Variability in antifungal stewardship strategies among Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Research Network facilities

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (5) ◽  
pp. 585-589 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret A. Fitzpatrick ◽  
Fritzie Albarillo ◽  
Maressa Santarossa ◽  
Charlesnika T. Evans ◽  
Katie J. Suda
Keyword(s):  
Laboratory Tests ◽  
Antifungal Susceptibility ◽  
Audit And Feedback ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Solid Organ ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Antifungal Stewardship ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Healthcare Epidemiology ◽  
Hospital Characteristics

AbstractObjective:To characterize antifungal stewardship among antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) at a diverse range of hospitals and to correlate antifungal stewardship with hospital characteristics.Design:Cross-sectional survey.Participants:ASP physician and/or pharmacist members at Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Research Network (SRN) hospitals.Methods:An electronic survey administered August–September 2018 via the SRN to 111 hospitals. The χ2 test was used to test associations between ASP and hospital characteristics and use of antifungal stewardship strategies.Results:Of 111 hospitals, 45 (41%) responded; most were academic medical centers (65%) caring for stem-cell patients (73.3%) and solid-organ transplant patients (80.0%). Most hospitals have large, well-established ASPs: 60% had >5 team members and 68.9% had a duration ≥6 years. In 43 hospitals (95.6%), ASPs used antifungal stewardship strategies, most commonly prospective audit and feedback (73.3%) by a pharmacist (71.4%). Half of ASPs (51.1%) created guidelines for invasive fungal infection (IFI) management. Most hospitals (71.1%) offered rapid laboratory tests to diagnose IFI, but polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing and antifungal susceptibility testing varied. Also, 29 ASPs (64.4%) perform surveillance of antifungal utilization, but only 9 (31%) reported to the CDC National Healthcare Safety Network. ASP size, duration, and presence of transplant populations were not associated with a higher likelihood of using antifungal stewardship strategies (P > .05 for all).Conclusions:The use of antifungal stewardship strategies was high at SRN hospitals, but they mainly involved audit and feedback. ASPs should be encouraged (1) to disseminate guidelines for IFI management, (2) to promote access to laboratory tests for rapid and accurate IFI diagnosis, and (3) to perform surveillance for antifungal utilization with reporting to the CDC.

scholarly journals 1980. Variability in Antifungal Stewardship Strategies Among Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Research Network Facilities

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. S662-S663
Author(s):  
Margaret A Fitzpatrick ◽  
Fritzie S Albarillo ◽  
Aaron Ochoa ◽  
Katie J Suda ◽  
Charlesnika T Evans
Keyword(s):  
Fungal Infections ◽  
Antifungal Susceptibility ◽  
Organ Transplant ◽  
Audit And Feedback ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Solid Organ ◽  
Antifungal Stewardship ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Healthcare Epidemiology

Abstract Background The incidence of invasive fungal infections (IFI) and antifungal utilization is increasing in many healthcare settings. Little is known regarding antifungal stewardship strategies within broader antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs). This survey aimed to identify the use of antifungal stewardship at a diverse range of hospitals. Methods A cross-sectional electronic survey of the SHEA Research Network (SRN) was completed August–September 2018 by a physician or pharmacist ASP leader. The SRN is a consortium of >100 hospitals participating in multicenter healthcare epidemiology research projects. Survey questions pertained to various aspects of antifungal stewardship, including audit and feedback, laboratory testing, and surveillance. Chi-square tested associations between ASP and hospital characteristics and use of antifungal stewardship strategies. Results 45/111 (41%) facilities responded, including 10 international sites. Most facilities are academic medical centers (64.6%) and care for stem cell (73.3%) and solid-organ transplant (80.0%) patients. Most facilities have large, well established ASPs (60.0% > 5 members; 68.9% duration ≥6 years). 43 (95.6%) facilities use antifungal stewardship strategies in their ASP; most commonly prospective audit and feedback (33/43, 73.3%) performed by a pharmacist (23/33, 71.4%). Only half of ASPs (51.1%) create guidelines for IFI management. Most (71.1%) facilities offer rapid laboratory tests to diagnose IFI, but availability of PCR for fungal speciation and antifungal susceptibility testing varies (Figure 1). 29 ASPs (64.4%) perform surveillance of antifungal utilization, but only 9 (31.0%) report data to CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN). ASP size, ASP duration, and presence of transplant populations were not associated with a higher likelihood of using antifungal stewardship strategies (P > 0.05 for all). Conclusion Use of antifungal stewardship strategies is high at SRN hospitals, but mainly involves audit and feedback. ASPs should be encouraged to disseminate guidelines for IFI management, to promote access to laboratory-based tests for rapid and accurate IFI diagnosis, and to perform surveillance for antifungal utilization with data reporting to NHSN. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Interfacility transfer communication of multidrug-resistant organism colonization or infection status: Practices and barriers in the acute-care setting

