OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that a prospective audit and feedback (PAF) intervention combined with electronic tools will reduce carbapenem use without negatively affecting patient outcomes. METHODS: A quasi-experimental, pre-intervention and intervention study was performed conducted in the urology department of a university hospital. The intervention involved implementing a PAF within an antimicrobial stewardship programme with the aid of an electronic tool. The primary outcome was carbapenem use, assessed by DDD/100 patient-days (PD). Secondary outcomes included evaluating the effect of the intervention on overall antibiotic use measured by DDD/100 PD and days of therapy (DOT)/100 PD, as well as patient safety. The chi-squared test or t-test was used, and the Poisson model was employed to assess the association between the intervention and outcomes. RESULTS: A 9% decrease in carbapenem DDD/100 PD was observed during the intervention period (IR = 0.91; 95% CI = 0.85-0.97, P = 0.007). The proportion of patients who received carbapenem treatment dropped from 17.8% to 16.5% [incidence ratio (IR) = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.86-2.05, P = 0.31]. Carbapenem DOT/100 PD decreased from 12.4 to 11.0 (IR = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.83-0.94, P < 0.001). Overall antibiotic DDD/100 PD decreased by 3% (IR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.94-0.99, P = 0.001) and DOT/100 PD by 7% (IR = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.91-0.95, P < 0.001). The incidence of infections caused by carbapenemase-producing microorganisms, Enterococcus faecium bacteraemia and Clostridioides difficile-associated diarrhoea episodes was similar in the pre-intervention and intervention periods. ESBL incidence rate decreased, but the differences were not statistically significant (3.94/1000 PD versus 2.88/1000 PD, P = 0.111). Length of hospital stay, in-hospital all-cause mortality, and 30 day readmission incidence remained unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of PAF combined with an electronic tool was an effective and safe intervention for reducing carbapenem use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ronda et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: