A multicentre cluster-randomized clinical trial to improve antibiotic use and reduce length of stay in hospitals: comparison of three measurement and feedback methods.

BACKGROUND: Various metrics of hospital antibiotic use might assist in guiding antimicrobial stewardship (AMS). OBJECTIVES: To compare patient outcomes in association with three methods to measure and feedback information on hospital antibiotic use when used in developing an AMS intervention. METHODS: Three methods were randomly allocated to 42 clusters from 21 Dutch hospitals: (1) feedback on quantity of antibiotic use [DDD, days-of-therapy (DOT) from hospital pharmacy data], versus feedback on (2) validated, or (3) non-validated quality indicators from point prevalence studies. Using this feedback together with an implementation tool, stewardship teams systematically developed and performed improvement strategies. The hospital length of stay (LOS) was the primary outcome and secondary outcomes included DOT, ICU stay and hospital mortality. Data were collected before (February-May 2015) and after (February-May 2017) the intervention period. RESULTS: The geometric mean hospital LOS decreased from 9.5 days (95% CI 8.9-10.1, 4245 patients) at baseline to 9.0 days (95% CI 8.5-9.6, 4195 patients) after intervention (P < 0.001). No differences in effect on LOS or secondary outcomes were found between methods. Feedback on quality of antibiotic use was used more often to identify improvement targets and was preferred over feedback on quantity of use. Consistent use of the implementation tool seemed to increase effectiveness of the AMS intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The decrease in LOS versus baseline likely reflects improvement in the quality of antibiotic use with the stewardship intervention. While the outcomes with the three methods were otherwise similar, stewardship teams preferred data on the quality over the quantity of antibiotic use.

Nationwide survey of hospital antibiotic stewardship programs in France.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the current state of antibiotic stewardship (ABS) in French public and private acute care hospitals. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional online questionnaire survey. The selection of participating hospitals was performed through a stratified random sampling procedure among all French public and private hospitals with acute care beds. RESULTS: 97/215 (45%) hospitals participated. A formal ABS program was implemented in 84% (80/95) of hospitals. A person officially in charge of this program (i.e., ABS program leader) was present in almost all participating hospitals (99%, 95/96) and s/he coordinated a multidisciplinary ABS team in 42% (40/96) of cases. The median time spent on ABS activities was 1.7, 1.6, and 0.8hours/week/100 acute care beds for infectious disease (ID) specialists, pharmacists, and microbiologists respectively; 27% (7/26) of ID specialists/other clinicians, 58% (15/26) of pharmacists, and 80% (16/20) of microbiologists received no salary support for the stewardship activities conducted as part of the team. Local guidelines (94%, 88/94), electronic medical records (85%, 80/94), and an antibiotic restriction policy (92%, 82/89) were implemented in almost all hospitals. Reports on antibiotic consumption and local resistance rates were available in 100% (91/91) and 84% (76/91) of hospitals, respectively. CONCLUSION: Despite the existence of national requirements, hospital ABS programs are not fully implemented in France, mainly because of inadequate institutional support and funding.

Comparison of antimicrobial stewardship programmes in acute-care hospitals in four European countries: A cross-sectional survey.

Antimicrobial stewardship programmes (ASPs) are designed to improve antibiotic use. A survey was systematically developed to assess ASP prerequisites, objectives and improvement strategies in hospitals. This study assessed the current state of ASPs in acute-care hospitals throughout Europe. A survey containing 46 questions was disseminated to acute-care hospitals: all Dutch (n = 80) and Slovenian (n = 29), 215 French (25%, random stratified sampling) and 62 Italian (49% of hospitals with an infectious diseases department, convenience sampling) acute-care hospitals, for a Europe-wide assessment. Response rates for the Netherlands (Nl), Slovenia (Slo), France (Fr) and Italy (It) were 80%, 86%, 45% and 66%. There was variation between countries in the prerequisites met and the objectives and improvement strategies chosen. A formal ASP was present mainly in the Netherlands (90%) and France (84%) compared with Slovenia (60%) and Italy (60%). Presence of an antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) team ranged from 42% (Fr) to 94% (Nl). Salary support for AMS teams was provided in 68% (Fr), 51% (Nl), 33% (Slo) and 12% (It) of surveyed hospitals. Quantity of antibiotic use was monitored in the majority of hospitals, ranging from 72% (Nl) to 100% (Slo and Fr) of acute-care hospitals. Participating countries varied substantially in the use of 'prospective monitoring and advice' as a strategy to improve AMS objectives. ASP prerequisites, objectives and improvement activities vary considerably across Europe, with room for improvement. Stimulating appropriate system prerequisites throughout Europe, e.g. by introducing staffing standards and financial support for ASPs, seems a first priority.

