Hoa Q Nguyen1,2, Declan T Bradley3,4, Michael M Tunney1, Carmel M Hughes5. 1. School of Pharmacy, Queen's University Belfast, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast, BT9 7BL, UK. 2. Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Medicine and Pharmacy At HCMC, 41-43 Dinh Tien Hoang Street, Ben Nghe Ward, District 1, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. 3. Centre for Public Health, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Royal Victoria Hospital, Grosvenor Road, Belfast, BT12 6BA, UK. 4. Public Health Agency, 12-22 Linenhall Street, Belfast, BT2 8BS, UK. 5. School of Pharmacy, Queen's University Belfast, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast, BT9 7BL, UK. c.hughes@qub.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diverse outcomes reported in clinical trials of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions in care homes have hindered evidence synthesis. Our main objective was to develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in trials aimed at improving AMS in care homes. METHODS: A refined inventory of outcomes for AMS interventions in care homes, compiled from a previous study, was rated in a three-round international Delphi survey with 82 participants, using a nine-point Likert scale (from 1, unimportant, to 9, critical). This was followed by an online consensus exercise with 12 participants from Northern Ireland to finalise the COS content. Subsequently, a suitable outcome measurement instrument (OMI) was selected for each outcome in the COS by: identifying existing OMIs through a literature search and experts' suggestions, assessing the quality of OMIs, and selecting one OMI for each core outcome via a two-round international Delphi survey with 59 participants. RESULTS: Of 14 outcomes initially presented, consensus was reached for inclusion of five outcomes in the COS after the three-round Delphi survey and the online consensus exercise, comprising the total number of antimicrobial courses prescribed, appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing, days of therapy per 1000 resident-days, rate of antimicrobial resistance, and mortality related to infection. Of 17 potential OMIs identified, three were selected for the two-round Delphi exercise after the quality assessment. Consensus was reached for selection of two OMIs for the COS. CONCLUSION: This COS is recommended to be used in clinical trials aimed at improving AMS in care homes.
BACKGROUND: Diverse outcomes reported in clinical trials of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions in care homes have hindered evidence synthesis. Our main objective was to develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in trials aimed at improving AMS in care homes. METHODS: A refined inventory of outcomes for AMS interventions in care homes, compiled from a previous study, was rated in a three-round international Delphi survey with 82 participants, using a nine-point Likert scale (from 1, unimportant, to 9, critical). This was followed by an online consensus exercise with 12 participants from Northern Ireland to finalise the COS content. Subsequently, a suitable outcome measurement instrument (OMI) was selected for each outcome in the COS by: identifying existing OMIs through a literature search and experts' suggestions, assessing the quality of OMIs, and selecting one OMI for each core outcome via a two-round international Delphi survey with 59 participants. RESULTS: Of 14 outcomes initially presented, consensus was reached for inclusion of five outcomes in the COS after the three-round Delphi survey and the online consensus exercise, comprising the total number of antimicrobial courses prescribed, appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing, days of therapy per 1000 resident-days, rate of antimicrobial resistance, and mortality related to infection. Of 17 potential OMIs identified, three were selected for the two-round Delphi exercise after the quality assessment. Consensus was reached for selection of two OMIs for the COS. CONCLUSION: This COS is recommended to be used in clinical trials aimed at improving AMS in care homes.
Authors: Mark Loeb; Kevin Brazil; Lynne Lohfeld; Allison McGeer; Andrew Simor; Kurt Stevenson; Dick Zoutman; Stephanie Smith; Xiwu Liu; Stephen D Walter Journal: BMJ Date: 2005-09-08
Authors: A McGeer; B Campbell; T G Emori; W J Hierholzer; M M Jackson; L E Nicolle; C Peppler; A Rivera; D G Schollenberger; A E Simor Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 1991-02 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: Andrew M Morris; Stacey Brener; Linda Dresser; Nick Daneman; Timothy H Dellit; Edina Avdic; Chaim M Bell Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2012-03-20 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Nimalie D Stone; Muhammad S Ashraf; Jennifer Calder; Christopher J Crnich; Kent Crossley; Paul J Drinka; Carolyn V Gould; Manisha Juthani-Mehta; Ebbing Lautenbach; Mark Loeb; Taranisia Maccannell; Preeti N Malani; Lona Mody; Joseph M Mylotte; Lindsay E Nicolle; Mary-Claire Roghmann; Steven J Schweon; Andrew E Simor; Philip W Smith; Kurt B Stevenson; Suzanne F Bradley Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Jon P Furuno; Angela C Comer; J Kristie Johnson; Joseph H Rosenberg; Susan L Moore; Thomas D MacKenzie; Kendall K Hall; Jon Mark Hirshon Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Paula R Williamson; Douglas G Altman; Jane M Blazeby; Mike Clarke; Declan Devane; Elizabeth Gargon; Peter Tugwell Journal: Trials Date: 2012-08-06 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Rachel Potter; Anne Campbell; David R Ellard; Catherine Shaw; Evie Gardner; Ashley Agus; Dermot O'Reilly; Martin Underwood; Mark Loeb; Bob Stafford; Michael Tunney; Carmel Hughes Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-11-21 Impact factor: 2.692