Open forum infectious diseases · 2026
Impact of Institutional Expected Practice Guidelines on Oral and Long-acting Intravenous Antibiotic Use for Serious Bacterial Infections.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bradford William, Stripling Joshua, Olivet Jay, Grissom John, Bold Nomin, Bruxvoort Katia, Griffin Russell
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Expected practice interventions are a low resource antimicrobial stewardship strategy to standardize prescribing behavior by clinicians. An expected practice intervention to encourage use of oral and long-acting IV (PO/LAIV) antibiotics for serious infections was implemented at a US tertiary care hospital in November of 2022.
METHODS: We conducted a quasi-experimental pre/post study to evaluate the effect of guideline release on a primary outcome of length of stay (LOS) and secondary outcomes of inpatient antibiotic days, 3-month readmission, PO/LAIV antibiotic use, microbiologic failure, and adverse drug events. We also assessed key factors associated with use of PO/LAIV therapy receipt.
RESULTS: Among 139 encounters, we found a significant increase in the proportion of encounters in which PO/LAIV therapy was prescribed after the intervention (42.0% vs 60.0%, P = .03). On multivariable analysis, LOS did not differ (adjusted rate ratio [aRR] 0.91; 95% CI, .74-1.13), nor did inpatient intravenous antibiotic days (aRR 0.95; 95% CI, .78-1.16). Post-implementation encounters had lower odds of 3-month all cause readmission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.37; 95% CI, .17-.77) and higher odds of PO/LAIV use at discharge (aOR 2.77; 95% CI, 1.28-5.99).
CONCLUSIONS: Expected practice intervention implementation was associated with an increase in PO/LAIV therapy use and a reduction in readmission, supporting its role as a promising, low-resource antimicrobial stewardship strategy warranting further prospective evaluation.
METHODS: We conducted a quasi-experimental pre/post study to evaluate the effect of guideline release on a primary outcome of length of stay (LOS) and secondary outcomes of inpatient antibiotic days, 3-month readmission, PO/LAIV antibiotic use, microbiologic failure, and adverse drug events. We also assessed key factors associated with use of PO/LAIV therapy receipt.
RESULTS: Among 139 encounters, we found a significant increase in the proportion of encounters in which PO/LAIV therapy was prescribed after the intervention (42.0% vs 60.0%, P = .03). On multivariable analysis, LOS did not differ (adjusted rate ratio [aRR] 0.91; 95% CI, .74-1.13), nor did inpatient intravenous antibiotic days (aRR 0.95; 95% CI, .78-1.16). Post-implementation encounters had lower odds of 3-month all cause readmission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.37; 95% CI, .17-.77) and higher odds of PO/LAIV use at discharge (aOR 2.77; 95% CI, 1.28-5.99).
CONCLUSIONS: Expected practice intervention implementation was associated with an increase in PO/LAIV therapy use and a reduction in readmission, supporting its role as a promising, low-resource antimicrobial stewardship strategy warranting further prospective evaluation.