Antimicrobial stewardship: a collaborative partnership between infection preventionists and health care epidemiologists.

It is clear that the widespread and injudicious use of antimicrobials has greatly increased the presence of MDROs that threaten the health of all. There is worldwide acknowledgement that this threat is growing, and that prudent use of antimicrobials combined with infection prevention can prevent harm and improve patient safety. Antimicrobial stewardship programs must harness the talents of all members of the health care team to effectively identify the organism, determine its susceptibility, institute any precautions required, and prescribe the narrowest-acting antibiotic that will destroy it. IPs/HEs play a pivotal role in this approach, by assisting with early organism and infected patient identification, by promoting compliance with standard and transmission-based precautions and other infection prevention strategies such as care bundle practices, hand hygiene, and by educating staff, patients, and visitors.

Assessing the effect of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign treatment guidelines on clinical outcomes in a community hospital.

BACKGROUND: Bundles yield a reduction in mortality in patients with sepsis, but the majority of the data is from large academic centers. The ability of a community hospital to implement a sepsis bundle successfully, however, has not been investigated. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of a collaborative 2-part sepsis bundle on clinical outcomes and mortality at a community hospital. METHODS: The study included all patients with severe sepsis/septic shock over the age of 18 years admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) from 2006 to 2007 who were not treated with a bundle (n = 53) and those who were treated with a bundle (n = 59). Data collected included demographics; initiation of vasopressors; days on vasopressors; blood glucose; use of drotrecogin alfa (activated), steroids, and ventilator; ICU/hospital lengths of stay; ventilator days; time to culture; time to first dose of antibiotics; time to transfer from emergency department to ICU; fluid resuscitation in the first 24 hours; percentage of patients started on dialysis; and mortality. RESULTS: Demographics; blood glucose; use of drotrecogin alfa (activated), steroids and ventilator; ICU/hospital lengths of stay; and ventilator days were statistically similar between groups. Median time to cultures, first dose of antibiotics, and transfer to ICU were all reduced with the bundle. Percentage of non-bundle patients on vasopressors was 87% versus 66.7% of bundle patients (p = 0.011) and number of median days on vasopressors was reduced. Fewer bundle patients were initiated on dialysis (0%) versus non-bundle patients (14.8%) (p = 0.02). Median fluid administered in the first 24 hours was 2200 mL (10-13,996 mL) for non-bundle patients and 7143 mL (1000-19,104 mL) for bundle patients (p < 0.001). Mortality was 61.1% in the non-bundle group versus 20% with the bundle (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a 2-part sepsis bundle based on the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines can yield a positive impact on clinical outcome and mortality in a nonacademic, community hospital setting.

Sliding scale versus tight glycemic control in the noncritically ill at a community hospital.

BACKGROUND: Development of hyperglycemia during hospitalization is an area of concern in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Tight glycemic control has been debated for critically ill and noncritically ill patients with hyperglycemia. Although many studies have been performed in the critically ill, adequate data are not available in the noncritically ill population. OBJECTIVE: To compare traditional sliding scale (SS) with a tight glycemic control (TC) algorithm. The primary endpoint was the percentage of total blood glucose measurements in the target range of 80-150 mg/dL. The secondary endpoint evaluated was safety, defined as percentage of all blood glucose measurements that were 0-60 mg/dL. METHODS: A 1-year, retrospective analysis from June 1, 2007, to May 31, 2008, was performed evaluating all inpatients with hyperglycemia within the first 48 hours of admission to the Medical Center of Plano, Plano, TX. A cohort of patients managed with SS (n =121) was compared with those treated with TC (n = 210). Patients on SS insulin received a traditional SS regimen with regular insulin or insulin aspart based on physician preference. RESULTS: Demographics and comorbidities were similar between the 2 groups; however, the TC cohort was younger (64.8 + or - 14.1 vs 70.8 + or - 13.7 y; p < 0.001). There were more persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the TC cohort (81.9%) versus the SS cohort (60.3%; p < 0.001). In the TC cohort, 42.9% of blood glucose measurements were in the target range of 80-150 mg/dL compared with 30.6% of the measurements in the SS cohort (p < 0.001). Regarding safety, 2% of blood glucose measurements of the TC cohort were in the range of 0-60 mg/dL versus 0.3% of the SS cohort (p < 0.001). No clinical sequelae of hypoglycemia were observed. Patients achieved more blood glucose measurements in the target range when treated with TC versus SS insulin, without regard to prior history of diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with TC experienced more blood glucose measurements in the target range as compared with patients treated with SS with relatively low hypoglycemia rates.

Outcomes of extended infusion piperacillin/tazobactam for documented Gram-negative infections.

This comparison of intermittent versus extended-infusion piperacillin-tazobactam among patients with Gram-negative infections revealed similar mortality and length of stay. Outcomes remained similar when stratified by MIC value.

Clinical outcomes and cost minimization with an alternative dosing regimen for meropenem in a community hospital.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes and cost for the traditional United States Food and Drug Administration-approved dosing regimen for meropenem versus an alternative dosing regimen providing similar pharmacodynamic exposure with a lower total daily dose. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study with a cost-minimization analysis. SETTING: A 417-bed, privately owned community hospital. PATIENTS: One hundred patients who received meropenem 1 g every 8 or 12 hours (traditional dosing regimen) between January 1 and September 30, 2004 (historical controls), and 192 patients who received meropenem 500 mg every 6 or 8 hours (alternative dosing regimen) between October 1, 2004, and September 30, 2005. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Demographic and clinical data were collected for all patients. Cost-minimization analysis was performed by using the drug acquisition cost for meropenem. Demographics, sources of infection, distributions of organisms, and Charlson Comorbidity Index scores were similar between patients in the traditionally and alternatively dosed groups. Concomitant therapy, duration of therapy, success rates, lengths of stay, and in-hospital mortality rates were also similar between groups. Median time to the resolution of symptoms was 3 days for traditional dosing and 1.5 days for alternative dosing (p<0.0001). A logistic regression model including the dosing strategy showed that only polymicrobial infections and sepsis were associated with increased failure rates. The median cost for antibiotics was $439.05/patient for traditional dosing and $234.08/patient for alternative dosing (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: An alternative dosing regimen for meropenem with a lower total daily dose yielded patient outcomes, including success rates and duration of therapy, equivalent to those of the traditional dosing regimen. Alternative dosing decreased total drug exposure, costs for antibiotics, and time to the resolution of infections.