A multicentre cluster-randomized clinical trial to improve antibiotic use and reduce length of stay in hospitals: comparison of three measurement and feedback methods.
Journal
The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy
ISSN: 1460-2091
Titre abrégé: J Antimicrob Chemother
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7513617
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 05 2021
12 05 2021
Historique:
received:
02
10
2020
accepted:
20
01
2021
pubmed:
28
2
2021
medline:
10
7
2021
entrez:
27
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Various metrics of hospital antibiotic use might assist in guiding antimicrobial stewardship (AMS). To compare patient outcomes in association with three methods to measure and feedback information on hospital antibiotic use when used in developing an AMS intervention. Three methods were randomly allocated to 42 clusters from 21 Dutch hospitals: (1) feedback on quantity of antibiotic use [DDD, days-of-therapy (DOT) from hospital pharmacy data], versus feedback on (2) validated, or (3) non-validated quality indicators from point prevalence studies. Using this feedback together with an implementation tool, stewardship teams systematically developed and performed improvement strategies. The hospital length of stay (LOS) was the primary outcome and secondary outcomes included DOT, ICU stay and hospital mortality. Data were collected before (February-May 2015) and after (February-May 2017) the intervention period. The geometric mean hospital LOS decreased from 9.5 days (95% CI 8.9-10.1, 4245 patients) at baseline to 9.0 days (95% CI 8.5-9.6, 4195 patients) after intervention (P < 0.001). No differences in effect on LOS or secondary outcomes were found between methods. Feedback on quality of antibiotic use was used more often to identify improvement targets and was preferred over feedback on quantity of use. Consistent use of the implementation tool seemed to increase effectiveness of the AMS intervention. The decrease in LOS versus baseline likely reflects improvement in the quality of antibiotic use with the stewardship intervention. While the outcomes with the three methods were otherwise similar, stewardship teams preferred data on the quality over the quantity of antibiotic use.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Various metrics of hospital antibiotic use might assist in guiding antimicrobial stewardship (AMS).
OBJECTIVES
To compare patient outcomes in association with three methods to measure and feedback information on hospital antibiotic use when used in developing an AMS intervention.
METHODS
Three methods were randomly allocated to 42 clusters from 21 Dutch hospitals: (1) feedback on quantity of antibiotic use [DDD, days-of-therapy (DOT) from hospital pharmacy data], versus feedback on (2) validated, or (3) non-validated quality indicators from point prevalence studies. Using this feedback together with an implementation tool, stewardship teams systematically developed and performed improvement strategies. The hospital length of stay (LOS) was the primary outcome and secondary outcomes included DOT, ICU stay and hospital mortality. Data were collected before (February-May 2015) and after (February-May 2017) the intervention period.
RESULTS
The geometric mean hospital LOS decreased from 9.5 days (95% CI 8.9-10.1, 4245 patients) at baseline to 9.0 days (95% CI 8.5-9.6, 4195 patients) after intervention (P < 0.001). No differences in effect on LOS or secondary outcomes were found between methods. Feedback on quality of antibiotic use was used more often to identify improvement targets and was preferred over feedback on quantity of use. Consistent use of the implementation tool seemed to increase effectiveness of the AMS intervention.
CONCLUSIONS
The decrease in LOS versus baseline likely reflects improvement in the quality of antibiotic use with the stewardship intervention. While the outcomes with the three methods were otherwise similar, stewardship teams preferred data on the quality over the quantity of antibiotic use.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33638644
pii: 6151706
doi: 10.1093/jac/dkab035
pmc: PMC8120330
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-Bacterial Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1625-1632Investigateurs
M Leendertse
(M)
N M Delfos
(NM)
P D Knoester
(PD)
C M Verduin
(CM)
P van Hattum
(P)
R M T Ladestein
(RMT)
M M L van Rijen
(MML)
B M de Jongh
(BM)
P de Graaf
(P)
L A Noach
(LA)
R H Streefkerk
(RH)
B Maraha
(B)
F Snijders
(F)
M Kuck
(M)
H S A Ammerlaan
(HSA)
I T M A Overdevest
(ITMA)
C J Miedema
(CJ)
S W J W Sanders
(SWJW)
M van den Hurk
(M)
F W Sebens
(FW)
W C van der Zwet
(WC)
R F J Benus
(RFJ)
D Huugen
(D)
M E L Arbouw
(MEL)
J da Silva-Voorham
(J)
S U C Sankatsing
(SUC)
A K van der Bij
(AK)
J C Dutilh
(JC)
R J A Diepersloot
(RJA)
E M Kuck
(EM)
W de Bruijn
(W)
D C Melles
(DC)
A Verbon
(A)
R Posthuma
(R)
G W D Landman
(GWD)
G J Blaauw
(GJ)
M A Leverstein-van Hall
(MA)
T A Ruys
(TA)
J W Van't Wout
(JW)
E Roelofsen
(E)
A Muller
(A)
L B S Gelinck
(LBS)
C van Nieuwkoop
(C)
R Brimicombe
(R)
E P M van Elzakker
(EPM)
E B Wilms
(EB)
P D J Sturm
(PDJ)
B J van Dijke
(BJ)
O Ponteselli
(O)
K Pogany
(K)
D J Theunissen
(DJ)
J G den Hollander
(JG)
F H van Tiel
(FH)
D Posthouwer
(D)
M E van Wolfswinkel
(ME)
R W M A van der Zanden
(RWMA)
M G A van Vonderen
(MGA)
L M Kampschreur
(LM)
E Mooi
(E)
N Welles
(N)
P C A M Buijtels
(PCAM)
E Nagtegaal
(E)
M E Sanson
(ME)
C Jaspers
(C)
J L W Pot
(JLW)
E H Gisolf
(EH)
C M A Swanink
(CMA)
P M G Filius
(PMG)
P D van der Linden
(PD)
J W Dorigo-Zetsma
(JW)
I van Heijl
(I)
K Hendriks
(K)
B N M Sinha
(BNM)
J R Lo Ten Foe
(JR)
K R Wilting
(KR)
P Nannan Panday
(P)
S Nijssen
(S)
S N Bouwman
(SN)
A Pieffers
(A)
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.
Références
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Apr 29;(4):CD005470
pubmed: 25923419
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2017 Nov;23(11):799-805
pubmed: 28750920
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2017 Nov;23(11):819-825
pubmed: 28571767
Clin Infect Dis. 2015 Jan 15;60(2):281-91
pubmed: 25266285
Arch Intern Med. 2009 Sep 14;169(16):1525-31
pubmed: 19752411
Clin Infect Dis. 2016 May 15;62(10):e51-77
pubmed: 27080992
Clin Infect Dis. 2011 Aug;53 Suppl 1:S4-7
pubmed: 21795727
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2019 Feb;38(2):347-355
pubmed: 30478815
Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Feb;12(1):40-6
pubmed: 12571344
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 09;2:CD003543
pubmed: 28178770
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 13;(6):CD000259
pubmed: 22696318
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019 May;25(5):555-561
pubmed: 30472426
Implement Sci. 2013 Mar 23;8:35
pubmed: 23522377
Implement Sci. 2012 May 31;7:50
pubmed: 22651257
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2017 Jul;23(7):485.e1-485.e8
pubmed: 28159671
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2017 Mar 1;72(3):923-932
pubmed: 27999033
Lancet Infect Dis. 2016 Jul;16(7):847-856
pubmed: 26947617
Clin Infect Dis. 2014 Jan;58(2):164-9
pubmed: 24158412
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2005 Oct;18(4):638-56
pubmed: 16223951