Ashley Rizzo Pharm.D., Sujit Suchindran MD, MPH, Benjamin Albrecht Pharm.D., Nicole L. Metzger Pharm.D.
{"title":"内科药剂师对抗菌药物管理的影响","authors":"Ashley Rizzo Pharm.D., Sujit Suchindran MD, MPH, Benjamin Albrecht Pharm.D., Nicole L. Metzger Pharm.D.","doi":"10.1002/jac5.1926","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Increased demands on infectious diseases (ID) pharmacists and providers may result in targeted antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions. Internal medicine (IM) pharmacists frequently intervene on antimicrobials for their patients during general clinical care, although little is known regarding their overall impact on AMS.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>Characterize AMS interventions made by IM pharmacists to identify areas of AMS that can be expanded to patients not covered by ID teams.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This was a prospective, dual-center, cross-sectional study where IM pharmacists, and their trainees were recruited to document routinely made AMS interventions that happened during daily patient care activities. These interventions were classified based on infection source, stewardship intervention type, whether recommendations were accepted or rejected by providers, and any barriers incurred during the implementation of interventions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Four IM pharmacists documented 386 interventions from February 2021 through May 2021. Physicians accepted pharmacist interventions 95.6% of the time. The most common interventions were for respiratory (<i>n</i> = 87, 22.5%), genitourinary (<i>n</i> = 80, 20.7%), and skin and skin structure infections (<i>n</i> = 65, 16.8%). The antimicrobials that IM pharmacists most frequently intervened on were vancomycin (<i>n</i> = 89, 23.1%) and ceftriaxone (<i>n</i> = 68, 17.6%). The most common interventions that were made were dose adjustment (<i>n</i> = 105, 27.2%), shortened duration of therapy (<i>n</i> = 86, 22.3%), and intravenous (IV) to oral (PO) conversions (<i>n</i> = 38, 9.8%). Of the 17 interventions not accepted, the most common barrier to implementation was physician concerns (<i>n</i> = 11, 52.4%), which were primarily associated with IV to PO recommendations (<i>n</i> = 7, 63.6%).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>IM pharmacists participate in AMS for their patients and intervene frequently to adjust dosing for antimicrobials, shorten duration of therapy, and facilitate IV to PO conversions. IM pharmacists could serve as AMS extenders where additional AMS coverage is needed.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":73966,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy : JACCP","volume":"7 5","pages":"426-433"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of internal medicine pharmacists on antimicrobial stewardship\",\"authors\":\"Ashley Rizzo Pharm.D., Sujit Suchindran MD, MPH, Benjamin Albrecht Pharm.D., Nicole L. Metzger Pharm.D.\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jac5.1926\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>Increased demands on infectious diseases (ID) pharmacists and providers may result in targeted antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions. Internal medicine (IM) pharmacists frequently intervene on antimicrobials for their patients during general clinical care, although little is known regarding their overall impact on AMS.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective</h3>\\n \\n <p>Characterize AMS interventions made by IM pharmacists to identify areas of AMS that can be expanded to patients not covered by ID teams.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>This was a prospective, dual-center, cross-sectional study where IM pharmacists, and their trainees were recruited to document routinely made AMS interventions that happened during daily patient care activities. These interventions were classified based on infection source, stewardship intervention type, whether recommendations were accepted or rejected by providers, and any barriers incurred during the implementation of interventions.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Four IM pharmacists documented 386 interventions from February 2021 through May 2021. Physicians accepted pharmacist interventions 95.6% of the time. The most common interventions were for respiratory (<i>n</i> = 87, 22.5%), genitourinary (<i>n</i> = 80, 20.7%), and skin and skin structure infections (<i>n</i> = 65, 16.8%). The antimicrobials that IM pharmacists most frequently intervened on were vancomycin (<i>n</i> = 89, 23.1%) and ceftriaxone (<i>n</i> = 68, 17.6%). The most common interventions that were made were dose adjustment (<i>n</i> = 105, 27.2%), shortened duration of therapy (<i>n</i> = 86, 22.3%), and intravenous (IV) to oral (PO) conversions (<i>n</i> = 38, 9.8%). Of the 17 interventions not accepted, the most common barrier to implementation was physician concerns (<i>n</i> = 11, 52.4%), which were primarily associated with IV to PO recommendations (<i>n</i> = 7, 63.6%).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>IM pharmacists participate in AMS for their patients and intervene frequently to adjust dosing for antimicrobials, shorten duration of therapy, and facilitate IV to PO conversions. IM pharmacists could serve as AMS extenders where additional AMS coverage is needed.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73966,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy : JACCP\",\"volume\":\"7 5\",\"pages\":\"426-433\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy : JACCP\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jac5.1926\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy : JACCP","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jac5.1926","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Impact of internal medicine pharmacists on antimicrobial stewardship
Introduction
Increased demands on infectious diseases (ID) pharmacists and providers may result in targeted antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions. Internal medicine (IM) pharmacists frequently intervene on antimicrobials for their patients during general clinical care, although little is known regarding their overall impact on AMS.
Objective
Characterize AMS interventions made by IM pharmacists to identify areas of AMS that can be expanded to patients not covered by ID teams.
Methods
This was a prospective, dual-center, cross-sectional study where IM pharmacists, and their trainees were recruited to document routinely made AMS interventions that happened during daily patient care activities. These interventions were classified based on infection source, stewardship intervention type, whether recommendations were accepted or rejected by providers, and any barriers incurred during the implementation of interventions.
Results
Four IM pharmacists documented 386 interventions from February 2021 through May 2021. Physicians accepted pharmacist interventions 95.6% of the time. The most common interventions were for respiratory (n = 87, 22.5%), genitourinary (n = 80, 20.7%), and skin and skin structure infections (n = 65, 16.8%). The antimicrobials that IM pharmacists most frequently intervened on were vancomycin (n = 89, 23.1%) and ceftriaxone (n = 68, 17.6%). The most common interventions that were made were dose adjustment (n = 105, 27.2%), shortened duration of therapy (n = 86, 22.3%), and intravenous (IV) to oral (PO) conversions (n = 38, 9.8%). Of the 17 interventions not accepted, the most common barrier to implementation was physician concerns (n = 11, 52.4%), which were primarily associated with IV to PO recommendations (n = 7, 63.6%).
Conclusion
IM pharmacists participate in AMS for their patients and intervene frequently to adjust dosing for antimicrobials, shorten duration of therapy, and facilitate IV to PO conversions. IM pharmacists could serve as AMS extenders where additional AMS coverage is needed.