Experience of Infectious Diseases Consultants with Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy: Results of an Emerging Infections Network Survey

2006 ◽  
Vol 43 (10) ◽  
pp. 1290-1295 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Chary ◽  
A. D. Tice ◽  
L. P. Martinelli ◽  
L. A. Liedtke ◽  
M. S. Plantenga ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Infectious Diseases ◽  
Antimicrobial Therapy ◽  
Emerging Infections ◽  
Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy

scholarly journals Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy Practices among Adult Infectious Disease Physicians

2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (7) ◽  
pp. 839-844 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael A. Lane ◽  
Jonas Marschall ◽  
Susan E. Beekmann ◽  
Philip M. Polgreen ◽  
Ritu Banerjee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Infectious Disease ◽  
Infectious Diseases ◽  
Antimicrobial Therapy ◽  
Practice Patterns ◽  
Laboratory Monitoring ◽  
Emerging Infections ◽  
Surveillance Network ◽  
Near Misses ◽  
Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy ◽  
Infectious Diseases Consultation

ObjectiveTo identify current outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy practice patterns and complications.MethodsWe administered an 11-question survey to adult infectious disease physicians participating in the Emerging Infections Network (EIN), a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–sponsored sentinel event surveillance network in North America. The survey was distributed electronically or via facsimile in November and December 2012. Respondent demographic characteristics were obtained from EIN enrollment data.ResultsOverall, 555 (44.6%) of EIN members responded to the survey, with 450 (81%) indicating that they treated 1 or more patients with outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) during an average month. Infectious diseases consultation was reported to be required for a patient to be discharged with OPAT by 99 respondents (22%). Inpatient (282 [63%] of 449) and outpatient (232 [52%] of 449) infectious diseases physicians were frequently identified as being responsible for monitoring laboratory results. Only 26% (118 of 448) had dedicated OPAT teams at their clinical site. Few infectious diseases physicians have systems to track errors, adverse events, or “near misses” associated with OPAT (97 [22%] of 449). OPAT-associated complications were perceived to be rare. Among respondents, 80% reported line occlusion or clotting as the most common complication (occurring in 6% of patients or more), followed by nephrotoxicity and rash (each reported by 61%). Weekly laboratory monitoring of patients who received vancomycin was reported by 77% of respondents (343 of 445), whereas 19% of respondents (84 of 445) reported twice weekly laboratory monitoring for these patients.ConclusionsAlthough use of OPAT is common, there is significant variation in practice patterns. More uniform OPAT practices may enhance patient safety.

scholarly journals Perspectives of United States–Based Infectious Diseases Physicians on Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy Practice

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yasir Hamad ◽  
Michael A Lane ◽  
Susan E Beekmann ◽  
Philip M Polgreen ◽  
Sara C Keller
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Infectious Diseases ◽  
Antimicrobial Therapy ◽  
Close Monitoring ◽  
Emerging Infections ◽  
Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy ◽  
Common Location ◽  
Laboratory Results ◽  
Health Support ◽  
Acute Care Facilities

Abstract Background Although outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) is generally considered safe, patients are at risk for complications and thus require close monitoring. The purpose of this study is to determine how OPAT programs are structured and how United States–based infectious diseases (ID) physicians perceive barriers to safe OPAT care. Methods We queried members of the Emerging Infections Network (EIN) between November and December 2018 about practice patterns and barriers to providing OPAT. Results A total of 672 members of the EIN (50%) responded to the survey. Seventy-five percent of respondents were actively involved in OPAT, although only 37% of respondents reported that ID consultation was mandatory for OPAT. The most common location for OPAT care was at home with home health support, followed by post–acute care facilities. Outpatient and inpatient ID physicians were identified as being responsible for monitoring laboratory results (73% and 54% of respondents, respectively), but only 36% had a formal OPAT program. The majority of respondents reported a lack of support in data analysis (80%), information technology (66%), financial assistance (65%), and administrative assistance (60%). The perceived amount of support did not differ significantly across employment models. Inability to access laboratory results in a timely manner, lack of leadership awareness of OPAT value, and failure to communicate with other providers administering OPAT were reported as the most challenging aspects of OPAT care. Conclusions ID providers were highly involved in OPAT, but only one-third of respondents had a dedicated OPAT program. Lack of financial and institutional support were perceived as significant barriers to providing safe OPAT care.

2018 Infectious Diseases Society of America Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapya

2018 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne H Norris ◽  
Nabin K Shrestha ◽  
Genève M Allison ◽  
Sara C Keller ◽  
Kavita P Bhavan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Infectious Diseases ◽  
Antimicrobial Stewardship ◽  
Antimicrobial Therapy ◽  
Clinical Practice Guideline ◽  
Practice Guideline ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy ◽  
Infusion Catheter

Abstract A panel of experts was convened by the Infectious Diseases Society of America to update the 2004 clinical practice guideline on outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) [1]. This guideline is intended to provide insight for healthcare professionals who prescribe and oversee the provision of OPAT. It considers various patient features, infusion catheter issues, monitoring questions, and antimicrobial stewardship concerns. It does not offer recommendations on the treatment of specific infections. The reader is referred to disease- or organism-specific guidelines for such support.

scholarly journals Patient Characteristics and Outcomes of Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy: A Retrospective Study

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie Yan ◽  
Marion Elligsen ◽  
Andrew E. Simor ◽  
Nick Daneman
Keyword(s):  
Infectious Diseases ◽  
Antimicrobial Therapy ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Surgical Site Infections ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy ◽  
Health Care Encounters ◽  
One Year ◽  
Alternative To Hospitalization

Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) is a safe and effective alternative to hospitalization for many patients with infectious diseases. The objective of this study was to describe the OPAT experience at a Canadian tertiary academic centre in the absence of a formal OPAT program. This was achieved through a retrospective chart review of OPAT patients discharged from Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre within a one-year period. Between June 2012 and May 2013, 104 patients (median age 63 years) were discharged home with parenteral antimicrobials. The most commonly treated syndromes included surgical site infections (33%), osteoarticular infections (28%), and bacteremia (21%). The most frequently prescribed antimicrobials were ceftriaxone (21%) and cefazolin (20%). Only 56% of the patients received follow-up care from an infectious diseases specialist. In the 60 days following discharge, 43% of the patients returned to the emergency department, while 26% required readmission. Forty-eight percent of the return visits were due to infection relapse or treatment failure, and 23% could be attributed to OPAT-related complications. These results suggest that many OPAT patients have unplanned health care encounters because of issues related to their infection or treatment, and the creation of a formal OPAT clinic may help improve outcomes.

scholarly journals 609. Implementation and Post-implementation Analysis of a Pilot Program for Inpatient Review of Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy Prior to Discharge

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S365-S366
Author(s):  
Delaney Hart ◽  
Hailey McCoy ◽  
Krista Gens ◽  
Michael Wankum ◽  
Andrew Tarleton
Keyword(s):  
Infectious Diseases ◽  
Antimicrobial Therapy ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
Blood Stream ◽  
Central Line ◽  
Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy ◽  
Chi Squared

Abstract Background The Infectious Diseases Society of America OPAT (outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy) guidelines state that effective OPAT programs require a multidisciplinary team1. Currently within the health system, there is no formal OPAT program in place, and OPAT prescribing is not limited to any specialty. This project aimed to pilot a pharmacist-driven program across five hospitals. Methods Adult patients with OPAT ordered between February 1 and May 1, 2020 were included. Patients were excluded if the OPAT was prescribed by infectious diseases (ID) providers or if patients were on OPAT prior to hospital admission. An alert was generated in the electronic health record (EHR) when an order for an intravenous catheter was placed for patients with concomitant antimicrobials. Follow up was performed and documented via a progress note in the EHR as appropriate. Data was collected via retrospective chart review and statistical analysis was performed using Chi-squared test with Yates’ correction. Results 101 pre- and 7 patients post-implementation were included in this study. There were a total of 51 patients pre-implementation that received inappropriate OPAT care per the IDSA OPAT guidelines, and post-implementation 2 patients (50.5% vs 28.6%, p=0.47). The secondary outcomes of 30-day readmission rates were 17% and 0% (p=0.52); and complications related to OPAT (e.g. central-line associated blood stream infections) were 12% and 0% (p=0.73), respectively. 2 midline catheters were recommended by the OPAT team, and a cost savings of up to $6,796 was calculated. Conclusion This pilot showed a trend towards decreased inappropriate OPAT prescribing and cost avoidance of an ID pharmacist-driven review of OPAT prior to patient hospital discharge. Limitations to this pilot included being underpowered due to the limited time-frame of the post-implementation period, and an inability for follow up with patients discharged utilizing an alternative home infusion service. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document