Stewardship-Hospitalist Collaboration

A qualitative evaluation of frontline clinician perspectives toward antibiotic stewardship programs

OBJECTIVE

To examine the perspectives of caregivers that are not part of the antibiotic stewardship program (ASP) leadership team (eg, physicians, nurses, and clinical pharmacists), but who interact with ASPs in their role as frontline healthcare workers.

DESIGN

Qualitative semistructured interviews.

SETTING

The study was conducted in 2 large national healthcare systems including 7 hospitals in the Veterans' Health Administration and 4 hospitals in Intermountain Healthcare.

PARTICIPANTS

We interviewed 157 participants. The current analysis includes 123 nonsteward clinicians: 47 physicians, 26 pharmacists, 29 nurses, and 21 hospital leaders.

METHODS

Interviewers utilized a semistructured interview guide based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which was tailored to the participant's role in the hospital as it related to ASPs. Qualitative analysis was conducted using a codebook based on the CFIR.

RESULTS

We identified 4 primary perspectives regarding ASPs. (1) Non-ASP pharmacists considered antibiotic stewardship activities to be a high priority despite the added burden to work duties: (2) Nurses acknowledged limited understanding of ASP activities or involvement with these programs; (3) Physicians criticized ASPs for their restrictions on clinical autonomy and questioned the ability of antibiotic stewards to make recommendations without the full clinical picture; And (4) hospital leaders expressed support for ASPs and recognized the unique challenges faced by non-ASP clinical staff.

CONCLUSION

Further understanding these differing perspectives of ASP implementation will inform possible ways to improve ASP implementation across clinical roles.

Multidisciplinary Collaboration for the Optimization of Antibiotic Prescription: Analysis of Clinical Cases of Pneumonia between Emergency, Internal Medicine, and Pharmacy Services

BACKGROUND

Pneumonia is a lung parenchyma acute infection usually treated with antibiotics. Increasing bacterial resistances force the review and control of antibiotic use criteria in different health departments.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the adequacy of antibiotic treatment in community-acquired pneumonia in patients initially attended at the emergency department and then admitted to the internal medicine service of the Alto Deba Hospital-Osakidetza Basque Country Health Service (Spain).

METHODS

Observational, retrospective study, based on the review of medical records of patients with community-acquired pneumonia attended at the hospital between January and May 2021. The review was made considering the following items: antimicrobial treatment indication, choice of antibiotic, time of administration of the first dose, adequacy of the de-escalation-sequential therapy, duration of treatment, monitoring of efficacy and adverse effects, and registry in the medical records. The review was made by the research team (professionals from the emergency department, internal medicine, and pharmacy services).

RESULTS

Fifty-five medical records were reviewed. The adequacy of the treatments showed that antibiotic indication, time of administration of the first dose, and monitoring of efficacy and adverse effects were the items with the greatest agreement between the three departments. This was not the case with the choice of antibiotic, de-escalation/sequential therapy, duration of treatment, and registration in the medical record, which have been widely discussed. The choice of antibiotic was optimal in 63.64% and might have been better in 25.45%. De-escalation/oral sequencing might have been better in 50.91%. The treatment duration was optimal in 45.45% of the patients and excessive in 45.45%.

DISCUSSION

The team agreed to disseminate these data among the hospital professionals and to propose audits and feedback through an antibiotic stewardship program. Besides this, implementing the local guideline and defining stability criteria to apply sequential therapy/de-escalation was considered essential.

Efficiency of the Japanese Hospitalist System for Patients with Urinary Tract Infection: A Propensity-matched Analysis

Objective The hospitalist system in the United States has been considered successful in terms of the quality of care and cost effectiveness. In Japan, however, its efficacy has not yet been extensively examined. This study examined the impact of the hospitalist system on the quality of care and healthcare economics in a Japanese population using treatment of urinary tract infection as an example. Methods We analyzed 271 patients whose most resource-consuming diagnosis at admission was urinary tract infection between April 2017 and March 2019. Propensity-matched analyses were performed to compare health care economics and the quality of care between the hospitalist system and the conventional system. Results In matched pairs, care by the hospitalist system was associated with a significantly shorter length of stay than that by the conventional system. The quality of care (oral antibiotics switch rate, rate of appropriate antibiotics change based on urine or blood culture results, detection rate of urinary tract infection etiology and the number of laboratory tests) was also considered to be favorably impacted by the hospitalist system. Although not statistically significant, hospital costs tended to be lower with the hospitalist system than with the conventional system. The mortality rate and 30-day readmission were also not significantly different between the groups. Conclusion The hospitalist system had a favorable impact on the quality of care and length of stay without increasing readmission in patients with urinary tract infection. This study is further evidence of the strong potential for the positive impact of an implemented hospitalist system in Japan.