Implications of faecal ESBL carriers undergoing TRUS-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSPB): role of screening prior to TRUSPB.

INTRODUCTION: Modification of antibiotic prophylaxis prior to transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSPB) based on pre-procedure rectal culture results is effective for prevention of infection from fluoroquinolone (FQ)-resistant and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) Escherichia coli strains. This has several implications for service delivery and cost. Our aim was to audit sepsis rates after introduction of ESBL screening and to identify risk factors for FQ resistance in ESBL strains and factors for sepsis risk. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study from 2013 to 2016. TRUSPB patients underwent pre-procedure rectal swabs. ESBL-positive patients received amikacin in addition to ciprofloxacin prophylaxis. Patients filled a formal risk assessment questionnaire prior to biopsy. RESULTS: Sepsis rate after introduction of targeted prophylaxis reduced from 3.1% (2009-2012) to 1.4% (2013-2016). Of 38 ESBL patients, n = 5 (13%) developed severe post-TRUSPB sepsis. Among the FQ-resistant ESBL producers, the sepsis rate was 24%. Predictive factor for FQ resistance in ESBL producers included-antibiotic use in the last 3 months (OR 15). The logistic regression analysis did not identify any significant factor for post-TRUSPB sepsis in ESBL-positive patients once they had received additional prophylaxis. CONCLUSION: In the face of rising TRUSPB sepsis and higher sepsis rates with ESBL carriers despite additional prophylaxis, introduction of a targeted antibiotic prophylaxis prior to TRUSPB sepsis prostate biopsies based on rectal swabs or urine cultures may reduce sepsis rates or clinicians may find themselves leaning towards increasingly performing transperineal biopsies with lower sepsis rates supporting the 'trexit' initiative.

Using Six Sigma to improve once daily gentamicin dosing and therapeutic drug monitoring performance.

BACKGROUND: Safe, effective therapy with the antimicrobial gentamicin requires good practice in dose selection and monitoring of serum levels. Suboptimal therapy occurs with breakdown in the process of drug dosing, serum blood sampling, laboratory processing and level interpretation. Unintentional underdosing may result. This improvement effort aimed to optimise this process in an academic teaching hospital using Six Sigma process improvement methodology. METHODS: A multidisciplinary project team was formed. Process measures considered critical to quality were defined, and baseline practice was examined through process mapping and audit. Root cause analysis informed improvement measures. These included a new dosing and monitoring schedule, and standardised assay sampling and drug administration timing which maximised local capabilities. Three iterations of the improvement cycle were conducted over a 24-month period. RESULTS: The attainment of serum level sampling in the required time window improved by 85% (p≤0.0001). A 66% improvement in accuracy of dosing was observed (p≤0.0001). Unnecessary dose omission while awaiting level results and inadvertent disruption to therapy due to dosing and monitoring process breakdown were eliminated. Average daily dose administered increased from 3.39 mg/kg to 4.78 mg/kg/day. CONCLUSIONS: Using Six Sigma methodology enhanced gentamicin usage process performance. Local process related factors may adversely affect adherence to practice guidelines for gentamicin, a drug which is complex to use. It is vital to adapt dosing guidance and monitoring requirements so that they are capable of being implemented in the clinical environment as a matter of routine. Improvement may be achieved through a structured localised approach with multidisciplinary stakeholder involvement.