Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impact of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) depends on physician perception of antimicrobial stewardship and institutional antibiotic prescribing culture. At Rush University Medical Center (RUMC), we conducted an antimicrobial stewardship study targeting inpatient levofloxacin (FQ) use and assessed rates of implementation of recommendations (IORs) by general medicine (GM), vs. surgical services (SS) (general surgery, urology, orthopedics and neurosurgery), vs. transplant surgery-immunocompromised host (T-ICH) teams when made by either infectious disease pharmacists (IDPharmD) or infectious disease fellows (IDMDF). METHODS: Between August 13, 2018 and January 15, 2019 at RUMC, IDPharmDs reviewed 251 inpatients on FQ, and made ASP recommendations on 36 (14%) that were communicated via telephone. No scripted discussion or note was utilized. From January 15, 2019 to April 19, 2019, an IDMDF reviewed 207 inpatients on FQ, and made ASP recommendations on 47 (22%). IDMDF’s recommendations were communicated via a scripted discussion describing the role of ASP, highlighting the importance of optimizing FQ use due to toxicity, low rates of RUMC’s FQ susceptibilities and to decrease rates of resistance. Telephone recommendations were made to the primary team house staff or attending followed by a templated electronic note left in the medical chart. Rates of IORs were assessed during each period and by each group. RESULTS: In 20 out of 83 recommendations (24%), no antibiotic was indicated (Figure 1). GM teams had the highest overall (IDPharmD + IDMDF) IOR (76%), compared with 40% IOR for both SS and T-ICH groups. For all groups, the scripted IDMDF recommendations had higher IOR compared with the nonscripted IDPharmD recommendations (GM 89% vs. 61%; SS 50% vs. 29%; T-ICH 50% vs. 0%). CONCLUSION: ASP interventions using scripted discussions and notes by an IDMDF were more effective than nonscripted IDPharmD interventions across all service lines. Both interventions were less successful with SS or T-ICH compared with GM services. These findings demonstrate the need for further research to understand the importance of scripted vs. nonscripted communication methods by pharmacists and ID physicians, and to develop alternative communication models for nongeneral medicine service providers. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures.