Hospitalist Maintenance of Certification Exam Prep Tool Available Online

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Hospitalist Maintenance of Certification Exam Prep Tool Available Online

Studying for the Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine Maintenance of Certification Exam? SHM’s new online test prep tool is now available!

SPARK is the only test prep resource designed specifically for hospitalists and the American Board of Internal Medicine Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine MOC exam. Unlike other test prep tools, this focuses on topics unique to the everyday practice of hospital medicine, including:

  • Palliative care, medical ethics, and decision-making;
  • Peri-operative care and consultative co-management; and
  • Quality, safety, and clinical reasoning.

SPARK gives hospitalists the peace of mind that comes with knowing they are ready for the MOC exam; it features 175 vignette-style, single best answer, multiple-choice questions, complete with answers, discussion, reasoning, references, and quizzing capabilities. This new resource provides targeted study areas to supplement other educational material.

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2015(10)
Publications
Sections

Studying for the Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine Maintenance of Certification Exam? SHM’s new online test prep tool is now available!

SPARK is the only test prep resource designed specifically for hospitalists and the American Board of Internal Medicine Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine MOC exam. Unlike other test prep tools, this focuses on topics unique to the everyday practice of hospital medicine, including:

  • Palliative care, medical ethics, and decision-making;
  • Peri-operative care and consultative co-management; and
  • Quality, safety, and clinical reasoning.

SPARK gives hospitalists the peace of mind that comes with knowing they are ready for the MOC exam; it features 175 vignette-style, single best answer, multiple-choice questions, complete with answers, discussion, reasoning, references, and quizzing capabilities. This new resource provides targeted study areas to supplement other educational material.

Studying for the Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine Maintenance of Certification Exam? SHM’s new online test prep tool is now available!

SPARK is the only test prep resource designed specifically for hospitalists and the American Board of Internal Medicine Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine MOC exam. Unlike other test prep tools, this focuses on topics unique to the everyday practice of hospital medicine, including:

  • Palliative care, medical ethics, and decision-making;
  • Peri-operative care and consultative co-management; and
  • Quality, safety, and clinical reasoning.

SPARK gives hospitalists the peace of mind that comes with knowing they are ready for the MOC exam; it features 175 vignette-style, single best answer, multiple-choice questions, complete with answers, discussion, reasoning, references, and quizzing capabilities. This new resource provides targeted study areas to supplement other educational material.

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2015(10)
Issue
The Hospitalist - 2015(10)
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
Hospitalist Maintenance of Certification Exam Prep Tool Available Online
Display Headline
Hospitalist Maintenance of Certification Exam Prep Tool Available Online
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)

Fellow, Senior Fellow in Hospital Medicine Applications Due November 15

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Fellow, Senior Fellow in Hospital Medicine Applications Due November 15

Get started today on your application for SHM’s other designations, Fellow in Hospital Medicine (FHM) and Senior Fellow in Hospital Medicine (SFHM). Don’t wait until the last minute; the application can take some time to assemble.

Click here to apply.

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2015(10)
Publications
Sections

Get started today on your application for SHM’s other designations, Fellow in Hospital Medicine (FHM) and Senior Fellow in Hospital Medicine (SFHM). Don’t wait until the last minute; the application can take some time to assemble.

Click here to apply.

Get started today on your application for SHM’s other designations, Fellow in Hospital Medicine (FHM) and Senior Fellow in Hospital Medicine (SFHM). Don’t wait until the last minute; the application can take some time to assemble.

Click here to apply.

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2015(10)
Issue
The Hospitalist - 2015(10)
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
Fellow, Senior Fellow in Hospital Medicine Applications Due November 15
Display Headline
Fellow, Senior Fellow in Hospital Medicine Applications Due November 15
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)

Hospitalists Can Earn CME Credits for Acute Coronary Syndrome Performance Improvement

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Hospitalists Can Earn CME Credits for Acute Coronary Syndrome Performance Improvement

Approximately 1.7 million patients are hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and 600,000 die of an acute myocardial infarction. Although ACS is a major cause of morbidity and mortality, a broad range of clinical strategies can affect outcomes if implemented effectively. In addition, quality improvement (QI) strategies implemented around ACS can improve performance on quality measures.

The ACS PI-CME is a self-directed, web-based activity designed to help you evaluate your practice. Participation is free. Upon completion of the activity, participants will receive 20 CME credits.

The educational interventions will be pragmatic and address the challenges faced by clinicians responsible for managing patient care. They include:

  • Etiology and diagnosis of ACS: educating the team on the pathophysiology of atherosclerotic plaque;
  • Inpatient treatment of ACS; and
  • Transitions of care for ACS patients.

Act today, because spaces are limited for this program. For more information, visit the QI section of SHM’s website.


Brendon Shank is SHM’s associate vice president of communications.ences (CHS) 13-105 10833 Le Conte Ave., Los Angeles, Calif.

The activity includes three stages:

  1. The user completes performance assessment and measurement through a self-evaluation and analysis of personal performance against patient data using five to 10 patient chart reviews.
  2. The user accesses a performance improvement pathway (PIP), builds an action plan for personal improvement, and completes interventions.
  3. The user completes both the self-assessment and the chart abstraction a second time, and the performance analysis tool provides healthcare professionals with a breakdown of their performance in Stage A as compared to Stage C.

Process measures include:

  • Percentage of patients receiving dual antiplatelet (aspirin<100 mg and a P2Y12);
  • Percentage of smokers receiving smoking cessation instructions;
  • Percentage of patients receiving cardiac risk assessment;
  • Compliance with documentation of communication with provider; and
  • Percentage of appointments with primary care physician within one week.

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2015(10)
Publications
Topics
Sections

Approximately 1.7 million patients are hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and 600,000 die of an acute myocardial infarction. Although ACS is a major cause of morbidity and mortality, a broad range of clinical strategies can affect outcomes if implemented effectively. In addition, quality improvement (QI) strategies implemented around ACS can improve performance on quality measures.

The ACS PI-CME is a self-directed, web-based activity designed to help you evaluate your practice. Participation is free. Upon completion of the activity, participants will receive 20 CME credits.

The educational interventions will be pragmatic and address the challenges faced by clinicians responsible for managing patient care. They include:

  • Etiology and diagnosis of ACS: educating the team on the pathophysiology of atherosclerotic plaque;
  • Inpatient treatment of ACS; and
  • Transitions of care for ACS patients.

Act today, because spaces are limited for this program. For more information, visit the QI section of SHM’s website.


Brendon Shank is SHM’s associate vice president of communications.ences (CHS) 13-105 10833 Le Conte Ave., Los Angeles, Calif.

The activity includes three stages:

  1. The user completes performance assessment and measurement through a self-evaluation and analysis of personal performance against patient data using five to 10 patient chart reviews.
  2. The user accesses a performance improvement pathway (PIP), builds an action plan for personal improvement, and completes interventions.
  3. The user completes both the self-assessment and the chart abstraction a second time, and the performance analysis tool provides healthcare professionals with a breakdown of their performance in Stage A as compared to Stage C.

