Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-9b74x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-01T07:36:57.932Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Method to the madness: Impact of method of contact on intervention acceptance rates for antimicrobial stewardship interventions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2020

Ryan W. Stevens ,
Hannah D. Fjeld Open the ORCID record for Hannah D. Fjeld [Opens in a new window] ,
Coleman Cutchins  and
Benjamin P. Westley
Ryan W. Stevens*
Affiliation:
Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
Hannah D. Fjeld
Affiliation:
University of Alaska Anchorage/Idaho State University College of Pharmacy, Anchorage, Alaska
Coleman Cutchins
Affiliation:
State of Alaska Health and Human Services, Office of Substance Misuse and Addiction Prevention, Anchorage, Alaska
Benjamin P. Westley
Affiliation:
Providence Alaska Medical Center, Anchorage, Alaska
*
Author for correspondence: Ryan W. Stevens, 200 1st St. SW Rochester, MN55905, E-mail: ryanstevenspharmd@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We retrospectively evaluated antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) interventions over a 63-month period. We compared acceptance rates for those interventions communicated telephonically versus those communicated with a temporary note left in the electronic medical record. Telephonic communication produced superior acceptance rates overall and when analyzed by intervention type and provider.

Information

Type
Concise Communication
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 41 , Issue 8 , August 2020 , pp. 959 - 961
Check for updates
Copyright
© 2020 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Filice, G, Drekonja, D, Greer, N, et al. Antimicrobial stewardship programs in inpatient settings: a systematic review. Department of Veterans’ Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service website. https://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/publications/esp/antimicrobial-REPORT.pdf. Published 2013. Accessed January 1, 2020.Google Scholar
Barlam, TF, Cosgrove, SE, Abbo, LM, et al.Implementing an antibiotic stewardship program: guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Clin Infect Dis 2016;62(10):e51–e77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The core elements of hospital antibiotic stewardship programs: 2019. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/healthcare/pdfs/hospital-core-elements-H.pdf. Published 2019. Accessed January 1, 2020.Google Scholar
Hurst, AL, Child, J, Parker, SK.Intervention and acceptance rates support handshake-stewardship strategy. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc 2019;8:162–165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hurst, AL, Child, J, Pearce, K, et al.Handshake stewardship: a highly effective rounding-based antimicrobial optimization service. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2016;35:1104–1110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morton, JB, Curzake, DJ, Morrill, HJ, et al.Verbal communication with providers improves acceptance of antimicrobial stewardship interventions. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:740–742.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed