Antibiotic Stewardship in Small Hospitals

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

30000 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2013-07-31

Study Completion Date

2015-06-30

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Core elements of effective antibiotic stewardship programs (ASPs) have been identified and evidence-based guidelines have been developed for implementation. The majority of the evidence used for these guidelines are from published studies on the effectiveness of ASPs in large academic or large community hospitals. A significant portion of healthcare in the United States, however, takes place in small hospitals. In 2015, 73% of US hospitals had \< 200 beds (4,057 hospitals) and accounted for 29% of all US inpatient bed days. Limited studies on the effectiveness of antibiotic stewardship implementation have been performed in hospitals with \< 200 beds. Antibiotic use rates and selection patterns in these small hospitals are similar to that of large hospitals and the majority of small hospitals lack formal ASP that meet the CDC's core elements. The objective of this real-world implementation study was to assess the effectiveness of three ASP strategies of escalating intensity designed specifically for small hospitals within a vertically integrated healthcare delivery system.

Related Clinical Trials

Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.

Improving Antibiotic Use in Urgent Care Facilities

NCT03932708

Antibiotic Side Effect Behavioral Changes

UNKNOWN NA

Antimicrobial Stewardship Interventions in a Hospital Setting

NCT04001309

Infectious Disease

COMPLETED NA

Hospital Wide Roll-Out of Antimicrobial Stewardship

NCT01587937

Bacterial Infections

COMPLETED NA

Efficacy and Cost-effectiveness of Hospital Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs

NCT02814877

Antimicrobial Resistance

COMPLETED

The Impact of an Antimicrobial Utilization Program on Antimicrobial Use

NCT00552838

Antimicrobial Prescribing Practices

COMPLETED NA

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

The investigators designed a clustered randomized controlled intervention to evaluate 3 antibiotic stewardship strategies designed for small hospitals. Each hospital was randomized to one of three ASP interventions with increasing levels of intensity and intervention (Programs 1, 2, 3). The investigators felt that clinical equipoise about the effect of ASPs did not exist and randomizing to a no-intervention group was unacceptable. Antibiotic use was compared within each group before and after the intervention. In keeping with other real-world implementation studies, secondary analyses were planned to include an interrupted time series design to evaluate the impact of each strategy. Randomization of hospitals was stratified based on patient volume. Hospital administration and clinical leadership were not blinded to which ASP program they were randomly assigned to, but there were no public announcements. The intervention started March 2014 and ended June 2015.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Inappropriate Prescribing Antibiotic Stewardship Anti-Bacterial Agents

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Program 1

Implementation of a basic antibiotic stewardship program focusing on education, access to Infectious Diseases physicians, and availability of antibiotic use data.

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Program 1

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL

Program 1 hospitals received a basic curriculum and tools for implementation of basic antibiotic stewardship interventions. Hospitals required an indication for every antibiotic order. A daily email was sent to a designated email account when a patient had been on an antibiotic for \>48 hours. Curriculum included implementing antibiotic time-outs, IV to PO conversion, indications, evaluating for bug-drug mismatches, and recommendations on when to call the Infectious Diseases (ID) hotline. A daily antibiotic stewardship check list was created. All materials were provided to all pharmacists and remained on-site. Clinicians had access to an ID telephone hotline to answer clinical questions. Pharmacy directors and hospital leadership were provided a monthly, hospital-specific, antibiotic use dashboard. All pharmacy directors and staff received a monthly newsletter.

Program 2

This arm increases antibiotic stewardship education and interventions. Program 2 hospitals performed audit and feedback of pre-specified antibiotics and implemented locally controlled restrictions.

