The PEST (Pathology, Epidemiology, Severity, Treatment) approach to optimizing antimicrobial therapy.
Antibiotic stewardship
Case-based learning
Graduate medical education
Infectious diseases
Therapeutic reasoning
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 May 2023
06 May 2023
Historique:
received:
12
08
2022
accepted:
20
04
2023
medline:
8
5
2023
pubmed:
7
5
2023
entrez:
6
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Selecting an empiric antimicrobial regimen can be difficult for early learners and misuse of antibiotics can lead to adverse events and antimicrobial resistance. There have been few interventions that have focused on improving antibiotic decision making, as a form of therapeutic reasoning, for post-graduate trainees. We describe here an approach to aid internal medicine interns in their therapeutic reasoning, particularly when it comes to diagnosing and empirically treating infections. The PEST (pathology, epidemiology, severity, treatment) model was created as a four-step approach to therapeutic reasoning and choosing an appropriate antimicrobial regimen for a given infectious disease syndrome. In February 2020, we conducted two independent teaching sessions for interns on the PEST approach. We assessed pre-and post-teaching responses to five clinical vignette-based questions. Results were presented as a percentage of interns who chose an appropriate antibiotic and provided sufficient therapeutic reasoning as defined by using at least three out of the four PEST criteria. Statistical analysis occurred via Fischer's exact test to determine the level of statistical significance between responses. Twenty-seven interns participated in the activity. At baseline, several interns had incorporated aspects of the PEST approach in their pre-teaching responses. Ten interns commented on the usefulness of such a systematic approach. While there was no statistically significant difference in antibiotic selection, the teaching session demonstrated a trend towards significance in improving therapeutic reasoning as defined by the PEST strategy. Our results suggested an improvement in using a structured cognitive tool such as the PEST approach to reinforce therapeutic reasoning, but the method did little to improve antibiotic selection. Some interns used select "PEST" concepts prior to the intervention suggesting that the PEST approach may enhance prior knowledge or clinical reasoning skills. Continued incorporation of the PEST approach using a case-based framework may solidify conceptual and practical knowledge of antimicrobial selection. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of such teaching interventions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Selecting an empiric antimicrobial regimen can be difficult for early learners and misuse of antibiotics can lead to adverse events and antimicrobial resistance. There have been few interventions that have focused on improving antibiotic decision making, as a form of therapeutic reasoning, for post-graduate trainees. We describe here an approach to aid internal medicine interns in their therapeutic reasoning, particularly when it comes to diagnosing and empirically treating infections.
METHODS
METHODS
The PEST (pathology, epidemiology, severity, treatment) model was created as a four-step approach to therapeutic reasoning and choosing an appropriate antimicrobial regimen for a given infectious disease syndrome. In February 2020, we conducted two independent teaching sessions for interns on the PEST approach. We assessed pre-and post-teaching responses to five clinical vignette-based questions. Results were presented as a percentage of interns who chose an appropriate antibiotic and provided sufficient therapeutic reasoning as defined by using at least three out of the four PEST criteria. Statistical analysis occurred via Fischer's exact test to determine the level of statistical significance between responses.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Twenty-seven interns participated in the activity. At baseline, several interns had incorporated aspects of the PEST approach in their pre-teaching responses. Ten interns commented on the usefulness of such a systematic approach. While there was no statistically significant difference in antibiotic selection, the teaching session demonstrated a trend towards significance in improving therapeutic reasoning as defined by the PEST strategy.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our results suggested an improvement in using a structured cognitive tool such as the PEST approach to reinforce therapeutic reasoning, but the method did little to improve antibiotic selection. Some interns used select "PEST" concepts prior to the intervention suggesting that the PEST approach may enhance prior knowledge or clinical reasoning skills. Continued incorporation of the PEST approach using a case-based framework may solidify conceptual and practical knowledge of antimicrobial selection. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of such teaching interventions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37149569
doi: 10.1186/s12909-023-04286-1
pii: 10.1186/s12909-023-04286-1
pmc: PMC10163704
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-Infective Agents
0
Anti-Bacterial Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
316Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
J Intensive Care Med. 2016 Jan;31(1):61-5
pubmed: 25005699
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2019 Apr;38(4):711-717
pubmed: 30771121
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2019 Nov;40(11):1236-1241
pubmed: 31475658
Med Sci Educ. 2019 Aug 28;29(4):1179-1185
pubmed: 34457601
BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Oct;25(10):808-20
pubmed: 26873253
Acad Med. 2020 Aug;95(8):1238-1247
pubmed: 32379146
JAMA. 2019 Jan 15;321(2):139-140
pubmed: 30589917
BMJ Qual Saf. 2022 Dec;31(12):899-910
pubmed: 36396150
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2000;6 Suppl 3:98-100
pubmed: 11449668
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2018 Feb 14;31(2):
pubmed: 29444952
Virulence. 2013 Feb 15;4(2):192-202
pubmed: 23361336
Med Teach. 1999;21(2):141-3
pubmed: 21275727
Soc Sci Med. 1993 Apr;36(7):915-24
pubmed: 8480237