RESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: The enhanced perioperative care (EPOC) program is an institutional quality improvement initiative. We used a historically controlled study design to evaluate patients who underwent major spine surgery before and after the implementation of the EPOC program. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether multidisciplinary EPOC program was associated with an improvement in clinical and financial outcomes for elective adult major spine surgery patients. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs successfully implemented in hip and knee replacement surgeries, and improved clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. METHODS: We compared 183 subjects in traditional care (TRDC) group to 267 intervention period (EPOC) in a single academic quaternary spine surgery referral center. One hundred eight subjects in no pathway (NOPW) care group was also examined to exclude if the observed changes between the EPOC and TRDC groups might be due to concurrent changes in practice or population over the same time period. Our primary outcome variables were hospital and intensive care unit lengths of stay and the secondary outcomes were postoperative complications, 30-day hospital readmission and cost. RESULTS: In this highly complex patient population, we observed a reduction in mean hospital length of stay (HLOS) between TRDC versus EPOC groups (8.2 vs. 6.1 d, standard deviation [SD]â=â6.3 vs. 3.6, Pâ<â0.001) and intensive care unit length of stay (ILOS) (3.1 vs. 1.9 d, SDâ=â4.7 vs. 1.4, Pâ=â0.01). The number (rate) of postoperative intensive care unit (ICU) admissions was higher for the TRDC nâ=â109 (60%) than the EPOC nâ=â129 (48%) (Pâ=â0.02). There was no difference in postoperative complications and 30-day hospital readmissions. The EPOC spine program was associated with significant average cost reduction-$62,429 to $53,355 (Pâ<â0.00). CONCLUSION: The EPOC program has made a clinically relevant contribution to institutional efforts to improve patient outcomes and value. We observed a reduction in HLOS, ILOS, costs, and variability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
Assuntos
Procedimentos Neurocirúrgicos/normas , Assistência Perioperatória/normas , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/epidemiologia , Adulto , Idoso , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Eletivos/economia , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Eletivos/métodos , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Eletivos/normas , Feminino , Humanos , Tempo de Internação/economia , Tempo de Internação/tendências , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Procedimentos Neurocirúrgicos/economia , Procedimentos Neurocirúrgicos/métodos , Readmissão do Paciente/economia , Readmissão do Paciente/tendências , Satisfação do Paciente , Assistência Perioperatória/economia , Assistência Perioperatória/métodos , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/diagnóstico , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/economia , Melhoria de Qualidade/normas , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
Evidence-based guidelines for implementation and measurement of antibiotic stewardship interventions in inpatient populations including long-term care were prepared by a multidisciplinary expert panel of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. The panel included clinicians and investigators representing internal medicine, emergency medicine, microbiology, critical care, surgery, epidemiology, pharmacy, and adult and pediatric infectious diseases specialties. These recommendations address the best approaches for antibiotic stewardship programs to influence the optimal use of antibiotics.
Assuntos
Anti-Infecciosos , Revisão de Uso de Medicamentos , Controle de Medicamentos e Entorpecentes , Anti-Infecciosos/administração & dosagem , Anti-Infecciosos/uso terapêutico , Epidemiologia/organização & administração , Humanos , Infectologia/organização & administração , Avaliação de Programas e Projetos de Saúde , Estados UnidosRESUMO
Evidence-based guidelines for implementation and measurement of antibiotic stewardship interventions in inpatient populations including long-term care were prepared by a multidisciplinary expert panel of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. The panel included clinicians and investigators representing internal medicine, emergency medicine, microbiology, critical care, surgery, epidemiology, pharmacy, and adult and pediatric infectious diseases specialties. These recommendations address the best approaches for antibiotic stewardship programs to influence the optimal use of antibiotics.
Assuntos
Anti-Infecciosos , Revisão de Uso de Medicamentos , Controle de Medicamentos e Entorpecentes , Anti-Infecciosos/administração & dosagem , Anti-Infecciosos/uso terapêutico , Epidemiologia/organização & administração , Humanos , Infectologia/organização & administração , Estados UnidosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Vancomycin has been the treatment standard for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections, but clinical efficacy is limited. We report outcomes of a cohort with MRSA ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) treated with vancomycin vs linezolid. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 113 participants with MRSA VAP confirmed by bronchoscopy who have been initiated on therapy with either vancomycin or linezolid within 24 hours after bronchoscopy and completed ≥7 days of therapy during their hospitalization from July 2003 to June 2007. The primary endpoints were hospital survival and clinical cure, defined as resolution of signs and symptoms of VAP or microbiological eradication after completion of therapy along with clinical pulmonary infection score (CPIS) ≤6 at day 7 of therapy. RESULTS: At hospital discharge, 23/27 (85.2%) of linezolid and 72/86 (83.7%) of vancomycin recipients had survived (P = .672). In comparison to linezolid recipients, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for survival was 0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.16-3.27) with vancomycin therapy. Clinical cure was achieved in 24/27 (88.9%) of linezolid and 63/86 (73.3%) of vancomycin recipients (P = .066). Compared to linezolid recipients, the adjusted OR for clinical cure was 0.24 (95% CI: 0.05-1.10) with vancomycin therapy. Survival and clinical cure did not differ significantly between vancomycin recipients with trough level ≥15 and <15 µg/mL, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggested no survival benefit but a trend toward higher cure rate with linezolid therapy. The optimal treatment of MRSA VAP requires further study through randomized, controlled trials.
Assuntos
Acetamidas/uso terapêutico , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Oxazolidinonas/uso terapêutico , Pneumonia Associada à Ventilação Mecânica/tratamento farmacológico , Vancomicina/uso terapêutico , Adulto , Broncoscopia , Estudos de Coortes , Feminino , Humanos , Linezolida , Masculino , Staphylococcus aureus Resistente à Meticilina/isolamento & purificação , Alta do Paciente , Pneumonia Associada à Ventilação Mecânica/mortalidade , Análise de Regressão , Estudos Retrospectivos , Infecções Estafilocócicas , Taxa de Sobrevida , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate whether daily bathing with cloths impregnated with 2% chlorhexidine gluconate will decrease colonization of resistant bacteria and reduce the rates of health care-associated infections in critically injured patients. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of data collected 6 months before and after institution of a chlorhexidine bathing protocol. SETTING: A 12-bed intensive care unit in a level I trauma center. PATIENTS: Two hundred eighty-six severely injured patients underwent daily chlorhexidine bathing during the 6-month intervention; 253 patients were bathed without chlorhexidine prior to the intervention. INTERVENTIONS: Daily chlorhexidine bathing. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), bloodstream infection, and colonization with resistant organisms (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus [MRSA] or Acinetobacter species). RESULTS: Baseline patient and injury characteristics were similar between cohorts. Patients receiving chlorhexidine baths were significantly less likely to acquire a catheter-related bloodstream infection than comparators (2.1 vs 8.4 infections per 1000 catheter-days, P = .01). The incidence of VAP was not affected by chlorhexidine baths (16.9 vs 21.6 infections per 1000 ventilator-days in those with vs those without chlorhexidine baths, respectively, P = .30). However, patients who received chlorhexidine baths were less likely to develop MRSA VAP (1.6 vs 5.7 infections per 1000 ventilator-days, P = .03). The rate of colonization with MRSA (23.3 vs 69.3 per 1000 patient-days, P < .001) and Acinetobacter (1.0 vs 4.6 per 1000 patient-days, P = .36) was significantly lower in the chlorhexidine group than in the comparison group. CONCLUSIONS: Daily bathing of trauma patients with cloths impregnated with 2% chlorhexidine gluconate is associated with a decreased rate of colonization by MRSA and Acinetobacter and lower rates of catheter-related bloodstream infection and MRSA VAP.
Assuntos
Anti-Infecciosos Locais/administração & dosagem , Infecções Bacterianas/prevenção & controle , Banhos , Clorexidina/análogos & derivados , Infecção Hospitalar/prevenção & controle , Ferimentos e Lesões , Adulto , Infecções Bacterianas/complicações , Clorexidina/administração & dosagem , Infecção Hospitalar/complicações , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Estudos Retrospectivos , Ferimentos e Lesões/complicaçõesRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To describe the development of a guideline for the management of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) based on local microbiologic findings and to evaluate the impact of the guideline on antimicrobial use practices. DESIGN: Retrospective comparison of antimicrobial use practices before and after implementation of the guideline. SETTING: Intensive care units at Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, a university-affiliated urban teaching hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 819 patients who received mechanical ventilation and who underwent quantitative bronchoscopy between July 1, 2003, and June 30, 2005, for suspected VAP. INTERVENTIONS: Implementation of an evidence-based VAP guideline that focused on the use of quantitative bronchoscopy for diagnosis, administration of empirical antimicrobial therapy based on local microbiologic findings and resistance patterns, tailoring definitive antimicrobial therapy on the basis of culture results, and appropriate duration of therapy. RESULTS: During the baseline period, 168 (46.7%) of 360 patients had quantitative cultures that met the diagnostic criteria for VAP, compared with 216 (47.1%) of 459 patients in the period after the guideline was implemented. The pathogens responsible for VAP remained similar between the 2 periods, except that the prevalence of VAP due to carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter species increased from 1.8% to 15.3% (P<.001), particularly in late-onset VAP. Compared with the baseline period, there was an improvement in antimicrobial use practices after implementation of the guideline: antimicrobial therapy was more frequently tailored on the basis of quantitative culture results (103 [61.3%] of 168 vs 150 [69.4%] of 216 patients; P = .034), there was an increase in the use of appropriate definitive therapy (135 [80.4%] of 168 vs 193 [89.4%] of 216 patients; P = .001), and there was a decrease in the mean duration of therapy (12.0 vs 10.7 days; P = .0014). The all-cause mortality rate was similar in the periods before and after the guideline was implemented (38 [22.6%] of 168 vs 46 [21.3%] of 216 patients; P = .756). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a guideline for the management of VAP that incorporated the use of quantitative bronchoscopy, the use of empirical therapy based on local microbiologic findings, tailoring of therapy on the basis of culture results, and use of shortened durations of therapy led to significant improvements in antimicrobial use practices without adversely affecting the all-cause mortality rate.