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Katherine D. Ellingson ◽  
Brie N. Noble ◽  
Genevieve L. Buser ◽  
Graham M. Snyder ◽  
Jessina C. McGregor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Care ◽  
Infection Prevention ◽  
Multidrug Resistant ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Resistant Organism ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Hospital Size ◽  
Academic Affiliation ◽  
Healthcare Epidemiology

Abstract Objective: To describe interfacility transfer communication (IFTC) methods for notification of multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) status in a diverse sample of acute-care hospitals. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Participants: Hospitals within the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Research Network (SRN). Methods: SRN members completed an electronic survey on protocols and methods for IFTC. We assessed differences in IFTC frequency, barriers, and perceived benefit by presence of an IFTC protocol. Results: Among 136 hospital representatives who were sent the survey, 54 (40%) responded, of whom 72% reported having an IFTC protocol in place. The presence of a protocol did not differ significantly by hospital size, academic affiliation, or international status. Of those with IFTC protocols, 44% reported consistent notification of MDRO status (>75% of the time) to receiving facilities, as opposed to 13% from those with no IFTC protocol (P = .04). Respondents from hospitals with IFTC protocols reported significantly fewer barriers to communication compared to those without (2.8 vs 4.3; P = .03). Overall, however, most respondents (56%) reported a lack of standardization in communication. Presence of an IFTC protocol did not affect whether respondents perceived IFTC protocols as having a significant impact on infection prevention or antimicrobial stewardship. Conclusions: Most respondents reported having an IFTC protocol, which was associated with reduced communication barriers at transfer. Standardization of protocols and clarity about expectations for sending and receipt of information related to MDRO status may facilitate IFTC and promote appropriate and timely infection prevention practices.

Audit and Feedback Processes Among Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs: A Survey of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America Research Network

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (6) ◽  
pp. 704-706 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. J. Livorsi ◽  
B. Heintz ◽  
J. T. Jacob ◽  
S. L. Krein ◽  
D. J. Morgan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antimicrobial Stewardship ◽  
Interquartile Range ◽  
Infect Control Hosp ◽  
Audit And Feedback ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Hospital Beds ◽  
Healthcare Epidemiology ◽  
Optimal Implementation

Optimal implementation of audit-and-feedback is an important part of advancing antimicrobial stewardship programs. Our survey demonstrated variability in how 61 programs approach audit-and-feedback. The median (interquartile range) number of recommendations per week was 9 (5–19) per 100 hospital-beds. A major perceived barrier to more comprehensive stewardship was lack of resources.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:704–706

Variation in Definitions and Isolation Procedures for Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria: A Survey of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America Research Network

2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 362-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marci Drees ◽  
Lisa Pineles ◽  
Anthony D. Harris ◽  
Daniel J. Morgan
Keyword(s):  
Infection Control ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Multidrug Resistant ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Gram Negative Bacteria ◽  
Emerging Pathogens ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Gram Negative ◽  
Healthcare Epidemiology

Objective.To assess definitions, experience, and infection control practices for multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria (MDR-GNB), including Enterobacteriaceae, Acinetobacter, and Pseudomonas species, in acute care hospitals.Design.Cross-sectional survey.Participants.US and international members of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Research Network.Methods.Online survey that included definitions, infection control procedures, and microbiology capability related to MDR-GNB and other MDR bacteria.Results.From November 2012 through February 2013, 66 of 170 SHEA Research Network members responded (39% response rate), representing 26 states and 15 countries. More than 80% of facilities reported experience with each MDR-GNB isolate, and 78% had encountered GNB resistant to all antibiotics except colistin (62% Acinetobacter, 59% Pseudomonas, and 52% Enterobacteriaceae species). Participants varied regarding their definitions of “multidrug resistant,” with 14 unique definitions for Acinetobacter, 18 for Pseudomonas, and 22 for Enterobacteriaceae species. Substantial variation also existed in isolation practices. Although isolation was commonly used for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), approximately 20% of facilities did not isolate for MDR Pseudomonas or Acinetobacter. The majority of those that isolated MDR organisms also removed isolation using a wide variety of criteria.Conclusion.Facilities vary significantly in their approach to preventing MDR-GNB transmission. Although practices for MRSA and VRE are relatively standardized, emerging pathogens CRE and other MDR-GNB have highly varied definitions and management. This confusion makes communication difficult, and varied use of isolation may contribute to emergence of these organisms. Public health agencies need to promote standard definitions and management to enable broader initiatives to limit emergence of MDR-GNB.

scholarly journals Do Experts Understand Performance Measures? A Mixed-Methods Study of Infection Preventionists

2017 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sushant Govindan ◽  
Beth Wallace ◽  
Theodore J. Iwashyna ◽  
Vineet Chopra
Keyword(s):  
Central Line ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Quality Data ◽  
Expert Performance ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Percent Correct ◽  
Average Proportion ◽  
Healthcare Epidemiology ◽  
Data Design

OBJECTIVECentral line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite a nationwide decline in CLABSI rates, individual hospital success in preventing CLABSI is variable. Difficulty in interpreting and applying complex CLABSI metrics may explain this problem. Therefore, we assessed expert interpretation of CLABSI quality data. DESIGN. Cross-sectional survey PARTICIPANTS. Members of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Research Network (SRN) METHODS. We administered a 10-item test of CLABSI data comprehension. The primary outcome was percent correct of attempted questions pertaining to the CLABSI data. We also assessed expert perceptions of CLABSI reporting.RESULTSThe response rate was 51% (n=67).Among experts, the average proportion of correct responses was 73% (95% confidence interval [CI], 69%–77%). Expert performance on unadjusted data was significantly better than risk-adjusted data (86% [95% CI, 81%–90%] vs 65% [95% CI, 60%–70%];P<.001). Using a scale of 1 to 100 (0, never reliable; 100, always reliable), experts rated the reliability of CLABSI data as 61. Perceived reliability showed a significant inverse relationship with performance (r=–0.28;P=.03), and as interpretation of data improved, perceptions regarding reliability of those data decreased. Experts identified concerns regarding understanding and applying CLABSI definitions as barriers to care.CONCLUSIONSSignificant variability in the interpretation of CLABSI data exists among experts. This finding is likely related to data complexity, particularly with respect to risk-adjusted data. Improvements appear necessary in data sharing and public policy efforts to account for this complexity.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2018;39:71–76

scholarly journals A Statewide Assessment of Antifungal Stewardship Activities in Acute-Care Hospitals in Connecticut

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s105-s105
Author(s):  
Romina Bromberg ◽  
Vivian Leung ◽  
Meghan Maloney ◽  
Anu Paranandi ◽  
David Banach
Keyword(s):  
Infectious Diseases ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Antifungal Therapy ◽  
Antibiotic Stewardship ◽  
Susceptibility Testing ◽  
Antifungal Susceptibility ◽  
Acute Care Hospitals ◽  
Antifungal Susceptibility Testing ◽  
Antifungal Stewardship ◽  
Infectious Diseases Consultation

Background: Morbidity and mortality associated with invasive fungal infections and concerns of emerging antifungal resistance have highlighted the importance of optimizing antifungal therapy among hospitalized patients. Little is known about antifungal stewardship (AFS) practices among acute-care hospitals. We sought to assess AFS activities within Connecticut and to identify opportunities for improvement. Methods: An electronic survey assessing AFS practices was distributed to infectious disease physicians or pharmacy antibiotic stewardship program leaders in Connecticut hospitals. Survey questions evaluated AFS activities based on antibiotic stewardship principles, including several CDC Core Elements. Questions assessed antifungal restriction, prospective audit and feedback practices, antifungal utilization measurements, and the perceived utility of a local or statewide antifungal antibiogram. Results: Responses were received from 15 respondents, which represented 20 of 31 hospitals (65%); these hospitals made up the majority of the acute-care hospitals in Connecticut. Furthermore, 18 of these hospitals (58%) include antifungals in their stewardship programs. Also, 16 hospitals (52%) conduct routine review of antifungal ordering and provide feedback to providers for some antifungals, most commonly for amphotericin B, voriconazole, micafungin, isavuconazole, and flucytosine. All hospitals include guidance on intravenous (IV) to oral (PO) conversions, when appropriate. Only 14 of hospitals (45%) require practitioners to document indication(s) for systemic antifungal use. Most hospitals (17, 55%) provide recommendations for de-escalation of therapy in candidemia, though only 4 (13%) have institutional guidelines for candidemia treatment, and only 11 hospital mandates an infectious diseases consultation for candidemia. Assessing outcomes pertaining to antifungal utilization is uncommon; only 8 hospitals (26%) monitor days of therapy and 5 (16%) monitor antifungal expenditures. Antifungal susceptibility testing on Candida bloodstream isolates is performed routinely at 6 of the hospitals (19%). Most respondents (19, 95%) support developing an antibiogram for Candida bloodstream isolates at the statewide level. Conclusions: Although AFS interventions occur in Connecticut hospitals, there are opportunities for enhancement, such as providing institutional guidelines for candidemia treatment and mandating infectious diseases consultation for candidemia. The Connecticut Department of Public Health implemented statewide Candida bloodstream isolate surveillance in 2019, which includes antifungal susceptibility testing. The creation of a statewide antibiogram for Candida bloodstream infections is underway to support empiric antifungal therapy.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

