Antimicrobial Stewardship in a Long-Term Acute Care Hospital Using Offsite Electronic Medical Record Audit
2016; Cambridge University Press; Volume: 37; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1017/ice.2015.319
ISSN1559-6834
AutoresKirthana Beaulac, Silvia Corcione, Lauren Epstein, Lisa Davidson, Shira Doron,
Tópico(s)Clostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
ResumoOBJECTIVE To offer antimicrobial stewardship to a long-term acute care hospital using telemedicine. METHODS We conducted an uninterrupted time-series analysis to measure the impact of antimicrobial stewardship on hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) rates and antimicrobial use. Simple linear regression was used to analyze changes in antimicrobial use; Poisson regression was used to estimate the incidence rate ratio in CDI rates. The preimplementation period was April 1, 2010–March 31, 2011; the postimplementation period was April 1, 2011–March 31, 2014. RESULTS During the preimplementation period, total antimicrobial usage was 266 defined daily doses (DDD)/1,000 patient-days (PD); it rose 4.54 (95% CI, −0.19 to 9.28) per month then significantly decreased from preimplementation to postimplementation (−6.58 DDD/1,000 PD [95% CI, −11.48 to −1.67]; P =.01). The same trend was observed for antibiotics against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (−2.97 DDD/1,000 PD per month [95% CI, −5.65 to −0.30]; P =.03). There was a decrease in usage of anti-CDI antibiotics by 50.4 DDD/1,000 PD per month (95% CI, −71.4 to −29.2; P <.001) at program implementation that was maintained afterwards. Anti- Pseudomonas antibiotics increased after implementation (30.6 DDD/1,000 PD per month [95% CI, 4.9–56.3]; P =.02) but with ongoing education this trend reversed. Intervention was associated with a decrease in hospital-acquired CDI (incidence rate ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.35–0.92]; P =.02). CONCLUSION Antimicrobial stewardship using an electronic medical record via remote access led to a significant decrease in antibacterial usage and a decrease in CDI rates. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2016;37(4):433–439
Referência(s)