Abstract
Background
Participation in the Antibiotic Use (AU) option of the National Health Safety Network (NHSN), provides medical facilities with the Standardized Antibiotic Administration Ratio (SAAR), a normalized ratio of facility antibiotic use. However, the range of antibiotic use by similar facilities is not provided and thus the opportunity to “nudge” behavior by comparing use with “best facilities” is lost. We developed reports of variations of antibiotic use that allow comparisons of local antibiotic use with that of 107 other VA facilities.
Methods
Data for 2018 were extracted from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse. Antibiotic use in CY2018 on acute inpatient care units was assessed as days of therapy (using CDC-defined drug classes) per 1000 days-present. In addition, we assessed the proportion of patients with pneumonia, urinary tract infections or skin-soft-tissue infections (collectively, PUS) who received anti-MRSA therapy or ß-lactam therapy directed against multi-drug-resistant and hospital GNR (anti-MDRGNR) during hospital days 0–2 (CHOICE, a timeframe representing empiric therapy).
Results
Rates of total antibiotic use by VA facility varied over two-fold from 460 to 965 days of therapy (DOT)/1000 days-present (DP); anti-MRSA and anti-MDRGNR varied over four-fold, from 44 to 184 and, 55 to 262, respectively. Fluoroquinolone variation was even higher, ranging over 8-fold, from 17 to 145 DOT/1000 DP (Figure 1). Substantial variations were also observed in the frequency of administration of anti-MRSA and anti-MDRGNR therapy for PUS during CHOICE (14 to 49% and 15 to 65%, respectively; Figure 2).
Conclusion
The large variations in the use of total antibiotic therapy, anti-MRSA, anti-MDRGNR and fluoroquinolone therapies are greater than can be readily explained by known variations in antibiotic resistance or differences in case-mix within the VA. Efforts are underway in the VA to strengthen antimicrobial stewardship programs. In other work, we have shown improvements in antimicrobial use among sites that have access to reports that provide the data described herein and that participate in group collaboratives. Our group is now making these data available to all VA facilities.
Disclosures
All authors: No reported disclosures.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, VA-CDC Practice-Based Research Network, Los Angeles, California
2 VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System/UCLA, Los Angeles, California
3 IDEAS Center of Innovation, Veterans Affairs Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City, Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
4 Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho
5 VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California
6 University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah





