Jonne J Sikkens1,2,3, Michiel A van Agtmael1,3, Edgar J G Peters1, Kamilla D Lettinga4, Martijn van der Kuip5, Christina M J E Vandenbroucke-Grauls6, Cordula Wagner2,7, Mark H H Kramer1. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 2. EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 3. Research and Expertise Center in Pharmacotherapy Education (RECIPE), Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, OLVG Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 5. Department of Pediatrics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 6. Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 7. Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Abstract
Importance: Inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing leads to antimicrobial resistance and suboptimal clinical outcomes. Changing antimicrobial prescribing is a complex behavioral process that is not often taken into account in antimicrobial stewardship programs. Objective: To examine whether an antimicrobial stewardship approach grounded in behavioral theory and focusing on preserving prescriber autonomy and participation is effective in improving appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing in hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Dutch Unique Method for Antimicrobial Stewardship (DUMAS) study was a prospective, stepped-wedge, participatory intervention study performed from October 1, 2011, through December 31, 2015. Outcomes were measured during a baseline period of 16 months and an intervention period of 12 months. The study was performed at 7 clinical departments (2 medical, 3 surgical, and 2 pediatric) in a tertiary care medical center and a general teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Physicians prescribing systemic antimicrobial drugs for any indication for patients admitted to the participating departments during the study period were included in the study. Interventions: We offered prescribers a free choice of how to improve their antimicrobial prescribing. Prescribers were stimulated to choose interventions with higher potential for success based on a root cause analysis of inappropriate prescribing. Main Outcomes and Measures: Appropriateness of antimicrobial prescriptions was determined using a validated approach based on guideline adherence and motivated guideline deviation and measured with repeated point prevalence surveys (6 per year). Appropriateness judgment was masked for the study period. Antimicrobial consumption was extracted from pharmacy records and measured as days of therapy per admission. We used linear and logistic mixed-model regression analysis to model outcomes over time. Results: A total of 1121 patient cases with 700 antimicrobial prescriptions were assessed during the baseline period and 882 patient cases with 531 antimicrobial prescriptions during the intervention period. The mean antimicrobial appropriateness increased from 64.1% at intervention start to 77.4% at 12-month follow-up (+13.3%; relative risk, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.27), without a change in slope. No decrease in antimicrobial consumption was found. Conclusions and Relevance: Use of a behavioral approach preserving prescriber autonomy resulted in an increase in antimicrobial appropriateness sustained for at least 12 months. The approach is inexpensive and could be easily transferable to various health care environments.
Importance: Inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing leads to antimicrobial resistance and suboptimal clinical outcomes. Changing antimicrobial prescribing is a complex behavioral process that is not often taken into account in antimicrobial stewardship programs. Objective: To examine whether an antimicrobial stewardship approach grounded in behavioral theory and focusing on preserving prescriber autonomy and participation is effective in improving appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing in hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Dutch Unique Method for Antimicrobial Stewardship (DUMAS) study was a prospective, stepped-wedge, participatory intervention study performed from October 1, 2011, through December 31, 2015. Outcomes were measured during a baseline period of 16 months and an intervention period of 12 months. The study was performed at 7 clinical departments (2 medical, 3 surgical, and 2 pediatric) in a tertiary care medical center and a general teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Physicians prescribing systemic antimicrobial drugs for any indication for patients admitted to the participating departments during the study period were included in the study. Interventions: We offered prescribers a free choice of how to improve their antimicrobial prescribing. Prescribers were stimulated to choose interventions with higher potential for success based on a root cause analysis of inappropriate prescribing. Main Outcomes and Measures: Appropriateness of antimicrobial prescriptions was determined using a validated approach based on guideline adherence and motivated guideline deviation and measured with repeated point prevalence surveys (6 per year). Appropriateness judgment was masked for the study period. Antimicrobial consumption was extracted from pharmacy records and measured as days of therapy per admission. We used linear and logistic mixed-model regression analysis to model outcomes over time. Results: A total of 1121 patient cases with 700 antimicrobial prescriptions were assessed during the baseline period and 882 patient cases with 531 antimicrobial prescriptions during the intervention period. The mean antimicrobial appropriateness increased from 64.1% at intervention start to 77.4% at 12-month follow-up (+13.3%; relative risk, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.27), without a change in slope. No decrease in antimicrobial consumption was found. Conclusions and Relevance: Use of a behavioral approach preserving prescriber autonomy resulted in an increase in antimicrobial appropriateness sustained for at least 12 months. The approach is inexpensive and could be easily transferable to various health care environments.
Authors: Menino O Cotta; Megan S Robertson; Caroline Marshall; Karin A Thursky; Danny Liew; Kirsty L Buising Journal: Aust Health Rev Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 1.990
Authors: Leslie M Stach; Erin B Hedican; Joshua C Herigon; Mary Anne Jackson; Jason G Newland Journal: J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc Date: 2012-06-29 Impact factor: 3.164
Authors: Daniella Meeker; Tara K Knight; Mark W Friedberg; Jeffrey A Linder; Noah J Goldstein; Craig R Fox; Alan Rothfeld; Guillermo Diaz; Jason N Doctor Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: E Charani; E Castro-Sanchez; N Sevdalis; Y Kyratsis; L Drumright; N Shah; A Holmes Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2013-04-09 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: M Lindsay Grayson; Nenad Macesic; G Khai Huang; Katherine Bond; Jason Fletcher; Gwendolyn L Gilbert; David L Gordon; Jane F Hellsten; Jonathan Iredell; Caitlin Keighley; Rhonda L Stuart; Charles S Xuereb; Marilyn Cruickshank Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Michael Hallsworth; Tim Chadborn; Anna Sallis; Michael Sanders; Daniel Berry; Felix Greaves; Lara Clements; Sally C Davies Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-02-18 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Tamar F Barlam; Ellen Childs; Sarah A Zieminski; Tsega M Meshesha; Kathryn E Jones; Jorie M Butler; Laura J Damschroder; Matthew Bidwell Goetz; Karl Madaras-Kelly; Caitlin M Reardon; Matthew H Samore; Jincheng Shen; Edward Stenehjem; Yue Zhang; Mari-Lynn Drainoni Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2020-06-15 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: Feras Darwish Elhajji; Ghaith M Al-Taani; Lana Anani; Sahar Al-Masri; Haneen Abdalaziz; Su'ad H Qabba'h; Abdel Qader Al Bawab; Michael Scott; David Farren; Fiona Gilmore; Ann Versporten; Herman Goossens; Mamoon A Aldeyab Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 2.655