Point of care testing, antibiotic prescribing and prescribing confidence for respiratory tract infections in primary care: Prospective audit in 18 European countries

BackgroundBetween-country differences have been described in antibiotic prescribing for RTI in primary care, but not yet for diagnostic testing procedures and prescribing confidence.AimTo describe between-country differences in RTI management, particularly diagnostic testing and antibiotic prescribing, and investigate which factors relate to antibiotic prescribing and GPs’ prescribing confidence.Design & settingProspective audit in 18 European countries.MethodGPs registered patient-, clinical- and management characteristics, and confidence in their antibiotic prescribing decision for patients presenting with sore throat and/or lower RTI (n=4,982). Factors related to antibiotic prescribing and confidence were analysed using multi-level logistic regression.ResultsAntibiotic prescribing proportions varied considerably:<20% in four countries, and >40% in six countries. There was also considerable variation in POC testing (0% in Croatia, Moldova, Romania, and >65% in Denmark, Norway, mainly CRP and Strep A), and in lab/hospital-based testing (<3% in Hungary, Netherlands, Spain, and >30% in Croatia, Georgia, Greece, Moldova, mainly chest X-ray and white blood cell counting). Antibiotic prescribing was related to illness severity, comorbidity, age, fever and ‘country’, but not to having performed a POC test. In nearly 90% of consultations, GPs were confident in their antibiotic prescribing decision.ConclusionDespite high confidence in decisions about antibiotic prescribing, there is considerable variation in the primary care of RTI in European countries, with GPs prescribing antibiotics overall more often than is considered appropriate. POC testing may enhance the quality of antibiotic prescribing decisions if it can safely reverse decisions confidently made on clinical grounds alone to prescribe antibiotics.

117. How Does Antimicrobial Stewardship Provider Role Affect Prospective Audit and Feedback Acceptance by the Attending Physician?

Background Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) teams are commonly multidisciplinary. The effect of AMS provider role on prospective audit and feedback (PAF) acceptance has previously been investigated with mixed results. PAF of restricted antimicrobials (carbapenems, linezolid, daptomycin, and tigecycline) in adult inpatients at our large Canadian academic centre has been performed since 2018. Actionable feedback is communicated via chart note plus one of a phone call, direct message, or in-person discussion with the most responsible physician of the attending team in order to optimize the prescription if deemed necessary. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of AMS provider role on PAF acceptance. Methods A 3 year retrospective review of all PAF events was undertaken. All audited prescriptions were included. Logistic regression was used to determine odds ratios for acceptance for individual AMS provider roles of pharmacist, physician, and supervised post-graduate physician trainee. Results Out of 1896 prescriptions audited, actionable feedback was provided to the most responsible physician in 731 (39%) cases. 677/731 (93%) of audited antibiotics were carbapenems. The overall acceptance rate was 82% (598/731). Acceptance rate and odds of acceptance based on AMS provider role were as follows: pharmacist alone 171/208 (82%), OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.70-1.59, physician alone 141/160 (88%), OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.12-3.20, pharmacist-physician duo 211/268 (79%), OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.50-1.07, and supervised post-graduate physician trainee 75/95 (79%), OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48-1.41. Conclusion The overall acceptance rate was high. There was a higher odds of acceptance if an AMS physician was providing PAF alone, highlighting the importance of physician involvement. Disclosures Dima Kabbani, MD, AVIR Pharma (Grant/Research Support, Other Financial or Material Support, Speaker)Edesa Biotech (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Merck (Scientific Research Study Investigator)