Process measures include:

  • Percentage of patients receiving dual antiplatelet (aspirin<100 mg and a P2Y12);
  • Percentage of smokers receiving smoking cessation instructions;
  • Percentage of patients receiving cardiac risk assessment;
  • Compliance with documentation of communication with provider; and
  • Percentage of appointments with primary care physician within one week.

Approximately 1.7 million patients are hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and 600,000 die of an acute myocardial infarction. Although ACS is a major cause of morbidity and mortality, a broad range of clinical strategies can affect outcomes if implemented effectively. In addition, quality improvement (QI) strategies implemented around ACS can improve performance on quality measures.

The ACS PI-CME is a self-directed, web-based activity designed to help you evaluate your practice. Participation is free. Upon completion of the activity, participants will receive 20 CME credits.

The educational interventions will be pragmatic and address the challenges faced by clinicians responsible for managing patient care. They include:

  • Etiology and diagnosis of ACS: educating the team on the pathophysiology of atherosclerotic plaque;
  • Inpatient treatment of ACS; and
  • Transitions of care for ACS patients.

Act today, because spaces are limited for this program. For more information, visit the QI section of SHM’s website.


Brendon Shank is SHM’s associate vice president of communications.ences (CHS) 13-105 10833 Le Conte Ave., Los Angeles, Calif.

The activity includes three stages:

  1. The user completes performance assessment and measurement through a self-evaluation and analysis of personal performance against patient data using five to 10 patient chart reviews.
  2. The user accesses a performance improvement pathway (PIP), builds an action plan for personal improvement, and completes interventions.
  3. The user completes both the self-assessment and the chart abstraction a second time, and the performance analysis tool provides healthcare professionals with a breakdown of their performance in Stage A as compared to Stage C.

Process measures include:

  • Percentage of patients receiving dual antiplatelet (aspirin<100 mg and a P2Y12);
  • Percentage of smokers receiving smoking cessation instructions;
  • Percentage of patients receiving cardiac risk assessment;
  • Compliance with documentation of communication with provider; and
  • Percentage of appointments with primary care physician within one week.

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2015(10)
Issue
The Hospitalist - 2015(10)
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Hospitalists Can Earn CME Credits for Acute Coronary Syndrome Performance Improvement
Display Headline
Hospitalists Can Earn CME Credits for Acute Coronary Syndrome Performance Improvement
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)

Society of Hospital Medicine Hosts Future of Hospital Medicine Event Series

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Society of Hospital Medicine Hosts Future of Hospital Medicine Event Series

The Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) hosts a series of special events for students and residents on campuses throughout the country. Learn more about these networking receptions featuring nationally recognized hospitalists speaking on careers in hospital medicine.

Jefferson University Hospital

Oct. 21, 5-6:30 p.m.

Bluemle Life Sciences Building, Room 101

233 South 10th Street, Philadelphia, Pa.


University of California at Los Angeles

October 22, noon to 1:15 p.m.

David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA Center for Health Sciences (CHS) 13-105

10833 Le Conte Ave., Los Angeles, Calif.

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2015(10)
Publications
Sections

The Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) hosts a series of special events for students and residents on campuses throughout the country. Learn more about these networking receptions featuring nationally recognized hospitalists speaking on careers in hospital medicine.

Jefferson University Hospital

Oct. 21, 5-6:30 p.m.

Bluemle Life Sciences Building, Room 101

233 South 10th Street, Philadelphia, Pa.


University of California at Los Angeles

October 22, noon to 1:15 p.m.

David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA Center for Health Sciences (CHS) 13-105

10833 Le Conte Ave., Los Angeles, Calif.

The Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) hosts a series of special events for students and residents on campuses throughout the country. Learn more about these networking receptions featuring nationally recognized hospitalists speaking on careers in hospital medicine.

Jefferson University Hospital

Oct. 21, 5-6:30 p.m.

Bluemle Life Sciences Building, Room 101

233 South 10th Street, Philadelphia, Pa.


University of California at Los Angeles

October 22, noon to 1:15 p.m.

David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA Center for Health Sciences (CHS) 13-105

10833 Le Conte Ave., Los Angeles, Calif.

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2015(10)
Issue
The Hospitalist - 2015(10)
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
Society of Hospital Medicine Hosts Future of Hospital Medicine Event Series
Display Headline
Society of Hospital Medicine Hosts Future of Hospital Medicine Event Series
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)

How Veterans Affairs Healthcare Services Are Like Accountable Care Organizations

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
How Veterans Affairs Healthcare Services Are Like Accountable Care Organizations

According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, an accountable care organization (ACO) is defined as a “group of doctors, hospitals, and other healthcare providers, who come together voluntarily to give coordinated high quality care to their Medicare patients.” The goal of an ACO is “to ensure that patients, especially chronically ill, get the right care at the right time, while avoiding unnecessary duplication of services and preventing medical errors.”

In many ways, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is similar to an ACO. While some of the veterans have Medicare, not all of them do. Across the nation, the VA has the infrastructure to deliver high quality care to our patients. Large medical centers that are affiliated with medical schools and academic teaching hospitals teach medical students and resident physicians to provide excellent care to our patients. To meet the needs of our patients in smaller cities or rural areas, community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs) deliver quality care to patients.

Our electronic medical record, called the Computerized Personal Record System (CPRS), links veterans nationally. A patient can be seen at the CBOC in Mansfield, Ohio, the Palo Alto VA medical center in California, and the Washington, D.C., VA medical center, and not have to worry about the physicians not having access to his medical information. This prevents physicians from ordering unnecessary radiographic studies, and it can decrease the chance of medication errors and polypharmacy.

The use of electronic consults, also known as eConsults, allows for faster access to specialists. After the PCP orders the patient’s chart, the specialist will review the information, provide recommendations to the PCP, and determine how quickly the patient needs to be seen by the specialist. This is important for our rural population, who will then have to make fewer trips to medical centers.

The Specialty Care Access Network-Extension of Community Healthcare Outcomes (SCAN-ECHO) project is another tool designed to assist our rural population. The program targets those who have diabetes, heart failure, and/or chronic pain. Patients travel to their CBOC and interact via the internet with the VA specialist located at a larger medical center, thereby reducing the number of long trips they must make to the medical center and the long waits they would normally have to endure to be seen by specialists.

Telehealth is another way the VA is coordinating high quality care for our veterans. In the comfort of their own homes, veterans upload weight, vitals, and blood glucose levels to assist physicians in monitoring and treating chronic medical conditions.

The VA also delivers highly quality care through its pharmacies. Electronic ordering of outpatient medications for patients is extremely easy; these medications can either be mailed home or made available for same day pick-up. Certain medications are restricted and require approval by specialists; however, when patients fulfill criteria for a nonformulary medication, it is easily accessible. In addition, the approval process is evidence-based, limiting the effect of pharmaceutical companies on patient care.

As a result of using the formulary process for medications, patients share in the savings through lower co-pays. Pharmacists participate in both antibiotic stewardship, as with inpatient vancomycin dosing, and in managing inpatient anticoagulation, which is often more reliable and less expensive than using physicians.

Through these and other programs, the VA ensures that patients receive the services they need in a thoughtful, evidence-based, and timely way.


Dr. Nemeth is a hospitalist at Louis Stokes VA Medical Center in Cleveland, Ohio, and assistant professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. He is a member of SHM’s Veterans Affairs Task Force.

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2015(10)
Publications
Sections

According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, an accountable care organization (ACO) is defined as a “group of doctors, hospitals, and other healthcare providers, who come together voluntarily to give coordinated high quality care to their Medicare patients.” The goal of an ACO is “to ensure that patients, especially chronically ill, get the right care at the right time, while avoiding unnecessary duplication of services and preventing medical errors.”

In many ways, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is similar to an ACO. While some of the veterans have Medicare, not all of them do. Across the nation, the VA has the infrastructure to deliver high quality care to our patients. Large medical centers that are affiliated with medical schools and academic teaching hospitals teach medical students and resident physicians to provide excellent care to our patients. To meet the needs of our patients in smaller cities or rural areas, community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs) deliver quality care to patients.

Our electronic medical record, called the Computerized Personal Record System (CPRS), links veterans nationally. A patient can be seen at the CBOC in Mansfield, Ohio, the Palo Alto VA medical center in California, and the Washington, D.C., VA medical center, and not have to worry about the physicians not having access to his medical information. This prevents physicians from ordering unnecessary radiographic studies, and it can decrease the chance of medication errors and polypharmacy.

The use of electronic consults, also known as eConsults, allows for faster access to specialists. After the PCP orders the patient’s chart, the specialist will review the information, provide recommendations to the PCP, and determine how quickly the patient needs to be seen by the specialist. This is important for our rural population, who will then have to make fewer trips to medical centers.

The Specialty Care Access Network-Extension of Community Healthcare Outcomes (SCAN-ECHO) project is another tool designed to assist our rural population. The program targets those who have diabetes, heart failure, and/or chronic pain. Patients travel to their CBOC and interact via the internet with the VA specialist located at a larger medical center, thereby reducing the number of long trips they must make to the medical center and the long waits they would normally have to endure to be seen by specialists.

Telehealth is another way the VA is coordinating high quality care for our veterans. In the comfort of their own homes, veterans upload weight, vitals, and blood glucose levels to assist physicians in monitoring and treating chronic medical conditions.

The VA also delivers highly quality care through its pharmacies. Electronic ordering of outpatient medications for patients is extremely easy; these medications can either be mailed home or made available for same day pick-up. Certain medications are restricted and require approval by specialists; however, when patients fulfill criteria for a nonformulary medication, it is easily accessible. In addition, the approval process is evidence-based, limiting the effect of pharmaceutical companies on patient care.

As a result of using the formulary process for medications, patients share in the savings through lower co-pays. Pharmacists participate in both antibiotic stewardship, as with inpatient vancomycin dosing, and in managing inpatient anticoagulation, which is often more reliable and less expensive than using physicians.

Through these and other programs, the VA ensures that patients receive the services they need in a thoughtful, evidence-based, and timely way.


Dr. Nemeth is a hospitalist at Louis Stokes VA Medical Center in Cleveland, Ohio, and assistant professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. He is a member of SHM’s Veterans Affairs Task Force.

According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, an accountable care organization (ACO) is defined as a “group of doctors, hospitals, and other healthcare providers, who come together voluntarily to give coordinated high quality care to their Medicare patients.” The goal of an ACO is “to ensure that patients, especially chronically ill, get the right care at the right time, while avoiding unnecessary duplication of services and preventing medical errors.”

In many ways, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is similar to an ACO. While some of the veterans have Medicare, not all of them do. Across the nation, the VA has the infrastructure to deliver high quality care to our patients. Large medical centers that are affiliated with medical schools and academic teaching hospitals teach medical students and resident physicians to provide excellent care to our patients. To meet the needs of our patients in smaller cities or rural areas, community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs) deliver quality care to patients.

Our electronic medical record, called the Computerized Personal Record System (CPRS), links veterans nationally. A patient can be seen at the CBOC in Mansfield, Ohio, the Palo Alto VA medical center in California, and the Washington, D.C., VA medical center, and not have to worry about the physicians not having access to his medical information. This prevents physicians from ordering unnecessary radiographic studies, and it can decrease the chance of medication errors and polypharmacy.

The use of electronic consults, also known as eConsults, allows for faster access to specialists. After the PCP orders the patient’s chart, the specialist will review the information, provide recommendations to the PCP, and determine how quickly the patient needs to be seen by the specialist. This is important for our rural population, who will then have to make fewer trips to medical centers.

The Specialty Care Access Network-Extension of Community Healthcare Outcomes (SCAN-ECHO) project is another tool designed to assist our rural population. The program targets those who have diabetes, heart failure, and/or chronic pain. Patients travel to their CBOC and interact via the internet with the VA specialist located at a larger medical center, thereby reducing the number of long trips they must make to the medical center and the long waits they would normally have to endure to be seen by specialists.

Telehealth is another way the VA is coordinating high quality care for our veterans. In the comfort of their own homes, veterans upload weight, vitals, and blood glucose levels to assist physicians in monitoring and treating chronic medical conditions.

The VA also delivers highly quality care through its pharmacies. Electronic ordering of outpatient medications for patients is extremely easy; these medications can either be mailed home or made available for same day pick-up. Certain medications are restricted and require approval by specialists; however, when patients fulfill criteria for a nonformulary medication, it is easily accessible. In addition, the approval process is evidence-based, limiting the effect of pharmaceutical companies on patient care.

As a result of using the formulary process for medications, patients share in the savings through lower co-pays. Pharmacists participate in both antibiotic stewardship, as with inpatient vancomycin dosing, and in managing inpatient anticoagulation, which is often more reliable and less expensive than using physicians.

Through these and other programs, the VA ensures that patients receive the services they need in a thoughtful, evidence-based, and timely way.


Dr. Nemeth is a hospitalist at Louis Stokes VA Medical Center in Cleveland, Ohio, and assistant professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. He is a member of SHM’s Veterans Affairs Task Force.

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2015(10)
Issue
The Hospitalist - 2015(10)
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
How Veterans Affairs Healthcare Services Are Like Accountable Care Organizations
Display Headline
How Veterans Affairs Healthcare Services Are Like Accountable Care Organizations
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)

Treating EBV-associated lymphomas with VSTs

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Treating EBV-associated lymphomas with VSTs

An EBV-infected cell (green/red)

among uninfected cells (blue)

Image by Benjamin

Chaigne-Delalande

NEW YORK—Type 2 Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) tumors, such as Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas, are challenging to treat with virus-specific T (VST) cells, according to researchers.

These lymphomas express a more restricted array of EBV antigens that are not particularly immunogenic.

Nevertheless, researchers are devising an approach using peptide mixtures to activate EBV VSTs for use in these patients.

