内科药剂师对抗菌药物管理的影响

IF 1.3 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy : JACCP Pub Date : 2024-02-14 DOI:10.1002/jac5.1926
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.,&nbsp;Sujit Suchindran MD, MPH,&nbsp;Benjamin Albrecht Pharm.D.,&nbsp;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":null,"pages":null},"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.,&nbsp;Sujit Suchindran MD, MPH,&nbsp;Benjamin Albrecht Pharm.D.,&nbsp;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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对传染病(ID)药剂师和医疗服务提供者的要求越来越高,这可能会导致有针对性的抗菌药物管理(AMS)干预措施。本研究是一项前瞻性、双中心、横断面研究,招募了内科药剂师及其受训人员,以记录日常患者护理活动中的常规抗菌药物管理干预措施。这些干预措施根据感染源、监管干预类型、医疗服务提供者是否接受或拒绝建议以及干预措施实施过程中遇到的任何障碍进行分类。从 2021 年 2 月到 2021 年 5 月,四名 IM 药剂师记录了 386 项干预措施。95.6%的情况下,医生接受了药剂师的干预措施。最常见的干预措施是呼吸道感染(87 人,22.5%)、泌尿生殖系统感染(80 人,20.7%)以及皮肤和皮肤结构感染(65 人,16.8%)。IM 药剂师最常干预的抗菌药物是万古霉素(89 人,23.1%)和头孢曲松(68 人,17.6%)。最常见的干预措施是调整剂量(n = 105,27.2%)、缩短疗程(n = 86,22.3%)以及将静脉注射(IV)改为口服(PO)(n = 38,9.8%)。在未被接受的 17 项干预措施中,最常见的实施障碍是医生的顾虑(11 人,52.4%),这主要与静脉注射转为口服药物的建议有关(7 人,63.6%)。IM 药剂师参与患者的 AMS,并经常进行干预,以调整抗菌药物的剂量、缩短疗程并促进静脉注射转为口服药物。IM 药剂师可在需要额外 AMS 覆盖范围时充当 AMS 扩展者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Issue Information A tale of two bills: Lessons learned in expanding pharmacist-led HIV pre-exposure and post-exposure prophylaxis Serving as a professional association board member: Benefits to leaders and their employers Unique model for pharmacist cross-coverage in the ambulatory care setting Issue Information
×
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