Essential Resources and Strategies for Antibiotic Stewardship Programs in the Acute Care Setting.

Background: Antibiotic stewardship programs improve clinical outcomes and patient safety and help combat antibiotic resistance. Specific guidance on resources needed to structure stewardship programs is lacking. This manuscript describes results of a survey of US stewardship programs and resultant recommendations regarding potential staffing structures in the acute care setting. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of members of 3 infectious diseases subspecialty societies actively involved in antibiotic stewardship was conducted. Survey responses were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Logistic regression models were used to investigate the relationship between stewardship program staffing levels and self-reported effectiveness and to determine which strategies mediate effectiveness. Results: Two-hundred forty-four respondents from a variety of acute care settings completed the survey. Prior authorization for select antibiotics, antibiotic reviews with prospective audit and feedback, and guideline development were common strategies. Eighty-five percent of surveyed programs demonstrated effectiveness in at least 1 outcome in the prior 2 years. Each 0.50 increase in pharmacist and physician full-time equivalent (FTE) support predicted a 1.48-fold increase in the odds of demonstrating effectiveness. The effect was mediated by the ability to perform prospective audit and feedback. Most programs noted significant barriers to success. Conclusions: Based on our survey's results, we propose an FTE-to-bed ratio that can be used as a starting point to guide discussions regarding necessary resources for antibiotic stewardship programs with executive leadership. Prospective audit and feedback should be the cornerstone of stewardship programs, and both physician leadership and pharmacists with expertise in stewardship are crucial for success.

A randomized trial of single versus double high-level disinfection of duodenoscopes and linear echoendoscopes using standard automated reprocessing.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In a pilot study, we demonstrated that current guidelines for duodenoscope and linear echoendoscope (DLE) reprocessing using a single cycle of high-level disinfection (HLD) in an automated reprocessor may be inadequate. In August 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration offered double HLD as a possible response to address this concern. As a result, Providence Health and Services adopted double HLD as standard procedure for DLEs, but no rigorous clinical studies supported this practice. We undertook a quality improvement study to compare single HLD versus double HLD at 4 of our 34 hospitals. METHODS: HLD of DLE was randomized, separately in each facility, to either single HLD or double HLD on weekdays, with standard double HLD on weekends or holidays. There was 99.7% compliance with the randomization scheme. Daily qualitative surveillance cultures of dried, post-HLD DLEs were collected for 6 months (1 swab sample from the elevator mechanism and 1 combined brush sample from the suction and working channels for each encounter), and each sample was incubated for 48 hours. Positivity rates of any microbial growth and growth of high-concern pathogens (potentially pathogenic enteric flora) were compared between the 2 study arms. RESULTS: Altogether, 5850 surveillance culture specimens were obtained during 2925 encounters from the 45 DLEs in clinical use in the participating hospitals. Of these, 3052 (52.2%) were from endoscopes cleaned by double HLD. Double HLD demonstrated no benefit over single HLD because similar positivity rates were observed (all P > .05). The elevator mechanism was more frequently colonized than the biopsy channel (5.2% vs 2.9%, P < .001). Among the 224 encounters with positive growth, 140 (62.5%) recovered microbes from only the elevator mechanism specimens, 73 (32.6%) recovered microbes from only the channel specimens, and 11 (4.9%) recovered microbes from both types of specimens. Double HLD failed to improve contamination rates for either sample site at any of the 4 endoscopy facilities, although there were significant overall differences in contamination rates among the facilities (P < .001), as observed in our previous study. Only 8 high-concern pathogens were recovered from 5 DLEs, all from the elevator mechanism. Persistent growth was observed on 2 duodenoscopes. One grew Enterococcus spp (not vancomycin-resistant enterococci) on 3 occasions, and Escherichia coli was present on 2 of these occasions, 1 of which was a multidrug-resistant organism. The other grew different enteric flora on 2 specimens. CONCLUSIONS: Our prospectively randomized study, involving 4 separate endoscopy facilities and standard automated endoscope reprocessing, showed that double HLD did not reduce culture positivity rates compared with single HLD in facilities with an already low positive culture rate. Alternative risk mitigation strategies will be assessed in an ongoing effort to reduce endoscope contamination.