Helen Heslop, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, described this work at the inaugural CRI-CIMT-EATI-AACR International Immunotherapy of Cancer Conference. She also described the researchers’ efforts to create off-the-shelf VSTs.

Dr Heslop explained that, in addition to the more restricted array of EBV antigens, EBV-associated tumors often produce inhibitory cytokines that can impede the activity of T cells.

So the researchers devised a strategy to expand these low-frequency clones by stimulating responding T cells with dendritic cells genetically modified with an ADV viral vector to overexpress LMP1 and LMP2. After multiple stimulations, they obtained an autologous product from the patient.

The team then tested the cytotoxic T cells in 21 patients with relapsed disease and in 29 patients as adjuvant therapy after stem cell transplant (n=14) or chemotherapy (n=15).

In the adjuvant arm, all patients but 1 remain in remission up to 5 years later.

In the relapsed arm, 11 had a complete response (CR), 2 had a partial response (PR), and 8 had progressive disease within 2 to 8 weeks.

“Importantly, there was no toxicity,” Dr Heslop said. “[A]ll were heavily pretreated with multiple lines of therapy for lymphoma, so I think the response rate is encouraging.”

An alternative approach: Pepmix-activated EBV VSTs

Although the antitumor effects of the above approach were encouraging, “we had a very complex manufacturing methodology that we didn’t think was sufficiently scaleable and robust for clinical studies,” Dr Heslop said.

“We also thought there would be potential regulatory issues with live EBV virus and the adenoviral vector,” she added.

And the researchers were concerned about the competition from the EBV/Ad-LMP dominant antigens.

So they devised an alternative approach using peptide mixture (pepmix)-activated EBVSTs.

This approach used autologous monocyte-derived dendritic cells as the antigen-presenting cells for the first stimulation.

The researchers pulsed them with overlapping peptides derived from 4 EBV antigens expressed in the tumors (EBV-LMP1, LMP2, EBNA1, and BARF1). They then expanded and opsonized the cells with IL-7 and IL-15.

For the second stimulation, the team used the T cells pulsed with the peptides and a K562 line pulsed with co-stimulatory molecules. And this process took 23 days, as opposed to the 2-3 months with the previous product.

The researchers have treated 9 patients with these EBVSTs as adjuvant therapy after autologous stem cell transplant. All patients remain in remission.

They also treated 6 patients with active disease. Two are in CR, 2 are in PR, and 2 have progressed.

This trial is ongoing, but the researchers believe that targeting the more challenging type 2 latency tumors with autologous cells can overcome T-cell anergy by using IL-7 and IL-15.

“Obviously, we need more numbers to know what the range of response is,” Dr Heslop said, although, at this early stage, it appears pepmix-activated T cells can produce antitumor responses.

.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

An EBV-infected cell (green/red)

among uninfected cells (blue)

Image by Benjamin

Chaigne-Delalande

NEW YORK—Type 2 Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) tumors, such as Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas, are challenging to treat with virus-specific T (VST) cells, according to researchers.

These lymphomas express a more restricted array of EBV antigens that are not particularly immunogenic.

Nevertheless, researchers are devising an approach using peptide mixtures to activate EBV VSTs for use in these patients.

Helen Heslop, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, described this work at the inaugural CRI-CIMT-EATI-AACR International Immunotherapy of Cancer Conference. She also described the researchers’ efforts to create off-the-shelf VSTs.

Dr Heslop explained that, in addition to the more restricted array of EBV antigens, EBV-associated tumors often produce inhibitory cytokines that can impede the activity of T cells.

So the researchers devised a strategy to expand these low-frequency clones by stimulating responding T cells with dendritic cells genetically modified with an ADV viral vector to overexpress LMP1 and LMP2. After multiple stimulations, they obtained an autologous product from the patient.

The team then tested the cytotoxic T cells in 21 patients with relapsed disease and in 29 patients as adjuvant therapy after stem cell transplant (n=14) or chemotherapy (n=15).

In the adjuvant arm, all patients but 1 remain in remission up to 5 years later.

In the relapsed arm, 11 had a complete response (CR), 2 had a partial response (PR), and 8 had progressive disease within 2 to 8 weeks.

“Importantly, there was no toxicity,” Dr Heslop said. “[A]ll were heavily pretreated with multiple lines of therapy for lymphoma, so I think the response rate is encouraging.”

An alternative approach: Pepmix-activated EBV VSTs

Although the antitumor effects of the above approach were encouraging, “we had a very complex manufacturing methodology that we didn’t think was sufficiently scaleable and robust for clinical studies,” Dr Heslop said.

“We also thought there would be potential regulatory issues with live EBV virus and the adenoviral vector,” she added.

And the researchers were concerned about the competition from the EBV/Ad-LMP dominant antigens.

So they devised an alternative approach using peptide mixture (pepmix)-activated EBVSTs.

This approach used autologous monocyte-derived dendritic cells as the antigen-presenting cells for the first stimulation.

The researchers pulsed them with overlapping peptides derived from 4 EBV antigens expressed in the tumors (EBV-LMP1, LMP2, EBNA1, and BARF1). They then expanded and opsonized the cells with IL-7 and IL-15.

For the second stimulation, the team used the T cells pulsed with the peptides and a K562 line pulsed with co-stimulatory molecules. And this process took 23 days, as opposed to the 2-3 months with the previous product.

The researchers have treated 9 patients with these EBVSTs as adjuvant therapy after autologous stem cell transplant. All patients remain in remission.

They also treated 6 patients with active disease. Two are in CR, 2 are in PR, and 2 have progressed.

This trial is ongoing, but the researchers believe that targeting the more challenging type 2 latency tumors with autologous cells can overcome T-cell anergy by using IL-7 and IL-15.

“Obviously, we need more numbers to know what the range of response is,” Dr Heslop said, although, at this early stage, it appears pepmix-activated T cells can produce antitumor responses.

.

An EBV-infected cell (green/red)

among uninfected cells (blue)

Image by Benjamin

Chaigne-Delalande

NEW YORK—Type 2 Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) tumors, such as Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas, are challenging to treat with virus-specific T (VST) cells, according to researchers.

These lymphomas express a more restricted array of EBV antigens that are not particularly immunogenic.

Nevertheless, researchers are devising an approach using peptide mixtures to activate EBV VSTs for use in these patients.

Helen Heslop, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, described this work at the inaugural CRI-CIMT-EATI-AACR International Immunotherapy of Cancer Conference. She also described the researchers’ efforts to create off-the-shelf VSTs.

Dr Heslop explained that, in addition to the more restricted array of EBV antigens, EBV-associated tumors often produce inhibitory cytokines that can impede the activity of T cells.

So the researchers devised a strategy to expand these low-frequency clones by stimulating responding T cells with dendritic cells genetically modified with an ADV viral vector to overexpress LMP1 and LMP2. After multiple stimulations, they obtained an autologous product from the patient.

The team then tested the cytotoxic T cells in 21 patients with relapsed disease and in 29 patients as adjuvant therapy after stem cell transplant (n=14) or chemotherapy (n=15).

In the adjuvant arm, all patients but 1 remain in remission up to 5 years later.

In the relapsed arm, 11 had a complete response (CR), 2 had a partial response (PR), and 8 had progressive disease within 2 to 8 weeks.

“Importantly, there was no toxicity,” Dr Heslop said. “[A]ll were heavily pretreated with multiple lines of therapy for lymphoma, so I think the response rate is encouraging.”

An alternative approach: Pepmix-activated EBV VSTs

Although the antitumor effects of the above approach were encouraging, “we had a very complex manufacturing methodology that we didn’t think was sufficiently scaleable and robust for clinical studies,” Dr Heslop said.

“We also thought there would be potential regulatory issues with live EBV virus and the adenoviral vector,” she added.

And the researchers were concerned about the competition from the EBV/Ad-LMP dominant antigens.

So they devised an alternative approach using peptide mixture (pepmix)-activated EBVSTs.

This approach used autologous monocyte-derived dendritic cells as the antigen-presenting cells for the first stimulation.

The researchers pulsed them with overlapping peptides derived from 4 EBV antigens expressed in the tumors (EBV-LMP1, LMP2, EBNA1, and BARF1). They then expanded and opsonized the cells with IL-7 and IL-15.

For the second stimulation, the team used the T cells pulsed with the peptides and a K562 line pulsed with co-stimulatory molecules. And this process took 23 days, as opposed to the 2-3 months with the previous product.

The researchers have treated 9 patients with these EBVSTs as adjuvant therapy after autologous stem cell transplant. All patients remain in remission.

They also treated 6 patients with active disease. Two are in CR, 2 are in PR, and 2 have progressed.

This trial is ongoing, but the researchers believe that targeting the more challenging type 2 latency tumors with autologous cells can overcome T-cell anergy by using IL-7 and IL-15.

“Obviously, we need more numbers to know what the range of response is,” Dr Heslop said, although, at this early stage, it appears pepmix-activated T cells can produce antitumor responses.

.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Treating EBV-associated lymphomas with VSTs
Display Headline
Treating EBV-associated lymphomas with VSTs
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Creating off-the-shelf VSTs

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Creating off-the-shelf VSTs

Helen Heslop, MD

Photo courtesy of Baylor

College of Medicine

NEW YORK—Researchers are creating virus-specific T cells (VST) to treat and prevent viral infections in patients who undergo hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

Thus far, the group has modified T cells with 5 viral vectors—Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), cytomegalovirus (CMV), adenovirus (ADV), BK virus (BKV), and human herpesvirus 6 (HHV6)—and are devising methods whereby these VSTs can be made readily available, off-the-shelf products.

Helen Heslop, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, described the efforts of the Baylor research team at the inaugural CRI-CIMT-EATI-AACR International Cancer Immunotherapy Conference.

The team’s tri-virus and 5-virus VST approaches have been described previously. Here, we focus on the team’s efforts to create an off-the-shelf product.

A companion story describes the team’s VST approach to treating type 2 EBV-associated lymphomas.

Despite promising results with these earlier methodologies both as prophylaxis and treatment after stem cell transplant, problems existed with the approaches that would impede broader implementation of VSTs.

“Most of these initial methodologies were complex,” Dr Heslop said.

And even though the production time of the 5-virus VSTs is only 10 days, it does not allow for urgent use.

To solve this problem, the researchers are developing VSTs as off-the-shelf, third-party banked cells for patients who don’t have the time to wait for donor-specific cells to be made.

“The strategy here is that we make lines that are well-characterized but are HLA-restricted and tied to specific viruses,” Dr Heslop said.

The cells are then cryopreserved so that they’re available, and patients receive VSTs according to their HLA type and the line that has suitable activity for their infections.

“We initially evaluated this approach through a multicenter study sponsored by the NHLBI [National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute],” Dr Heslop said.

Tri-virus approach

The researchers used the original tri-virus methodology, which was lengthy, “but, in this case, because the cells were already available, the time was not a major issue,” Dr Heslop said.

The team also made some new lines for donors with common alleles. In all, they had 32 lines available while the study was running.

They treated 50 patients: 23 received VSTs for CMV, 18 for ADV, and 9 for EBV.

One patient who had CMV colitis received the VSTs and had a complete response (CR), as evidenced by a normal endoscopy with no viral inclusions.

Another patient had EBV persistent after 6 doses of rituximab. One month after receiving the VST infusion, the patient had a CR, even though the cell line had only 1 class 2 allele. And the patient has sustained the CR for several years.

The overall response rate for the study is 74.0% at day 42 after infusion.

The response rate was not significantly different for each virus, Dr Heslop pointed out. Patients with CMV had a 73.9% response rate, those with EBV had a 66.7% response rate, and those with ADV had a 77.8% response rate.

“This is a little bit lower than with the donor-specific T cells, but I think it’s still a promising approach,” she added.

5-virus peptide mix

The researchers are now evaluating the more rapid, 5-virus peptide mix method for creating off-the-shelf VSTs.

This method replaced live viruses with overlapping peptide pools and added immunogenic antigens for 5 viruses, including BKV and HHV6. The process takes only 10 days to produce VSTs.

The team has identified a line for over 90% of the patients screened.

“That’s because we will accept a line that’s only matched at 1 HLA allele, as long as we have activity against the infecting virus through the shared allele,” Dr Heslop explained.

 

 

So they’re conducting a clinical trial using this method, and thus far, they have enrolled 22 patients. Sixteen patients have had 1 infusion, and 6 patients have had multiple infusions.

The 22 patients had 25 infections: 10 CMV, 10 BKV, 2 EBV, 2 ADV, and 1 HHV6.

The overall response rate is 88%. Nine of 10 responses in patients with BKV were partial because BK is difficult to clear from urine. However, the BK patients who had hemorrhagic cystitis all had symptomatic improvement.

Dr Heslop pointed out that these results are similar to those at other centers using EBV third-party T cells.

The initial third-party studies were done in Scotland and had a response rate of about 60%, which increased to around 80% in follow-up studies, where they characterized the T cells more extensively.

Both donor-specific and third-party VSTs have low toxicity, sustained response rates, and activity confirmed by studies in multiple centers.

Dr Heslop believes the rapid manufacturing methodologies will facilitate definitive clinical trials.

She said Cell Medica provided support for some of the trials with EBV tumors.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

Helen Heslop, MD

Photo courtesy of Baylor

College of Medicine

NEW YORK—Researchers are creating virus-specific T cells (VST) to treat and prevent viral infections in patients who undergo hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

Thus far, the group has modified T cells with 5 viral vectors—Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), cytomegalovirus (CMV), adenovirus (ADV), BK virus (BKV), and human herpesvirus 6 (HHV6)—and are devising methods whereby these VSTs can be made readily available, off-the-shelf products.

Helen Heslop, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, described the efforts of the Baylor research team at the inaugural CRI-CIMT-EATI-AACR International Cancer Immunotherapy Conference.

The team’s tri-virus and 5-virus VST approaches have been described previously. Here, we focus on the team’s efforts to create an off-the-shelf product.

A companion story describes the team’s VST approach to treating type 2 EBV-associated lymphomas.

Despite promising results with these earlier methodologies both as prophylaxis and treatment after stem cell transplant, problems existed with the approaches that would impede broader implementation of VSTs.

“Most of these initial methodologies were complex,” Dr Heslop said.

And even though the production time of the 5-virus VSTs is only 10 days, it does not allow for urgent use.

To solve this problem, the researchers are developing VSTs as off-the-shelf, third-party banked cells for patients who don’t have the time to wait for donor-specific cells to be made.

“The strategy here is that we make lines that are well-characterized but are HLA-restricted and tied to specific viruses,” Dr Heslop said.

The cells are then cryopreserved so that they’re available, and patients receive VSTs according to their HLA type and the line that has suitable activity for their infections.

“We initially evaluated this approach through a multicenter study sponsored by the NHLBI [National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute],” Dr Heslop said.

Tri-virus approach

The researchers used the original tri-virus methodology, which was lengthy, “but, in this case, because the cells were already available, the time was not a major issue,” Dr Heslop said.

The team also made some new lines for donors with common alleles. In all, they had 32 lines available while the study was running.

They treated 50 patients: 23 received VSTs for CMV, 18 for ADV, and 9 for EBV.

One patient who had CMV colitis received the VSTs and had a complete response (CR), as evidenced by a normal endoscopy with no viral inclusions.

Another patient had EBV persistent after 6 doses of rituximab. One month after receiving the VST infusion, the patient had a CR, even though the cell line had only 1 class 2 allele. And the patient has sustained the CR for several years.

The overall response rate for the study is 74.0% at day 42 after infusion.

The response rate was not significantly different for each virus, Dr Heslop pointed out. Patients with CMV had a 73.9% response rate, those with EBV had a 66.7% response rate, and those with ADV had a 77.8% response rate.

“This is a little bit lower than with the donor-specific T cells, but I think it’s still a promising approach,” she added.

5-virus peptide mix

The researchers are now evaluating the more rapid, 5-virus peptide mix method for creating off-the-shelf VSTs.

This method replaced live viruses with overlapping peptide pools and added immunogenic antigens for 5 viruses, including BKV and HHV6. The process takes only 10 days to produce VSTs.

The team has identified a line for over 90% of the patients screened.

“That’s because we will accept a line that’s only matched at 1 HLA allele, as long as we have activity against the infecting virus through the shared allele,” Dr Heslop explained.

 

 

So they’re conducting a clinical trial using this method, and thus far, they have enrolled 22 patients. Sixteen patients have had 1 infusion, and 6 patients have had multiple infusions.

The 22 patients had 25 infections: 10 CMV, 10 BKV, 2 EBV, 2 ADV, and 1 HHV6.

The overall response rate is 88%. Nine of 10 responses in patients with BKV were partial because BK is difficult to clear from urine. However, the BK patients who had hemorrhagic cystitis all had symptomatic improvement.

Dr Heslop pointed out that these results are similar to those at other centers using EBV third-party T cells.

The initial third-party studies were done in Scotland and had a response rate of about 60%, which increased to around 80% in follow-up studies, where they characterized the T cells more extensively.

Both donor-specific and third-party VSTs have low toxicity, sustained response rates, and activity confirmed by studies in multiple centers.

Dr Heslop believes the rapid manufacturing methodologies will facilitate definitive clinical trials.

She said Cell Medica provided support for some of the trials with EBV tumors.

Helen Heslop, MD

Photo courtesy of Baylor

College of Medicine

NEW YORK—Researchers are creating virus-specific T cells (VST) to treat and prevent viral infections in patients who undergo hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

Thus far, the group has modified T cells with 5 viral vectors—Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), cytomegalovirus (CMV), adenovirus (ADV), BK virus (BKV), and human herpesvirus 6 (HHV6)—and are devising methods whereby these VSTs can be made readily available, off-the-shelf products.

Helen Heslop, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, described the efforts of the Baylor research team at the inaugural CRI-CIMT-EATI-AACR International Cancer Immunotherapy Conference.

The team’s tri-virus and 5-virus VST approaches have been described previously. Here, we focus on the team’s efforts to create an off-the-shelf product.

A companion story describes the team’s VST approach to treating type 2 EBV-associated lymphomas.

Despite promising results with these earlier methodologies both as prophylaxis and treatment after stem cell transplant, problems existed with the approaches that would impede broader implementation of VSTs.

“Most of these initial methodologies were complex,” Dr Heslop said.

And even though the production time of the 5-virus VSTs is only 10 days, it does not allow for urgent use.

To solve this problem, the researchers are developing VSTs as off-the-shelf, third-party banked cells for patients who don’t have the time to wait for donor-specific cells to be made.

“The strategy here is that we make lines that are well-characterized but are HLA-restricted and tied to specific viruses,” Dr Heslop said.

The cells are then cryopreserved so that they’re available, and patients receive VSTs according to their HLA type and the line that has suitable activity for their infections.

“We initially evaluated this approach through a multicenter study sponsored by the NHLBI [National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute],” Dr Heslop said.

Tri-virus approach

The researchers used the original tri-virus methodology, which was lengthy, “but, in this case, because the cells were already available, the time was not a major issue,” Dr Heslop said.

The team also made some new lines for donors with common alleles. In all, they had 32 lines available while the study was running.

They treated 50 patients: 23 received VSTs for CMV, 18 for ADV, and 9 for EBV.

One patient who had CMV colitis received the VSTs and had a complete response (CR), as evidenced by a normal endoscopy with no viral inclusions.

Another patient had EBV persistent after 6 doses of rituximab. One month after receiving the VST infusion, the patient had a CR, even though the cell line had only 1 class 2 allele. And the patient has sustained the CR for several years.

The overall response rate for the study is 74.0% at day 42 after infusion.

The response rate was not significantly different for each virus, Dr Heslop pointed out. Patients with CMV had a 73.9% response rate, those with EBV had a 66.7% response rate, and those with ADV had a 77.8% response rate.

“This is a little bit lower than with the donor-specific T cells, but I think it’s still a promising approach,” she added.

5-virus peptide mix

The researchers are now evaluating the more rapid, 5-virus peptide mix method for creating off-the-shelf VSTs.

This method replaced live viruses with overlapping peptide pools and added immunogenic antigens for 5 viruses, including BKV and HHV6. The process takes only 10 days to produce VSTs.

The team has identified a line for over 90% of the patients screened.

“That’s because we will accept a line that’s only matched at 1 HLA allele, as long as we have activity against the infecting virus through the shared allele,” Dr Heslop explained.

 

 

So they’re conducting a clinical trial using this method, and thus far, they have enrolled 22 patients. Sixteen patients have had 1 infusion, and 6 patients have had multiple infusions.

The 22 patients had 25 infections: 10 CMV, 10 BKV, 2 EBV, 2 ADV, and 1 HHV6.

The overall response rate is 88%. Nine of 10 responses in patients with BKV were partial because BK is difficult to clear from urine. However, the BK patients who had hemorrhagic cystitis all had symptomatic improvement.

Dr Heslop pointed out that these results are similar to those at other centers using EBV third-party T cells.

The initial third-party studies were done in Scotland and had a response rate of about 60%, which increased to around 80% in follow-up studies, where they characterized the T cells more extensively.

Both donor-specific and third-party VSTs have low toxicity, sustained response rates, and activity confirmed by studies in multiple centers.

Dr Heslop believes the rapid manufacturing methodologies will facilitate definitive clinical trials.

She said Cell Medica provided support for some of the trials with EBV tumors.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Creating off-the-shelf VSTs
Display Headline
Creating off-the-shelf VSTs
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Patients may need anticoagulation

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Patients may need anticoagulation

Warfarin tablets

A new study suggests that certain patients with bioprosthetic aortic heart valves may require anticoagulant therapy.

In some patients, researchers observed reduced motion of the leaflets affecting the valve opening.

The team believes this may be a sign of subclinical leaflet thrombosis, particularly since anticoagulant therapy was able to restore leaflet motion.

The researchers described this study in NEJM.

“Transcatheter and surgically implantable tissue valves are life-saving devices in patients with aortic valve stenosis,” said study author Raj Makkar, MD, of the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute in Los Angeles, California.

“These findings allow us a potentially valuable opportunity to further optimize the outcomes of these procedures. We are not recommending that all patients with these devices be on blood thinners, but, clearly, further studies need to be done to define best medication regimens.”

Dr Makkar and his colleagues began this research when a clinical trial participant with a bioprosthetic aortic heart valve had a stroke. High-resolution imaging revealed reduced motion of the leaflets that open and close to regulate the flow of blood.

“We wanted to find out if patients undergoing a tissue valve procedure are susceptible to blood clots on the leaflets and study the clinical consequences of the same,” Dr Makkar said.

“We also wanted to understand whether our aortic valve patients were more susceptible to having blood clots and whether those clots could indicate that the patient might experience a neurological complication—a mini-stroke.”

So Dr Makkar and his colleagues analyzed 187 patients who received a new valve via a transcatheter procedure or open-heart surgery—55 patients in a trial and 132 patients enrolled in registries.

All patients underwent high-resolution imaging—4-dimensional CT angiography—so the researchers could detect reduced leaflet motion.

Overall, 20% of patients (39/187) had reduced leaflet motion—40% in the trial (22/55) and 13% (17/132) in the registries. This included patients with multiple bioprosthesis types.

The researchers observed a lower incidence of reduced leaflet motion in patients receiving anticoagulant therapy.

The incidence was significantly lower in patients on warfarin than in those receiving dual antiplatelet therapy. It was 0% and 55%, respectively, in the clinical trial (P=0.01) and 0% and 29%, respectively, in the registry patients (P=0.04).

Dr Makkar and his colleagues also re-evaluated a handful of patients who underwent a follow-up CT—11 who were receiving anticoagulation and 10 who were not. Leaflet motion was restored in all 11 treated patients and 1 of the untreated patients (P<0.001).

Lastly, there was some suggestion that the incidence of stroke or transient ischemic attacks might be higher among patients with reduced valve motion. But the researchers said this finding was inconclusive and requires further study.

Publications
Topics

Warfarin tablets

A new study suggests that certain patients with bioprosthetic aortic heart valves may require anticoagulant therapy.

In some patients, researchers observed reduced motion of the leaflets affecting the valve opening.

The team believes this may be a sign of subclinical leaflet thrombosis, particularly since anticoagulant therapy was able to restore leaflet motion.

The researchers described this study in NEJM.

“Transcatheter and surgically implantable tissue valves are life-saving devices in patients with aortic valve stenosis,” said study author Raj Makkar, MD, of the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute in Los Angeles, California.

“These findings allow us a potentially valuable opportunity to further optimize the outcomes of these procedures. We are not recommending that all patients with these devices be on blood thinners, but, clearly, further studies need to be done to define best medication regimens.”

Dr Makkar and his colleagues began this research when a clinical trial participant with a bioprosthetic aortic heart valve had a stroke. High-resolution imaging revealed reduced motion of the leaflets that open and close to regulate the flow of blood.

“We wanted to find out if patients undergoing a tissue valve procedure are susceptible to blood clots on the leaflets and study the clinical consequences of the same,” Dr Makkar said.

“We also wanted to understand whether our aortic valve patients were more susceptible to having blood clots and whether those clots could indicate that the patient might experience a neurological complication—a mini-stroke.”

So Dr Makkar and his colleagues analyzed 187 patients who received a new valve via a transcatheter procedure or open-heart surgery—55 patients in a trial and 132 patients enrolled in registries.

All patients underwent high-resolution imaging—4-dimensional CT angiography—so the researchers could detect reduced leaflet motion.

Overall, 20% of patients (39/187) had reduced leaflet motion—40% in the trial (22/55) and 13% (17/132) in the registries. This included patients with multiple bioprosthesis types.

The researchers observed a lower incidence of reduced leaflet motion in patients receiving anticoagulant therapy.

The incidence was significantly lower in patients on warfarin than in those receiving dual antiplatelet therapy. It was 0% and 55%, respectively, in the clinical trial (P=0.01) and 0% and 29%, respectively, in the registry patients (P=0.04).

Dr Makkar and his colleagues also re-evaluated a handful of patients who underwent a follow-up CT—11 who were receiving anticoagulation and 10 who were not. Leaflet motion was restored in all 11 treated patients and 1 of the untreated patients (P<0.001).

Lastly, there was some suggestion that the incidence of stroke or transient ischemic attacks might be higher among patients with reduced valve motion. But the researchers said this finding was inconclusive and requires further study.

Warfarin tablets

A new study suggests that certain patients with bioprosthetic aortic heart valves may require anticoagulant therapy.

In some patients, researchers observed reduced motion of the leaflets affecting the valve opening.

The team believes this may be a sign of subclinical leaflet thrombosis, particularly since anticoagulant therapy was able to restore leaflet motion.

The researchers described this study in NEJM.

“Transcatheter and surgically implantable tissue valves are life-saving devices in patients with aortic valve stenosis,” said study author Raj Makkar, MD, of the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute in Los Angeles, California.

“These findings allow us a potentially valuable opportunity to further optimize the outcomes of these procedures. We are not recommending that all patients with these devices be on blood thinners, but, clearly, further studies need to be done to define best medication regimens.”

Dr Makkar and his colleagues began this research when a clinical trial participant with a bioprosthetic aortic heart valve had a stroke. High-resolution imaging revealed reduced motion of the leaflets that open and close to regulate the flow of blood.

“We wanted to find out if patients undergoing a tissue valve procedure are susceptible to blood clots on the leaflets and study the clinical consequences of the same,” Dr Makkar said.

“We also wanted to understand whether our aortic valve patients were more susceptible to having blood clots and whether those clots could indicate that the patient might experience a neurological complication—a mini-stroke.”