scholarly journals Candida parapsilosis Candidemia Resistance Patterns and Treatment Outcomes: An Opportunity for Antifungal Stewardship

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S86-S86
Author(s):  
Gary Fong ◽  
Kim Ngo ◽  
Hannah Russo ◽  
Nicholas Beyda
Keyword(s):  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Treatment Outcomes ◽  
Candida Parapsilosis ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Antifungal Susceptibility ◽  
Antifungal Stewardship ◽  
Resistance Patterns ◽  
Fluconazole Therapy ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Research Grant

Abstract Background Candida parapsilosis has emerged as an important fungal pathogen with mortality rates up to 30%. Recent studies show no difference in treatment outcomes for patients treated both empirically and definitively with either echinocandins or fluconazole. However, the impact of antifungal susceptibility testing and opportunities for antifungal stewardship are less clear in this patient population. The purpose of this study was to assess antifungal susceptibility rates, treatment patterns, and outcomes among patients with C. parapsilosis candidemia. Methods This was a single-center, retrospective cohort review of adult patients with a positive blood culture for C. parapsilosis hospitalized at Baylor St. Luke’s Medical Center, between 2006 and 2016. Patients with mixed or breakthrough candidemia were excluded as well as patients who expired within 3 days of candidemia onset. Results Eighty patients with C. parapsilosis candidemia were identified of which 48 met inclusion criteria. Nine patients had infections caused by fluconazole non-susceptible isolates (19%). The most common empiric treatment choice was an echinocandin (33/48, 69%), followed by fluconazole (9/48, 19%), and combination therapy (6/48, 13%). Of the 39 patients with fluconazole susceptible isolates, only 17 were treated with fluconazole definitively (44%). Among patients who received empiric echinocandin vs. fluconazole therapy, there was no difference in 14-day mortality (9% vs. 11%, P = 1.00) or in-hospital mortality (12% vs. 11%, P = 1.00). Empiric combination therapy was the only independent risk factor for treatment failure (OR, 13.8; 95% CI, 1.4–138.3; P = 0.03). Conclusion Treatment outcomes for patients receiving echinocandins were similar for those receiving fluconazole. At our institution, the increased incidence of fluconazole non-susceptible isolates warrants the use of echinocandins empirically. Patients were more likely to remain on echinocandin therapy even when fluconazole susceptible isolates were identified. This study reinforces the guideline suggestion that neither echinocandins nor fluconazole treatment leads to superior outcomes, but also identifies a cohort of patients in need of antifungal stewardship. Disclosures N. Beyda, Astellas: Grant Investigator and Scientific Advisor, Research grant

scholarly journals Discordance of SHEA/IDSA Clostridium difficile Disease Severity Scale in Solid Organ Transplant Patients

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S383-S383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tiffany Lee ◽  
Christopher McCoy ◽  
Carolyn D Alonso ◽  
Graham M Snyder ◽  
Christin Rogers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clostridium Difficile ◽  
Organ Transplant ◽  
Solid Organ Transplant ◽  
Solid Organ ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Transplant Patients ◽  
Cell Counts ◽  
Immunocompromised Status ◽  
White Blood Cell Counts ◽  
Healthcare Epidemiology

