3 results
Associations Between Patient Neighborhood Characteristics and Inappropriate Antimicrobial Use
- Joseph Engeda, Jane Kriengkauykiat, Erin Epson
-
- Journal:
- Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology / Volume 1 / Issue S1 / July 2021
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 29 July 2021, p. s39
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
Background: Antimicrobials are among the most commonly prescribed medications in US hospitals; an estimated 50% of hospitalized patients receive an antimicrobial. Research has shown that antimicrobial prescriptions to vary by patient- and hospital-level factors; however, disparities by patient neighborhood characteristics have not been examined. We evaluated associations between hospital and neighborhood indicators of socioeconomic status (SES) and antimicrobial use (AU) for gram-positive bacterial infections (GPBs), and broad-spectrum use for community-acquired infections (BSCAs) and hospital-onset infections (BSHOs). Methods: This analysis was conducted among 86 acute-care hospitals in California that submitted AU data via the NHSN in 2019. Hospital-level AU was measured as standardized antimicrobial administration ratios (SAARs) calculated by dividing observed antimicrobial use by risk-adjusted predicted antimicrobial use for GPB, BSCA, and BSHO antimicrobial groupings and categorized as binary (>1 or <1); SAARs >1 indicate potential inappropriate prescribing. California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development 2018 data were used to obtain hospital characteristics and patient age, race or ethnicity, insurance, and comorbidities (defined by Charlson comorbidity index) for hospitalizations where AU may have been indicated, based on International Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision (ICD-10) diagnosis codes. The California Healthy Places Index (HPI) was used to obtain composite neighborhood SES indicators for each patient at the ZIP code level, measured as tertiles. Covariates were aggregated to the hospital level. Poisson regressions were used to evaluate the association between hospital and neighborhood SES indicators and SAAR scores, controlling for potential hospital-level confounders. Results: Among 86 hospitals included in the analysis, the mean patient age for hospitalizations where AU may have been indicated was 66 years, the proportion of white patients was 55%, and the mean proportion of Medi-Cal users was 19%. After adjusting for confounders including age, race or ethnicity, insurance status, comorbidities, and number of hospital beds; higher median values of patient SES had a protective effect against hospitals having GP SAAR scores > 1 (relative risk [RR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50–0.93) but was not significantly associated with hospitals having BSCA SAAR scores >1 (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62–1.02) or BSHO SAAR scores >1 (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.61–1.04). Conclusions: Considering SES in addition to summary antimicrobial use scores such as SAARs may help identify populations potentially at risk for inappropriate AU; however, patient-level information is still necessary to evaluate appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing.
Funding: No
Disclosures: None
Antimicrobial Stewardship in Acute-Care Hospitals: A Report of the California Healthcare-Associated Infections Honor Roll
- Jane Kriengkauykiat, Erin Epson, Erin Garcia, Kiya Komaiko
-
- Journal:
- Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology / Volume 1 / Issue S1 / July 2021
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 29 July 2021, p. s32
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
Background: Antimicrobial stewardship has been demonstrated to improve patient outcomes and reduce unwanted consequences, such as antimicrobial resistance and Clostridioides difficile infection. The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Healthcare-Associated Infection (HAI) Program developed an honor roll to recognize facilities with the goal of promoting antimicrobial stewardship programs and encouraging collaboration and research. Methods: The first open enrollment period in California was from August 1 to September 1, 2020, and was only open to acute-care hospitals (ACHs). Enrollment occurs every 6 months. Applicants completed an application and provided supporting documentation for bronze, silver, or gold designations. The criteria for the bronze designation were at least 1 item from each of CDC’s 7 core elements for ACHs. The criteria for silver were bronze criteria plus 9 HAI program prioritized items (based on published literature) from the CDC Core Elements and demonstration of outcomes from an intervention. The criteria for gold designation were silver criteria plus community engagement (ie, local work or collaboration with healthcare partners). Applications were evaluated in 3 phases: (1) CDPH reviewed core elements and documentation, (2) CDPH and external blinded antimicrobial stewardship experts reviewed outcomes as scientific abstracts, and (3) CDPH reviewed each program for overall effectiveness in antimicrobial stewardship and final designation determination. Designations expire after 2 years. Results: In total, 119 applications were submitted (30% of all ACHs in California), of which 100 were complete and thus were included for review. Moverover, 33 facilities were from northern California and 67 were from southern California. Also, 85 facilities were part of a health system or network, 14 were freestanding, and 1 was a district facility. Facility types included 68 community hospitals, 17 long-term acute-care (LTAC) facilities, 17 academic or teaching hospitals, 4 critical-access hospitals, and 4 pediatric hospitals. There was an even distribution of hospital bed size: 35 facilities had <250 beds. The final designations included 19 gold, 35 silver and 43 bronze designations. There was 44% incongruency in applicants not receiving the designation for which they applied. Community hospitals were 63%–74% of all designations, and no LTACs received a gold designation. Moreover, 63% of hospitals with gold designations had >250 beds, and 47% of hospitals with bronze designations had <1 25 beds. Conclusions: The number of applicants was higher than expected because the open enrollment period occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. This finding demonstrates the high importance placed on antimicrobial stewardship among ACHs. It also provides insight into how facilities are performing and collaborating and how CDPH can support facilities to improve their ASP.
Funding: No
Disclosures: None
Evaluation of Antibiotic Prophylaxis and Postsurgery Antibiotics for Urological Surgeries at an Academic Medical Center
- Emily Drwiega, Saira Rab, Sheetal Kandiah, Jane Kriengkauykiat, Jordan Wong
-
- Journal:
- Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology / Volume 41 / Issue S1 / October 2020
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 02 November 2020, p. s227
- Print publication:
- October 2020
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate antibiotic use in patients undergoing urological procedures. Methodology: This single-center, IRB-approved, retrospective, observational study was conducted at Grady Health System. Patients were included if they underwent their first inpatient urologic procedure between April 1, 2016, and April 1, 2018. Patients were excluded if they were <18 years old, pregnant, or a prisoner. The primary outcome was percentage of overall adherence to our institutional guidelines for surgical prophylaxis as a composite of antibiotic selection, dose, preoperative timing, and postoperative duration. Secondary outcomes include individual components of the composite outcome, nephrotoxicity, Clostridium difficile infection, and discharge antibiotic prescriptions. Descriptive statistics were used. Results: Of the 100 patients evaluated, 11% achieved adherence with the primary outcome. Of the 89 patients who did not achieve composite outcome, only 8 selected the appropriate perioperative antibiotic. Overall, 30% were dosed appropriately, 47% were administered at the appropriate time with respect to time of incision, and 46% received perioperative antibiotics for no more than 24 hours. Also, 19 patients did not receive perioperative antibiotics. Overall, 14 different perioperative antibiotic regimens were utilized, despite institutional guidelines recommending 1 of 3 options. All 9 patients who developed nephrotoxicity received noncompliant perioperative prophylaxis. No patient developed Clostridium difficile infection within 30 days of surgery. Moreover, 58 patients were discharged with a prescription for at least 1 antibiotic. Conclusions: Most perioperative antibiotic prophylaxes for genitourinary surgeries are not compliant with institution guideline recommendations. Despite having institutional guidelines, there was a large variety in the antibiotic regimens that patients received. All of the patients identified as having an evaluated antibiotic-related adverse effect did not receive appropriate perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis. More than half of the patients received a prescription at discharge for at least 1 antibiotic.
Funding: None
Disclosures: None