39. Impact of Antimicrobial Stewardship Interventions in a Community Hospital setting: An Interrupted Times Analysis

Background Community hospitals have fewer resources for antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) compared to larger tertiary hospitals. At our 312-bed community hospital, Long Island Jewish Forest Hills/Northwell, a combination of modified preauthorization, prospective audit feedback, and ASP education was implemented starting in August 2019 (Monday through Friday 9 am to 5 pm). Methods This retrospective study evaluated the impact of ASP interventions on the rate of targeted antimicrobial use over a 7 month pre- vs 7 month post- intervention period (Aug 2018 to Feb 2019 vs Aug 2019 to Feb 2020). Targeted antimicrobials included piperacillin-tazobactam, vancomycin, daptomycin, and carbapenems. The primary outcome was the monthly mean for overall targeted antimicrobial use measured by the rate of antimicrobial days per 1000 days present. Secondary outcomes were the individual rates of antimicrobial days per 1000 days present for each of the targeted antimicrobials, and the hospital’s overall standardized antimicrobial administration ratio (SAAR). Data were analyzed as a segmented regression of interrupted time series. Results Pre-intervention, there was an increasing trend (positive slope, p&lt; 0.05) in the monthly mean, hospital SAAR, vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam use. Post-intervention, there was a significant change in slope for these same metrics, indicating a decrease in the mean use. Immediate impact of ASP interventions, measured by the difference in antibiotic use between the end of each intervention period, was visually evident in all cases except carbapenems (Fig. 1 through 4). The immediate impact on the overall monthly mean represented a significant reduction in the rate of antimicrobial days per 1000 days present, -12.72 (CI -21.02 to -4.42, P &lt; 0.0066). The pre- vs post- ASP gap for all measures was negative and consistent with fewer days of antibiotic use immediately following intervention. Conclusion A targeted, multifaceted ASP intervention utilizing modified preauthorization, prospective audit feedback, and education significantly reduced antibiotic use in a community hospital. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

38. Impact of Antimicrobial Stewardship Interventions on Adherence to Clostridioides difficile Treatment Guidelines

Background Facility-specific treatment guidelines are a priority intervention recommended in the CDC Core Elements of Hospital Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs (ASPs). Our ASP sought to improve adherence to the facility C. difficile infection (CDI) treatment guideline by implementing prospective audit and feedback of CDI cases, changing fidaxomicin from being restricted to Infectious Diseases consult use, to only requiring prospective audit and feedback, and allowing fidaxomicin and oral vancomycin orders only through the order set. This study reviews the impact of these interventions. Methods This single-center retrospective quasi-experimental study evaluated inpatient CDI lab events 3 months pre-intervention (10/1/2019-12/31/2019) and post-intervention (10/14/2020-1/14/2021). Patient and treatment data was evaluated via chart review. The primary outcome was adherence to CDI treatment guideline. ASP intervention types were categorized. Statistical analyses were performed using Chi-squared or Fischer’s exact, where appropriate. Results Baseline characteristics were well matched between the 58 and 70 patients pre and post intervention respectively (Table 1). ASP interventions resulting from the prospective audit and feedback are described in Table 2 and overall acceptance rates were high (88%). Guideline adherence improved significantly from 71% pre to 90% post-intervention (p=0.005). Reasons for non-adherence included vancomycin dose incorrect for the severity of illness (9 pre vs 2 post), inappropriate duration (4 pre vs 0 post), use of combination therapy in non-fulminant disease (5 pre vs 3 post), and not using fidaxomicin for recurrent disease (3 pre vs 2 post). Clinical outcomes pre and post intervention were not different in this small sample size: colectomy 1 (2%) vs 1 (1%) p=1, 60 day all- cause mortality 15 (26%) vs 14 (20%) p=0.43, and CDI recurrence at day 60 9/43 (21%) vs 5/56 (9%) p=0.131. Conclusion A bundle of ASP interventions including prospective audit and feedback of CDI cases improved adherence to facility-specific CDI treatment guidelines. Disclosures Tamara Krekel, PharmD, BCPS, BCIDP, Merck (Speaker’s Bureau) Erik R. Dubberke, MD, MSPH, Ferring (Grant/Research Support)Merck (Consultant)Pfizer (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Seres (Consultant)Summit (Consultant)

A Culture Change: Impact of a Pediatric Antimicrobial Stewardship Program Based on Guideline Implementation and Prospective Audit with Feedback

Reports analyzing the impact of pediatric antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) over long periods of time are lacking. We thus report our ASP experience in a pediatric tertiary referral center over a long-term period from 2011 to 2018. Our ASP was implemented in 2011. The program was based primarily on guideline development with key stakeholders, engaging and educating providers, followed by prospective audit with feedback (PAF). Monitored antibiotics included meropenem, piperacillin–tazobactam, and cefepime, followed by the addition of ceftriaxone, ceftazidime, cefotaxime, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, linezolid, and vancomycin at various time points. Specifically, the program did not implemented the core strategy of formulary restriction with prior authorization. Process- and outcome-related ASP measures were analyzed. We saw a 32% decrease in overall antibiotic utilization, a 51% decrease in the utilization of antibiotics undergoing PAF, and a 72% reduction in the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics such as meropenem. There was a concomitant increase in organism susceptibility and a reduction in yearly drug purchasing costs of over USD 560,000 from baseline without changes in sepsis-related mortality. Our study highlights that a pediatric ASP based primarily on the principles of guideline development and PAF can improve antibiotic utilization and institutional bacterial susceptibilities without a detrimental impact on patient outcomes by changing the culture of antimicrobial utilization within the institution.

