Validation of the Antifungal National Antimicrobial Prescribing Survey (AF-NAPS) quality assessment tool.

BACKGROUND: The Antifungal National Antimicrobial Prescribing Survey (AF-NAPS) was developed to undertake streamlined quality audits of antifungal prescribing. The validity and reliability of such tools is not characterized. OBJECTIVES: To assess the validity and reliability of the AF-NAPS quality assessment tool. METHODS: Case vignettes describing antifungal prescribing were prepared. A steering group was assembled to determine gold-standard classifications for appropriateness and guideline compliance. Infectious diseases physicians, antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) and specialist pharmacists undertook a survey to classify appropriateness and guideline compliance of prescriptions utilizing the AF-NAPS tool. Validity was measured as accuracy, sensitivity and specificity compared with gold standard. Inter-rater reliability was measured using Fleiss' kappa statistics. Assessors' responses and comments were thematically analysed to determine reasons for incorrect classification. RESULTS: Twenty-eight clinicians assessed 59 antifungal prescriptions. Overall accuracy of appropriateness assessment was 77.0% (sensitivity 85.3%, specificity 68.0%). Highest accuracy was seen amongst specialist (81%) and AMS pharmacists (79%). Prescriptions with lowest accuracy were in the haematology setting (69%), use of echinocandins (73%), mould-active azoles (75%) and for prophylaxis (71%). Inter-rater reliability was fair overall (0.3906), with moderate reliability amongst specialist pharmacists (0.5304). Barriers to accurate classification were incorrect use of the appropriateness matrix, knowledge gaps and lack of guidelines for some indications. CONCLUSIONS: The AF-NAPS is a valid tool, assisting assessors to correctly classify appropriate prescriptions more accurately than inappropriate prescriptions. Specialist and AMS pharmacists had similar performance, providing confidence that both can undertake AF-NAPS audits to a high standard. Identified reasons for incorrect classification will be targeted in the online tool and educational materials.

What are the similarities and differences in antimicrobial prescribing between Australian public and private hospitals?

BACKGROUND: Identifying themes associated with inappropriate prescribing in Australian public and private hospitals will help target future antimicrobial stewardship initiatives. AIMS: To describe current antimicrobial prescribing practices, identify similarities and differences between hospital sectors and provide target areas for improvement specific to each hospital sector. METHODS: All hospitals included in the study were part of the 2014 national antimicrobial prescribing survey and conducted one of the following: a whole hospital point prevalence survey, serial point prevalence surveys or a sample of randomly selected patients. Data on the types of antibiotics used, their indications for use and the quality of prescription based on compliance with national and local prescribing guidelines were collected. RESULTS: Two hundred and two hospitals (166 public and 36 private) comprising 10 882 patients and 15 967 antimicrobial prescriptions were included. Public hospitals had higher proportions of prescriptions for treatment (81.5% vs 48.4%) and medical prophylaxis (8.8% and 4.6%), whilst private hospitals had significantly higher surgical prophylaxis use (9.6% vs 46.9%) (P < 0.001). In public hospitals, the main reasons for non-compliance of treatment prescriptions were spectrum being too broad (30.5%) while in private it was incorrect dosing. Prolonged duration was the main reason for non-compliance among surgical prophylaxis prescriptions in both types of hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Australian hospitals need to target specific areas to improve antimicrobial use. Specifically, unnecessary broad-spectrum therapy should be a priority area in public hospitals, whilst emphasis on curtailing antimicrobial overuse in surgical prophylaxis needs to be urgently addressed across in the private hospital sector.

Feasibility of early discharge strategies for neutropenic fever: outcomes of a Victorian organisational readiness assessment and pilot.