A survey on antimicrobial stewardship prerequisites, objectives and improvement strategies: systematic development and nationwide assessment in Dutch acute care hospitals.

Background: Stewardship guidelines define three essential building blocks for successful hospital antimicrobial stewardship programmes (ASPs): stewardship prerequisites, stewardship objectives and improvement strategies. Objectives: We systematically developed a survey, based on these building blocks, to evaluate the current state of antimicrobial stewardship in hospitals. We tested this survey in 64 Dutch acute care hospitals. Methods: We performed a literature review on surveys of antimicrobial stewardship. After extraction and categorization of survey questions, five experts merged and rephrased questions during a consensus meeting. After a pilot study, the survey was sent to 80 Dutch hospitals. Results: The final survey consisted of 46 questions, categorized into hospital characteristics, stewardship prerequisites, stewardship objectives and stewardship strategies. The response rate was 80% (n = 64). Ninety-four percent of hospitals had established an antimicrobial stewardship team, consisting of at least one hospital pharmacist and one clinical microbiologist. An infectious diseases specialist was present in 68% of the teams. Nine percent had dedicated IT support. Forty-one percent of the teams were financially supported, with a median of 0.6 full-time equivalents (FTE; 0.1-1.8). The majority of hospitals performed monitoring of restricted antibiotic agents (91%), dose optimization (65%), bedside consultation (56%) and intravenous-to-oral switch (53%). Fifty-eight percent of the hospitals provided education to residents and 28% to specialists. Conclusions: The survey provides information on the progress that is being made in hospitals regarding the three building blocks of a successful ASP, and provides clear aims to strengthen ASPs. Ultimately, these data will be related to national data on antibiotic consumption and resistance.

Clinical condition and comorbidity as determinants for blood culture positivity in patients with skin and soft-tissue infections.

The utility of performing blood cultures in patients with a suspected skin infection is debated. We investigated the association between blood culture positivity rates and patients' clinical condition, including acute disease severity and comorbidity. We performed a retrospective study, including patients with cellulitis and wound infection who had been enrolled in three Dutch multicenter studies between 2011 and 2015. Patients' acute clinical condition was assessed using the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS; severe: MEWS ≥2) and comorbidity with the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI; severe: CCI ≥2). A total of 334 patients with a suspected skin infection were included. Blood cultures were performed in 175 patients (52%), 28 of whom (16%) had a positive blood culture. Data on the clinical condition were collected in 275 patients. Blood cultures were performed in 76% of the patients with a severe acute condition, compared with 48% with a non-severe acute condition (OR 3.5; 95% confidence interval: 2.0-6.2; p < 0.001). Blood cultures were positive in 18% and 12% respectively (OR 1.7 (0.7-4.1); p = 0.3). Blood cultures were performed in 53% of patients with severe comorbidity, compared with 61% without severe comorbidity (OR 0.7; 0.4-1.2; p = 0.2). Blood cultures were positive in 25% and 10% respectively (OR = 3.1; 1.2-7.5; p = 0.02). The blood culture positivity rate among hospitalized patients diagnosed with skin infections was higher than the rates reported by the Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines, particularly in patients with severe comorbidity. Therefore, the recommendations concerning blood culture performance in patients with a skin infection should be reconsidered.