SP4.2.5 Did COVID-19 change the way we treat appendicitis?

Intro/aims In repsonse to the COVID-19 pandemic, the United Kingdom (UK) commenced a national lockdown in March 2020. Initial guidance advocated the avoidance of aerosol generating procedures and hence we hypothesised there would be a decrease in the use of surgery to treat acute appendicitis. Methods A prospective audit was undertaken across 4 hospitals in South Wales, UK, during April 2020. Patients over 18 years of age with suspected or confirmed appendicitis were identified and data was collected including their history, radiological findings, management, and re-admission. Comparison was made with theatre and radiological data from April 2018 and 2019. Results A total of 254 patients were treated over the 3-year period; 95 patients in 2018, 95 in 2019 and 64 in 2020. During the lockdown, the use of Computed Tomography (CT) increased from 36.3% to 85.9% (p &lt; 0.001). An antibiotic only approach to treat appendicits rose from 6.2% to 40.6% (p &lt; 0.001). Four patients in the lockdown cohort failed the conservative approach and required an appendicectomy. The overall rate of laparoscopic appendicectomy was reduced from 85.3% to 17.2% (p &lt; 0.001). A malignancy was identified in 3% of cases. Conclusions Whilst less patients presented with acute appendicitis compared to previous years, there was still a significant reduction in the operation rate. The data aligns with the literature confirming the antibiotic-only approach to be safe with a low failure rate. It is essential however that patients are fully consented for this approach including the risk of a missed malignancy.

EP.FRI.1036 Provision of 7 Day Radiology Service: Are we compliant against standards

Aim The audit aimed to retrospectively look into reporting times for investigations for acute surgical inpatients and determine if we were able to meet standards as set in NHS 7 day service provision standards which aims to provide 7day radiological service for hospital inpatients from commission to reporting. Method A prospective audit is undertaken to collect waiting times for investigations for all acute admissions requiring radiological investigations over one month. Investigations were categorized into ‘critical’, ‘urgent’ and ‘non-urgent’ according to guidelines set by Royal College of Surgeons. The results were tabulated in Excel and analyzed to determine level of compliance. Results Collected data shows that off the total 119 investigations performed, 34% were USG, 63% were CT scans and 2.5% were MRI. Standards were met for a total of 67% of the investigations. Only 20% of critical, 67% of urgent and 76% of non-urgent scans were done within the standard time while by modality, CT scans had the highest rate of compliance. 60% of investigations requested over weekends met standards with highest compliance for USG and for non-urgent scans. Average reporting time was approximately 50 minutes. Conclusion The audit outcome highlighted that 1 out of 3 investigations did not meet standards. Within its limitations of no numerical parameters to guide urgency, the audit was able give an idea of the radiology service offered by the hospital and highlighted clear areas for improvements which can be suggested to improve compliance such as documenting ‘operative catergory’ of requested investigations on request forms.

EP.WE.568Compliance with the Royal College of Surgeons of England Guidelines on the Surgical Consenting Process in the Era of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Aims Due to the current COVID-19 pandemic, The Royal College of Surgeons of England released guidelines advising on additional considerations which should be discussed with patients as part of the informed consent process prior to surgery. We conducted a prospective audit on whether COVID-19 infection was mentioned as a possible complication during the consenting process for patients undergoing emergency and elective general surgical procedures at a District General Hospital. Methodology We prospectively collected data on the patients admitted for surgical procedures over a 2-week period. Consent forms were reviewed noting whether COVID-19 infection was listed as a possible complication. Results 35 patients were audited with a median age of 54 (12-94) years including 17 males and 18 females. Patients presented with varying surgical diagnoses, with 16 and 19 undergoing emergency and elective operations, respectively. 77.1% (27) of patients had COVID-19 infection mentioned as a possible complication on their consent forms. Five out of six consent forms completed by Clinical Fellows or CT trainees, 10 out of 13 by Registrars, 12 out of 16 by Consultants mentioned COVID-19 infection. We found no significant correlation between the grade of the consent taker and COVID-19 infection being mentioned as a possible complication. Conclusion Most of the consent takers were aware of the guidelines and mentioned COVID-19 infection as a possible complication during consenting. However, this awareness could be expanded. The results will be presented to the department before a plan to re-audit and close the loop in a few weeks.