Abstract Background Solid organ transplant (SOT) patients are at high risk for Clostridium difficile infections (CDI) due to chronic immunosuppression and a propensity to receive antimicrobials. Management of CDI in SOT patients poses unique challenges as this population has disease-altered clinical and laboratory parameters. The objective of this study was to assess concordance between various CDI severity scales and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America/Infectious Diseases Society of America (SHEA/IDSA) guidelines. Methods This retrospective study included all SOT recipients with a first CDI episode following transplant and time-matched (2:1) to non-SOT patients experiencing first CDI episodes between 2008 and 2016. The primary endpoint was concordance rates of CDI episodes considered mild-moderate or severe/severe-complicated in published CDI scales compared with the SHEA/IDSA guidelines. We also sought to compare the distribution of CDI severity across all scales between SOT and non-SOT patients. Results Overall, 32 SOT patients and 64 non-SOT patients were included. The SOT group had significantly higher leukopenia rates at CDI diagnosis; however, the magnitude of serum creatinine change did not differ between groups. According to the SHEA/IDSA scale, CDI episodes in SOT recipients were categorized as mild-moderate and severe/severe-complicated in 23 (72%) and 9 (28%) patients, respectively. Overall concordance rates among SHEA/IDSA guidelines and other scales ranged from 28% to 72%. Concordance rates were highest for mild-moderate CDI with Belmares and for severe/severe-complicated CDI with ESCMID (Table 1). No scale evenly categorized SOT and non-SOT patients across all severities (Figure 1). Conclusion Severity scales with heavy emphasis on white blood cell counts may not adequately categorize SOT patients. Immunocompromised status may need to be considered on its own when categorizing CDI severity and prescribing therapy. Disclosures C. D. Alonso, Merck: Grant Investigator and Scientific Advisor, Research grant sanofi pasteur: Investigator and Scientific Advisor, Research support GSK: Investigator, Research support; E. B. Hirsch, Merck: Grant Investigator, Grant recipient The Medicines Company: Speaker’s Bureau, Speaker honorarium

Species distribution and antifungal susceptibility of invasive Candida isolates from Canadian hospitals: results of the CANWARD 2011–16 study

2019 ◽  
Vol 74 (Supplement_4) ◽  
pp. iv48-iv54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeff Fuller ◽  
Tanis C Dingle ◽  
Amy Bull ◽  
Sandy Shokoples ◽  
Michel Laverdière ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Species Distribution ◽  
Hot Spot ◽  
Antifungal Susceptibility ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Bloodstream Infections ◽  
Common Species ◽  
Candida Guilliermondii ◽  
Antifungal Stewardship ◽  
Canadian Provinces ◽  
Ongoing Surveillance

AbstractObjectivesUnderstanding the epidemiology of invasive Candida infections is essential to patient management decisions and antifungal stewardship practices. This study characterized the species distribution and antifungal susceptibilities of prospectively collected isolates of Candida species causing bloodstream infections (BSIs) in patients admitted to tertiary care hospitals located in 14 cities across 8 of the 10 Canadian provinces between 2011 and 2016.MethodsAntifungal susceptibility testing was performed by broth microdilution using CLSI methods, breakpoints and epidemiological cut-off values. DNA sequencing of fks loci was performed on all echinocandin-non-susceptible isolates.ResultsCandida albicans (49.6%), Candida glabrata (20.8%) and Candida parapsilosis complex (12.0%) were the most common species out of 1882 isolates associated with BSIs. Candida tropicalis (5.2%), Candida krusei (4.3%), Candida dubliniensis (4.1%), Candida lusitaniae (1.4%) and Candida guilliermondii (1.1%) were less frequently isolated. Between 2011 and 2016, the proportion of C. albicans significantly decreased from 60.9% to 42.1% (P < 0.0001) while that of C. glabrata significantly increased from 16.4% to 22.4% (P = 0.023). C. albicans (n = 934), C. glabrata (n = 392) and C. parapsilosis complex (n = 225) exhibited 0.6%, 1.0% and 4.9% resistance to fluconazole and 0.1%, 2.5% and 0% resistance to micafungin, respectively. Mutations in fks hot-spot regions were confirmed in all nine micafungin non-susceptible C. glabrata.ConclusionsAntifungal resistance in contemporary isolates of Candida causing BSIs in Canada is uncommon. However, the proportion of C. glabrata isolates has increased and echinocandin resistance in this species has emerged. Ongoing surveillance of local hospital epidemiology and appropriate antifungal stewardship practices are necessary to preserve the utility of available antifungal agents.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document