Hooton Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2006-12-13 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Marion Elligsen; Sandra A N Walker; Ruxandra Pinto; Andrew Simor; Samira Mubareka; Anita Rachlis; Vanessa Allen; Nick Daneman Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 3.254