Antibiotic prescribing in general medical and surgical specialties: a prospective cohort study.

Background: Qualitative work has described the differences in prescribing practice across medical and surgical specialties. This study aimed to understand if specialty impacts quantitative measures of prescribing practice. Methods: We prospectively analysed the antibiotic prescribing across general medical and surgical teams for acutely admitted patients. Over a 12-month period (June 2016 - May 2017) 659 patients (362 medical, 297 surgical) were followed for the duration of their hospital stay. Antibiotic prescribing across these cohorts was assessed using Chi-squared or Wilcoxon rank-sum, depending on normality of data. The t-test was used to compare age and length of stay. A logistic regression model was used to predict escalation of antibiotic therapy. Results: Surgical patients were younger (p < 0.001) with lower Charlson Comorbidity Index scores (p < 0.001). Antibiotics were prescribed for 45% (162/362) medical and 55% (164/297) surgical patients. Microbiological results were available for 26% (42/164) medical and 29% (48/162) surgical patients, of which 55% (23/42) and 48% (23/48) were positive respectively. There was no difference in the spectrum of antibiotics prescribed between surgery and medicine (p = 0.507). In surgery antibiotics were 1) prescribed more frequently (p = 0.001); 2) for longer (p = 0.016); 3) more likely to be escalated (p = 0.004); 4) less likely to be compliant with local policy (p < 0.001) than medicine. Conclusions: Across both specialties, microbiology investigation results are not adequately used to diagnose infections and optimise their management. There is significant variation in antibiotic decision-making (including escalation patterns) between general surgical and medical teams. Antibiotic stewardship interventions targeting surgical specialties need to go beyond surgical prophylaxis. It is critical to focus on of review the patients initiated on therapeutic antibiotics in surgical specialties to ensure that escalation and continuation of therapy is justified.

Epidemiology and health-economic burden of urinary-catheter-associated infection in English NHS hospitals: a probabilistic modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) and bloodstream infection (CABSI) are leading causes of healthcare-associated infection in England's National Health Service (NHS), but health-economic evidence to inform investment in prevention is lacking. AIMS: To quantify the health-economic burden and value of prevention of urinary-catheter-associated infection among adult inpatients admitted to NHS trusts in 2016/17. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the annual prevalence of CAUTI and CABSI, and their associated excess health burdens [quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] and economic costs (£ 2017). Patient-level datasets and literature were synthesized to estimate population structure, model parameters and associated uncertainty. Health and economic benefits of catheter prevention were estimated. Scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. FINDINGS: The model estimated 52,085 [95% uncertainty interval (UI) 42,967-61,360] CAUTIs and 7529 (UI 6857-8622) CABSIs, of which 38,084 (UI 30,236-46,541) and 2524 (UI 2319-2956) were hospital-onset infections, respectively. Catheter-associated infections incurred 45,717 (UI 18,115-74,662) excess bed-days, 1467 (UI 1337-1707) deaths and 10,471 (UI 4783-13,499) lost QALYs. Total direct hospital costs were estimated at £54.4M (UI £37.3-77.8M), with an additional £209.4M (UI £95.7-270.0M) in economic value of QALYs lost assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY. Respectively, CABSI accounted for 47% (UI 32-67%) and 97% (UI 93-98%) of direct costs and QALYs lost. Every catheter prevented could save £30 (UI £20-44) in direct hospital costs and £112 (UI £52-146) in QALY value. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital catheter prevention is poised to reap substantial health-economic gains, but community-oriented interventions are needed to target the large burden imposed by community-onset infection.

Is antimicrobial stewardship cost-effective? A narrative review of the evidence.

AIMS: This narrative review aimed to collate recent evidence on the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes, to address the question 'is AMS cost-effective?', while providing resources and guidance for future research in this area. SOURCES: PubMed was searched for studies assessing the cost-effectiveness, cost-utility or cost-benefit of AMS interventions in humans, published from January 2000 to March 2017, with no setting inclusion/exclusion criteria specified. Reference lists of retrieved reviews were searched for additional articles. CONTENT: Recent evidence on the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of AMS is described, studies suggest persuasive and structural AMS interventions may provide health economic benefits to the hospital setting. However, overall, cost-effectiveness evidence for AMS is severely limited, especially for the community setting. Recommendations for future research in this area are therefore provided, including discussion of appropriate health economic methodological choice. IMPLICATIONS: Health systems have a finite and decreasing resource, decision makers currently do not have necessary evidence to assess whether AMS programmes provide sufficient benefits. Although the evidence-base of the cost-effectiveness of AMS is increasing, it remains inadequate for investment decision-making. Robust health economics research needs to be completed to enhance the generalizability and usability of cost-effectiveness results.