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Program 2

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL

Program 2 hospitals received all the interventions of Program 1. In addition, Program 2 hospitals received more intense antibiotic stewardship education. Educational topics included audit and feedback, antibiotic de-escalation, the need for antibiotics targeting anaerobic bacteria, antibiotic allergy verification, and antibiotic restrictions. Pharmacists in Program 2 hospitals reviewed patients on vancomycin, piperacillin/tazobactam, imipenem, meropenem, and cefepime. For patients receiving one of these antibiotics, pharmacists reviewed the patients' microbiology data to identify opportunities for antibiotic de-escalation, IV to PO conversion, bug-drug mismatches, and/or indications for calling the ID hotline. Program 2 hospitals also restricted daptomycin, linezolid, imipenem, meropenem, ceftaroline, tigecycline, and all mold active antifungals. In Program 2 hospitals, the local pharmacy staff pre-authorized restricted antibiotics based on defined criteria.

Program 3

This arm was the most intensive antibiotic stewardship intervention. It included signficant audit and feedback, ID controlled restrictions, and ID review of designated culture/lab results.

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Program 3

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL

Program 3 hospitals received all the interventions of Program 1 and Program 2. In addition, pharmacists in program 3 hospitals reviewed an expanded list of antibiotics for audit and feedback. These antibiotics included: Vancomycin, piperacillin/tazobactam, imipenem, meropenem, cefepime, ertapenem, aminoglycosides, ceftriaxone, and fluoroquinolones. Program 3 hospitals implemented the same antibiotic restrictions as Program 2 but ID pharmacists controlled pre-authorization of restricted antibiotics. In addition, an ID physician reviewed pre-specified positive cultures (e.g. all positive blood cultures, cultures with highly resistant Enterobacteraciae) and contacted providers with recommendations as needed. ID physician review occurred Monday through Friday and alerts were batched daily at 6am.

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Program 1

Program 1 hospitals received a basic curriculum and tools for implementation of basic antibiotic stewardship interventions. Hospitals required an indication for every antibiotic order. A daily email was sent to a designated email account when a patient had been on an antibiotic for \>48 hours. Curriculum included implementing antibiotic time-outs, IV to PO conversion, indications, evaluating for bug-drug mismatches, and recommendations on when to call the Infectious Diseases (ID) hotline. A daily antibiotic stewardship check list was created. All materials were provided to all pharmacists and remained on-site. Clinicians had access to an ID telephone hotline to answer clinical questions. Pharmacy directors and hospital leadership were provided a monthly, hospital-specific, antibiotic use dashboard. All pharmacy directors and staff received a monthly newsletter.

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL

Program 2

Program 2 hospitals received all the interventions of Program 1. In addition, Program 2 hospitals received more intense antibiotic stewardship education. Educational topics included audit and feedback, antibiotic de-escalation, the need for antibiotics targeting anaerobic bacteria, antibiotic allergy verification, and antibiotic restrictions. Pharmacists in Program 2 hospitals reviewed patients on vancomycin, piperacillin/tazobactam, imipenem, meropenem, and cefepime. For patients receiving one of these antibiotics, pharmacists reviewed the patients' microbiology data to identify opportunities for antibiotic de-escalation, IV to PO conversion, bug-drug mismatches, and/or indications for calling the ID hotline. Program 2 hospitals also restricted daptomycin, linezolid, imipenem, meropenem, ceftaroline, tigecycline, and all mold active antifungals. In Program 2 hospitals, the local pharmacy staff pre-authorized restricted antibiotics based on defined criteria.

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL

Program 3

Program 3 hospitals received all the interventions of Program 1 and Program 2. In addition, pharmacists in program 3 hospitals reviewed an expanded list of antibiotics for audit and feedback. These antibiotics included: Vancomycin, piperacillin/tazobactam, imipenem, meropenem, cefepime, ertapenem, aminoglycosides, ceftriaxone, and fluoroquinolones. Program 3 hospitals implemented the same antibiotic restrictions as Program 2 but ID pharmacists controlled pre-authorization of restricted antibiotics. In addition, an ID physician reviewed pre-specified positive cultures (e.g. all positive blood cultures, cultures with highly resistant Enterobacteraciae) and contacted providers with recommendations as needed. ID physician review occurred Monday through Friday and alerts were batched daily at 6am.

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL