None listed
Conditions
Brief summary
Background: Sepsis is one of the leading causes of death in hospital patients. The early administration of broad spectrum antimicrobials improves survival in sepsis. However, the use of these antimicrobials must be balanced with their unintended consequences, such as the development of antimicrobial resistance and adverse effects. Many patients receive prolonged courses of inappropriate antimicrobials in suspected sepsis. The established antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) team currently do a post-prescription review of restricted antimicrobials and positive blood cultures. They do not routinely review treatment in sepsis, however they may have a role to promote the optimal use of antimicrobials in this setting. Aim: To determine the impact of AMS intervention in patients with medical emergency team (MET) calls for suspected sepsis Hypothesis: AMS intervention will improve appropriateness of antimicrobial therapy in suspected sepsis Participants: Patients with MET calls for suspected sepsis Method: Randomised controlled trial Control: Standard care (antimicrobials managed by the home team) Intervention: Standard care PLUS AMS review 48 hours post MET call Outcomes: Appropriateness of antimicrobial therapy at 72 hours post MET call
Interventions
In hospital patients with medical emergency team (MET) calls for suspected sepsis, antimicrobial therapy is currently managed by the admitting, or home, team. Complex cases may be referred to specialist Infectious Diseases (ID) clinicians on request by the treating team. The antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) team (ID physician and pharmacist) currently conduct a post prescription review of a limited patient group, after the prescription of restricted antimicrobial agents or a positive blood culture result. The former group is primarily identified by clinical pharmacists who request review of their patients, but the AMS team also reviews patients on broad spectrum antimicrobial agents identified by other means. This AMS review is a focused review of medical records, pathology results and clinical notes, but does not include a clinical or physical review of the patient. The AMS team then make recommendations about antimicrobial therapy to the treating team. Currently, patients with MET calls for suspected sepsis are not routinely seen by the AMS team, despite the use of broad-spectrum antimicrobial agents. Many of these patients are not flagged to the AMS team via the current practice, or referral via current notification mechanisms is often delayed. The intervention will be ongoing standard care as above, as well as an expert ID AMS review at 48 hours after a MET call for suspected sepsis.
Sponsors
Study design
Eligibility
Inclusion criteria
-Patients with MET calls for suspected sepsis, as identified by Riskman® reports (hospital risk management system) -First MET call only during the study period
Exclusion criteria
-Patients under the care of an ID physician -Patients who have already been seen by AMS post MET call, or will be seen on the day of randomisation as standard care (i.e. patients with electronic alerts for restricted antimicrobials or positive blood cultures) -Patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) within 48 hours post MET call -Patients with a limitation of care order prohibiting active treatment of sepsis