Surveillance of guideline practices for duodenoscope and linear echoendoscope reprocessing in a large healthcare system.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To assess the adequacy of currently recommended duodenoscope and linear echoendoscope (DLE) automatic endoscope reprocessing (AER) and high-level disinfection (HLD), we collected daily post-reprocessing surveillance cultures of 106 DLEs in 21 Providence and Affiliate Hospitals. METHODS: Daily qualitative surveillance of dried, post-HLD DLEs was conducted for a minimum of 30 days at each facility. Positivity rates for any microbial growth and growth of high-concern pathogens were reported. Potential effects of DLE manufacturer, age, and AER processor on culture-positivity rate were assessed. RESULTS: Microbial growth was recovered from 201 of 4032 specimens (5%) or 189 of 2238 encounters (8.4%), including 23 specimens (.6%) or 21 encounters (.9%) for a high-concern pathogen. Wide variations in culture-positivity rate were observed across facilities. No striking difference in culture-positivity rate was seen among 8 DLE models, 3 DLE manufacturers, DLE age, manual or bedside cleanser, or automatic flushing system use. However, there was suggestive evidence that Custom Ultrasonics AER (Warminster, Pa, USA) had a lower culture-positivity rate than Medivators AER (Cantel Medical Corp., Little Falls, NJ, USA) for high-concern pathogen growth (0/1079 vs 21/2735 specimens or 0/547 vs 20/1582 encounters). Two endoscopes grew intestinal flora on several occasions despite multiple HLD. No multidrug-resistant organism was detected. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter DLE surveillance study, microbial growth was recovered in 5.0% of specimens (8.4% of encounters), with most being environmental microbes. Enteric bacterial flora was recovered in .6% of specimens (.9% of encounters), despite compliance with 2014 U.S. guidelines and manufacturers' recommendations for cleaning and HLD process. The observed better performance of Custom Ultrasonics AER deserves further investigation.

Clinical impact of a real-time PCR assay for rapid identification of staphylococcal bacteremia.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of real-time PCR reporting both on timely identification of clustered Gram-positive cocci (GPC) in blood cultures and on appropriate antibiotic treatment. This retrospective, interventional cohort study evaluated inpatients with blood cultures positive for GPC in the pre-PCR (15 January 2009 to 14 January 2010) and post-PCR (15 January 2010 to 14 January 2011) periods. Post-PCR implementation, laboratory services completed batched PCR; results other than methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) were reported in the electronic medical record without additional interventions. The assay's sensitivity and specificity, time to identification of staphylococcal bacteremia, and clinically relevant outcomes, including time to optimal antibiotic therapy, were evaluated. Demographic information was also collected and analyzed. Sixty-eight and 58 patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia from the pre- and post-PCR periods, respectively, met inclusion criteria. Similar numbers of consecutive patients with coagulase-negative staphylococci were analyzed for comparison. The time to identification was significantly reduced post-PCR implementation (mean, 13.2 h; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 10.5 to 15.9 h; P < 0.0001). However, the time to optimal antibiotic therapy was not significantly reduced. We conclude that implementation of a PCR assay demonstrated the potential to improve appropriate antibiotic use based on clinically meaningful and statistically significant reductions in the time to microbiologic identification. However, in order to realize this potential benefit, processes must be optimized and additional interventions initiated to facilitate providers' use of the PCR result.

Enhanced Detection of Community-Acquired Pneumonia Pathogens With the BioFire® Pneumonia FilmArray® Panel.

BACKGROUND: Although most observational studies identify viral or bacterial pathogens in 50% or less of patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), we previously demonstrated that a multi-test bundle (MTB) detected a potential pathogen in 73% of patients. This study compares detection rates for potential pathogens with the MTB versus the Biofire® Pneumonia FilmArray® panel (BPFA) multiplex PCR platform and presents an approach for integrating BPFA results as a foundation for subsequent antibiotic stewardship (AS) activities. METHODS: Between January 2017 to March 2018, all patients admitted for CAP were enrolled. Patients were considered evaluable if all elements of the MTB and the BPFA were completed, and they met other a priori inclusion criteria. The primary endpoint was the percentage of potential pathogens detected using the MTB (8 viral and 6 bacterial targets) versus the BPFA (8 viral and 18 bacterial targets). Blood and sputum cultures were performed on all patients. Two or more procalcitonin (PCT) levels assisted clinical assessments as to whether detected bacteria were invading or colonizing. RESULTS: Of 585 enrolled patients, 274 were evaluable. A potential viral pathogen was detected in 40.5% with MTB versus 60.9% of patients with BPFA with an odds ratio (95% CI) of 9.00 (4.12 to 23.30) p<0.01. A potential bacterial pathogen was identified in 66.4% with the MTB vs 75.5% with the BPFA odds ratio (95% CI) of 2.09 (1.24 to 3.59), p 0.003). Low PCT levels helped identify detected bacteria as colonizers.

Acute sinusitis. When--and when not--to prescribe antibiotics.

Clinical diagnosis of acute sinusitis is troublesome because it involves use of a cluster of diagnostic criteria that have only moderate sensitivity. Ancillary testing with radiography or antral puncture is impractical, expensive, and usually unnecessary in the primary care setting. Antibiotic therapy is not beneficial for most patients in whom acute sinusitis is suspected, even when radiographic abnormalities are found. Simple management algorithms and patient information are now available to aid primary care physicians in offering appropriate therapeutic measures and reassuring patients who are expecting "'a pill for every ill' when that pill is an antibacterial."