Optimising antibacterial utilisation in Argentine intensive care units: a quality improvement collaborative

• Published in: BMJ quality & safety
• Main Authors: Jorro-Baron, Facundo, Loudet, Cecilia Inés, Cornistein, Wanda, Suarez-Anzorena, Inés, Arias-Lopez, Pilar, Balasini, Carina, Cabana, Laura, Cunto, Eleonora, Corral, Pablo Rodrigo Jorge, Gibbons, Luz, Guglielmino, Marina, Izzo, Gabriela, Lescano, Marianela, Meregalli, Claudia, Orlandi, Cristina, Perre, Fernando, Ratto, Maria Elena, Rivet, Mariano, Rodriguez, Ana Paula, Rodriguez, Viviana Monica, Vilca Becerra, Jacqueline, Villegas, Paula Romina, Vitar, Emilse, Roberti, Javier, García-Elorrio, Ezequiel, Rodriguez, Viviana
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England 15.08.2024
• Subjects: Critical care; Antibiotic management; Collaborative, breakthrough groups; Quality improvement methodologies
• ISSN: 2044-5423
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017069

There is limited evidence from antimicrobial stewardship programmes in less-resourced settings. This study aimed to improve the quality of antibacterial prescriptions by mitigating overuse and promoting the use of narrow-spectrum agents in intensive care units (ICUs) in a middle-income country. We established a quality improvement collaborative (QIC) model involving nine Argentine ICUs over 11 months with a 16-week baseline period (BP) and a 32-week implementation period (IP). Our intervention package included audits and feedback on antibacterial use, facility-specific treatment guidelines, antibacterial timeouts, pharmacy-based interventions and education. The intervention was delivered in two learning sessions with three action periods along with coaching support and basic quality improvement training. We included 912 patients, 357 in BP and 555 in IP. The latter had higher APACHE II (17 (95% CI: 12 to 21) vs 15 (95% CI: 11 to 20), p=0.036), SOFA scores (6 (95% CI: 4 to 9) vs 5 (95% CI: 3 to 8), p=0.006), renal failure (41.6% vs 33.1%, p=0.009), sepsis (36.1% vs 31.6%, p<0.001) and septic shock (40.0% vs 33.8%, p<0.001). The days of antibacterial therapy (DOT) were similar between the groups (change in the slope from BP to IP 28.1 (95% CI: -17.4 to 73.5), p=0.2405). There were no differences in the antibacterial defined daily dose (DDD) between the groups (change in the slope from BP to IP 43.9, (95% CI: -12.3 to 100.0), p=0.1413).The rate of antibacterial de-escalation based on microbiological culture was higher during the IP (62.0% vs 45.3%, p<0.001).The infection prevention control (IPC) assessment framework was increased in eight ICUs. Implementing an antimicrobial stewardship program in ICUs in a middle-income country via a QIC demonstrated success in improving antibacterial de-escalation based on microbiological culture results, but not on DOT or DDD. In addition, eight out of nine ICUs improved their IPC Assessment Framework Score.