BACKGROUND: Although Australian consensus guidelines support the use of ambulatory care strategies for management of adult patients with low-risk neutropenic fever (NF), few centres have successfully implemented viable programmes. AIMS: To study the feasibility of an early discharge programme for adult patients with low-risk NF and assess organisational factors likely to influence successful implementation across participating Victorian hospitals. METHODS: Four hospitals participated in an organisational readiness assessment preceding selection of a pilot site for programme implementation. Prospective baseline auditing of current practice (i.e. inpatient care until resolution of NF) across three hospitals preceded programme implementation and evaluation. RESULTS: Barriers and facilitators to successful implementation were identified. One hundred and seventeen NF episodes were evaluated during audit phases. The frequency of low-risk NF presentations eligible for early discharge was low (less than two episodes per week). The programme reduced median (interquartile range) duration of parenteral antibiotics and length of stay for eligible patients (n = 11) from 4 (4, 5) days at baseline to 1 (1, 2) day during pilot (P = 0.02) and 4.5 (4, 5) days (baseline) to 2 (1, 3) days (pilot) (P = 0.02) respectively. The proportion of ineligible patients stepped down to oral antibiotics was improved from 38% (baseline) to 67% (pilot). No patients failed ambulatory care requiring readmission into hospital. CONCLUSION: The ambulatory care strategy for management of NF proposed by Australian consensus guidelines has been successfully piloted at a single Victorian centre. Organisational readiness tools can be used to identify potential barriers to the implementation of evidence based practices in patients with NF.

Introduction to the Australian consensus guidelines for the management of neutropenic fever in adult cancer patients, 2010/2011. Australian Consensus Guidelines 2011 Steering Committee.

The current consensus guidelines were developed to standardize the clinical approach to the management of neutropenic fever in adult cancer patients throughout Australian treating centres. The three areas of clinical practice covered by the guidelines, the process for developing consensus opinion, and the system used to grade the evidence and relative strength of recommendations are described. The health economics implications of establishing clinical guidance are also discussed.

Use of risk stratification to guide ambulatory management of neutropenic fever. Australian Consensus Guidelines 2011 Steering Committee.

Utilization of risk-stratification tools in the setting of neutropenic fever is currently limited by inadequate knowledge and lack of awareness. Within this context, the approach to management of low-risk patients with neutropenic fever is inconsistent with the available evidence across many Australian treating centres. These clinical guidelines define and clarify an accepted standard of care for this patient group given the current evidence base. The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer risk index is presented as the preferred risk assessment tool for determining patient risk. Suitability of ambulatory care within specific patient populations is discussed, with defined eligibility criteria provided to guide clinical decision-making. Detailed recommendations for implementing appropriate ambulatory strategies, such as early discharge and outpatient antibiotic therapy, are also provided. Due consideration is given to infrastructural requirements and other supportive measures at a resourcing and operational level. An analysis of the relevant health economics is also presented.

The disease and economic burden of neutropenic fever in adult patients in Australian cancer treatment centres 2008: analysis of the Victorian Admitted Episodes Dataset.

BACKGROUND: Although the incidence of neutropenic fever (FN) is estimated to be up to 80% for some malignancies, the epidemiological characteristics and economic burden are not well understood for Australian patients. AIMS: To describe underlying malignant conditions, potential aetiologies, clinical outcomes and healthcare utilization for an Australian population with FN, and to estimate the economic burden of this condition within the Australian healthcare sector. METHODS: Epidemiological features of FN were extracted from a population-based hospital morbidity dataset, the Victorian Admitted Episodes Dataset (VAED), for a 12-month period (2008). These were analysed according for a range of malignancy categories. Economic burden of hospitalizations was estimated according to data presented in the Round 12 National Hospital Cost Data Collection Report. RESULTS: A total of 2599 admitted episodes across 92 Victorian hospitals fulfilled inclusion criteria for FN. Metropolitan hospitalizations accounted for 79% episodes. FN illness comprised underlying solid tumours diagnoses (40%), followed by leukaemia (29.3%), lymphoma (22%) and myeloma (8.5%). Length of hospital stay was >15 days for approximately one-third of hospitalizations. intensive care unit admission rates were 5.9-11.7%. Weighted average costs of hospitalization (AUD) for solid tumours, lymphoma, myeloma and leukaemia were $8309 ± $391, 18,145 ± $1602, $21,764 ± $1289 and $22,596 ± $2618 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Using VAED indices, epidemiological features of Australian patients with FN appear comparable with international reports. In contrast to US data, estimated healthcare costs are up to 50% lower in the Australian healthcare sector. These data offer important insights for prioritizing of research agendas and resource allocation.