Optimising antibacterial utilisation in Argentine intensive care units: a quality improvement collaborative.

IF 5.6 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMJ Quality & Safety Pub Date : 2024-08-15 DOI:10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017069
Facundo Jorro-Baron, Cecilia Inés Loudet, Wanda Cornistein, Inés Suarez-Anzorena, Pilar Arias-Lopez, Carina Balasini, Laura Cabana, Eleonora Cunto, Pablo Rodrigo Jorge Corral, Luz Gibbons, Marina Guglielmino, Gabriela Izzo, Marianela Lescano, Claudia Meregalli, Cristina Orlandi, Fernando Perre, Maria Elena Ratto, Mariano Rivet, Ana Paula Rodriguez, Viviana Monica Rodriguez, Jacqueline Vilca Becerra, Paula Romina Villegas, Emilse Vitar, Javier Roberti, Ezequiel García-Elorrio, Viviana Rodriguez
{"title":"Optimising antibacterial utilisation in Argentine intensive care units: a quality improvement collaborative.","authors":"Facundo Jorro-Baron, Cecilia Inés Loudet, Wanda Cornistein, Inés Suarez-Anzorena, Pilar Arias-Lopez, Carina Balasini, Laura Cabana, Eleonora Cunto, Pablo Rodrigo Jorge Corral, Luz Gibbons, Marina Guglielmino, Gabriela Izzo, Marianela Lescano, Claudia Meregalli, Cristina Orlandi, Fernando Perre, Maria Elena Ratto, Mariano Rivet, Ana Paula Rodriguez, Viviana Monica Rodriguez, Jacqueline Vilca Becerra, Paula Romina Villegas, Emilse Vitar, Javier Roberti, Ezequiel García-Elorrio, Viviana Rodriguez","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017069","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is limited evidence from antimicrobial stewardship programmes in less-resourced settings. This study aimed to improve the quality of antibacterial prescriptions by mitigating overuse and promoting the use of narrow-spectrum agents in intensive care units (ICUs) in a middle-income country.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We established a quality improvement collaborative (QIC) model involving nine Argentine ICUs over 11 months with a 16-week baseline period (BP) and a 32-week implementation period (IP). Our intervention package included audits and feedback on antibacterial use, facility-specific treatment guidelines, antibacterial timeouts, pharmacy-based interventions and education. The intervention was delivered in two learning sessions with three action periods along with coaching support and basic quality improvement training.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 912 patients, 357 in BP and 555 in IP. The latter had higher APACHE II (17 (95% CI: 12 to 21) vs 15 (95% CI: 11 to 20), p=0.036), SOFA scores (6 (95% CI: 4 to 9) vs 5 (95% CI: 3 to 8), p=0.006), renal failure (41.6% vs 33.1%, p=0.009), sepsis (36.1% vs 31.6%, p<0.001) and septic shock (40.0% vs 33.8%, p<0.001). The days of antibacterial therapy (DOT) were similar between the groups (change in the slope from BP to IP 28.1 (95% CI: -17.4 to 73.5), p=0.2405). There were no differences in the antibacterial defined daily dose (DDD) between the groups (change in the slope from BP to IP 43.9, (95% CI: -12.3 to 100.0), p=0.1413).The rate of antibacterial de-escalation based on microbiological culture was higher during the IP (62.0% vs 45.3%, p<0.001).The infection prevention control (IPC) assessment framework was increased in eight ICUs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Implementing an antimicrobial stewardship program in ICUs in a middle-income country via a QIC demonstrated success in improving antibacterial de-escalation based on microbiological culture results, but not on DOT or DDD. In addition, eight out of nine ICUs improved their IPC Assessment Framework Score.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Quality & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017069","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There is limited evidence from antimicrobial stewardship programmes in less-resourced settings. This study aimed to improve the quality of antibacterial prescriptions by mitigating overuse and promoting the use of narrow-spectrum agents in intensive care units (ICUs) in a middle-income country.

Methods: We established a quality improvement collaborative (QIC) model involving nine Argentine ICUs over 11 months with a 16-week baseline period (BP) and a 32-week implementation period (IP). Our intervention package included audits and feedback on antibacterial use, facility-specific treatment guidelines, antibacterial timeouts, pharmacy-based interventions and education. The intervention was delivered in two learning sessions with three action periods along with coaching support and basic quality improvement training.

Results: We included 912 patients, 357 in BP and 555 in IP. The latter had higher APACHE II (17 (95% CI: 12 to 21) vs 15 (95% CI: 11 to 20), p=0.036), SOFA scores (6 (95% CI: 4 to 9) vs 5 (95% CI: 3 to 8), p=0.006), renal failure (41.6% vs 33.1%, p=0.009), sepsis (36.1% vs 31.6%, p<0.001) and septic shock (40.0% vs 33.8%, p<0.001). The days of antibacterial therapy (DOT) were similar between the groups (change in the slope from BP to IP 28.1 (95% CI: -17.4 to 73.5), p=0.2405). There were no differences in the antibacterial defined daily dose (DDD) between the groups (change in the slope from BP to IP 43.9, (95% CI: -12.3 to 100.0), p=0.1413).The rate of antibacterial de-escalation based on microbiological culture was higher during the IP (62.0% vs 45.3%, p<0.001).The infection prevention control (IPC) assessment framework was increased in eight ICUs.

Conclusion: Implementing an antimicrobial stewardship program in ICUs in a middle-income country via a QIC demonstrated success in improving antibacterial de-escalation based on microbiological culture results, but not on DOT or DDD. In addition, eight out of nine ICUs improved their IPC Assessment Framework Score.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
优化阿根廷重症监护病房抗菌药物的使用:质量改进合作项目。
背景:在资源较少的环境中开展抗菌药物管理项目的证据有限。本研究旨在通过减少过度使用抗菌药物,并在中等收入国家的重症监护病房(ICU)推广使用窄谱抗菌药物,从而提高抗菌药物处方的质量:我们建立了一个质量改进合作(QIC)模式,九个阿根廷重症监护病房参与其中,历时 11 个月,基线期(BP)16 周,实施期(IP)32 周。我们的一揽子干预措施包括对抗菌药物使用情况的审核和反馈、针对具体设施的治疗指南、抗菌药物超时使用、基于药房的干预和教育。干预措施分为两个学习阶段和三个行动阶段,同时还提供辅导支持和基本的质量改进培训:我们共纳入了 912 名患者,其中 357 人为 BP 患者,555 人为 IP 患者。后者的APACHE II(17(95% CI:12-21)vs 15(95% CI:11-20),p=0.036)、SOFA评分(6(95% CI:4-9)vs 5(95% CI:3-8),p=0.006)、肾衰竭(41.6% vs 33.1%,p=0.009)、败血症(36.1% vs 31.6%,p=0.009)均高于前者:在一个中等收入国家的重症监护病房通过QIC实施抗菌药物管理项目,成功改善了基于微生物培养结果的抗菌药物降级,但没有改善DOT或DDD。此外,9 个重症监护室中有 8 个提高了 IPC 评估框架得分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Quality & Safety
BMJ Quality & Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
104
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Quality & Safety (previously Quality & Safety in Health Care) is an international peer review publication providing research, opinions, debates and reviews for academics, clinicians and healthcare managers focused on the quality and safety of health care and the science of improvement. The journal receives approximately 1000 manuscripts a year and has an acceptance rate for original research of 12%. Time from submission to first decision averages 22 days and accepted articles are typically published online within 20 days. Its current impact factor is 3.281.
期刊最新文献
What do clinical practice guidelines say about deprescribing? A scoping review. Understanding the enablers and barriers to implementing a patient-led escalation system: a qualitative study. Assessing patient work system factors for medication management during transition of care among older adults: an observational study. Sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll: the only reasons for regulators to target individuals. Patient-activated escalation in hospital: patients and their families are ready!
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1