3 research outputs found

    Comparison of emergency department to hospital antibiograms: Influence of patient risk factors on susceptibility

    No full text
    OBJECTIVES: Traditional antibiograms use local resistance patterns and susceptibility data to guide empiric antimicrobial therapy selection. However, antibiograms are rarely unit-specific and do not account for patient-specific risk factors. METHODS: This retrospective, single-center descriptive study used culture and susceptibility data from January 1 to December 31, 2016 to develop an Emergency Department (ED)-specific antibiogram and compare the antimicrobial susceptibilities of the most commonly identified organisms to the hospital antibiogram. All ED isolates were further stratified by the following risk factors that may influence antimicrobial susceptibility: age, disposition from ED, previous antimicrobial use and/or hospitalization within 30 days, and presenting location (i.e. healthcare facility residence versus community). RESULTS: A total of 2158 isolates from the ED were included: Escherichia coli (n = 1244), Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 232), Proteus mirabilis (n = 131), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 103), Staphylococcus aureus (n = 303), and Enterococcus faecalis (n = 145). There were no statistically significant differences between the ED and hospital antibiogram (n = 5739) with the exception of Escherichia coli. The hospital antibiogram overestimated Escherichia coli resistance rates for cefazolin (20% vs 15.6%, p = 0.049), ceftriaxone (9.6% vs 6.4%, p \u3c 0.033), and ciprofloxacin (23.7% vs 15.4%, p \u3c 0.006). There were significantly more risk factors present in patients admitted versus discharged from the ED (p \u3c 0.001). Healthcare facility residence had the greatest influence on susceptibility, especially Escherichia coli (81.8% vs 34.9%, p \u3c 0.001) and Proteus mirabilis (75.3% vs 33%, p \u3c 0.001) ciprofloxacin susceptibility. CONCLUSIONS: There were no statistically significant differences between the ED and hospital antibiogram with the exception of Escherichia coli. However, development of an ED-specific antibiogram can aid physicians in prescribing appropriate empiric therapy when risk factors are included

    Impact of mandatory infectious diseases consultation and real-time antimicrobial stewardship pharmacist intervention on Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia bundle adherence

    No full text
    Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of infectious diseases consultation (IDC) and a real-time antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) review on the management of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB). Methods: This retrospective study included adult inpatients with SAB from January 2016 to December 2018 at 7 hospitals. Outcomes were compared between 3 time periods: before mandatory IDC and AMS review (period 1), after mandatory IDC and before AMS review (period 2), and after mandatory IDC and AMS review (period 3). The primary outcome was bundle adherence, defined as appropriate intravenous antimicrobial therapy, appropriate duration of therapy, appropriate surveillance cultures, echocardiography, and removal of indwelling intravenous catheters, if applicable. Secondary end points included individual bundle components, source control, length of stay (LOS), 30-day bacteremia-related readmission, and in-hospital all-cause mortality. Results: A total of 579 patients met inclusion criteria for analysis. Complete bundle adherence was 65% in period 1 (n = 241/371), 54% in period 2 (n = 47/87), and 76% in period 3 (n = 92/121). Relative to period 3, bundle adherence was significantly lower in period 1 (odds ratio [OR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.93; P = .02) and period 2 (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.20-0.67; P = .0009). No difference in bundle adherence was noted between periods 1 and 2. Significant differences were seen in obtaining echocardiography (91% vs 83% vs 100%; P \u3c .001), source control (34% vs 45% vs 45%; P = .04), and hospital LOS (10.5 vs 8.9 vs 12.0 days; P = .01). No differences were noted for readmission or mortality. Conclusions: The addition of AMS pharmacist review to mandatory IDC was associated with significantly improved quality care bundle adherence
    corecore