So Dr Makkar and his colleagues analyzed 187 patients who received a new valve via a transcatheter procedure or open-heart surgery—55 patients in a trial and 132 patients enrolled in registries.

All patients underwent high-resolution imaging—4-dimensional CT angiography—so the researchers could detect reduced leaflet motion.

Overall, 20% of patients (39/187) had reduced leaflet motion—40% in the trial (22/55) and 13% (17/132) in the registries. This included patients with multiple bioprosthesis types.

The researchers observed a lower incidence of reduced leaflet motion in patients receiving anticoagulant therapy.

The incidence was significantly lower in patients on warfarin than in those receiving dual antiplatelet therapy. It was 0% and 55%, respectively, in the clinical trial (P=0.01) and 0% and 29%, respectively, in the registry patients (P=0.04).

Dr Makkar and his colleagues also re-evaluated a handful of patients who underwent a follow-up CT—11 who were receiving anticoagulation and 10 who were not. Leaflet motion was restored in all 11 treated patients and 1 of the untreated patients (P<0.001).

Lastly, there was some suggestion that the incidence of stroke or transient ischemic attacks might be higher among patients with reduced valve motion. But the researchers said this finding was inconclusive and requires further study.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Patients may need anticoagulation
Display Headline
Patients may need anticoagulation
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Trio wins Nobel Prize for parasite-related discoveries

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Trio wins Nobel Prize for parasite-related discoveries

Youyou Tu

Three researchers have won the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for discoveries related to parasitic diseases.

One half of the prize was awarded to Youyou Tu for discoveries concerning a novel therapy against malaria—artemisinin.

The other half of the prize was awarded to William C. Campbell, PhD, and Satoshi Ōmura, PhD, for their discoveries concerning a novel therapy against infections caused by roundworm parasites.

Drs Ōmura and Campbell discovered the drug avermectin. A derivative of this drug has lowered the incidence of river blindness and lymphatic filariasis and demonstrated efficacy against other parasitic diseases.

Artemisinin

Before artemisinin came into use, malaria was treated with chloroquine or quinine—with declining success. By the late 1960s, efforts to eradicate malaria had failed, and the disease was on the rise.

At that time, Tu turned to traditional herbal medicine to tackle the challenge of developing novel malaria therapies. From a large-scale screen of herbal remedies in malaria-infected animals, an extract from the plant Artemisia annua emerged as an interesting candidate.

However, the results were inconsistent. So Tu revisited the ancient literature and discovered clues that guided her in her quest to extract the active component from Artemisia annua. Tu was the first to show that this component, later called artemisinin, was effective against the malaria parasite in animals and humans.

Artemisinin is now used in all malaria-ridden parts of the world. When used in combination therapy, it is estimated to reduce mortality from malaria by more than 20% overall and by more than 30% in children.

Avermectin

The discovery of avermectin began with Streptomyces, bacteria that live in the soil and are known to produce agents with antibacterial activities.

Dr Ōmura isolated new strains of Streptomyces from soil samples and cultured them in the lab. He selected about 50 of the most promising cultures to analyze for their activity against harmful microorganisms. One of these cultures turned out to be Streptomyces avermitilis, the source of avermectin.

Dr Campbell acquired Dr Ōmura’s Streptomyces cultures and explored their efficacy. Dr Campbell showed that a component from one of the cultures could combat parasites in domestic and farm animals.

The bioactive agent was purified and named avermectin. It was subsequently modified to a more effective compound called ivermectin. Ivermectin turned out to be effective against a variety of parasites, including those that cause river blindness and lymphatic filariasis.

Today, ivermectin is used in all parts of the world that are plagued by parasitic diseases. The drug has proven effective against a range of parasites and has limited side effects. Thanks to ivermectin, river blindness and lymphatic filariasis are on the verge of eradication.

About the winners

Youyou Tu was born in 1930 in China. She graduated from Beijing Medical University in 1955. Tu has worked at the China Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine since 1965. She has been chief professor there since 2000.

William C. Campbell was born in 1930 in Ramelton, Ireland. He received a BA from Trinity College, University of Dublin, in Ireland in 1952. He received a PhD from the University of Wisconsin in Madison, Wisconsin, in 1957.

From 1957 to 1990, Dr Campbell was with the Merck Institute for Therapeutic Research, from 1984 to 1990 as a senior scientist and director for assay research and development. Dr Campbell is currently a research fellow emeritus at Drew University in Madison, New Jersey.

Satoshi Ōmura was born in 1935 in the Yamanashi Prefecture, Japan. He received a PhD in pharmaceutical sciences in 1968 from the University of Tokyo and a PhD in chemistry in 1970 from Tokyo University of Science.

 

 

Dr Ōmura was a researcher at the Kitasato Institute in Japan from 1965 to 1971 and a professor at Kitasato University from 1975 to 2007. Since 2007, Dr Ōmura has been a professor emeritus at Kitasato University.

Publications
Topics

Youyou Tu

Three researchers have won the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for discoveries related to parasitic diseases.

One half of the prize was awarded to Youyou Tu for discoveries concerning a novel therapy against malaria—artemisinin.

The other half of the prize was awarded to William C. Campbell, PhD, and Satoshi Ōmura, PhD, for their discoveries concerning a novel therapy against infections caused by roundworm parasites.

Drs Ōmura and Campbell discovered the drug avermectin. A derivative of this drug has lowered the incidence of river blindness and lymphatic filariasis and demonstrated efficacy against other parasitic diseases.

Artemisinin

Before artemisinin came into use, malaria was treated with chloroquine or quinine—with declining success. By the late 1960s, efforts to eradicate malaria had failed, and the disease was on the rise.

At that time, Tu turned to traditional herbal medicine to tackle the challenge of developing novel malaria therapies. From a large-scale screen of herbal remedies in malaria-infected animals, an extract from the plant Artemisia annua emerged as an interesting candidate.

However, the results were inconsistent. So Tu revisited the ancient literature and discovered clues that guided her in her quest to extract the active component from Artemisia annua. Tu was the first to show that this component, later called artemisinin, was effective against the malaria parasite in animals and humans.

Artemisinin is now used in all malaria-ridden parts of the world. When used in combination therapy, it is estimated to reduce mortality from malaria by more than 20% overall and by more than 30% in children.

Avermectin

The discovery of avermectin began with Streptomyces, bacteria that live in the soil and are known to produce agents with antibacterial activities.

Dr Ōmura isolated new strains of Streptomyces from soil samples and cultured them in the lab. He selected about 50 of the most promising cultures to analyze for their activity against harmful microorganisms. One of these cultures turned out to be Streptomyces avermitilis, the source of avermectin.

Dr Campbell acquired Dr Ōmura’s Streptomyces cultures and explored their efficacy. Dr Campbell showed that a component from one of the cultures could combat parasites in domestic and farm animals.

The bioactive agent was purified and named avermectin. It was subsequently modified to a more effective compound called ivermectin. Ivermectin turned out to be effective against a variety of parasites, including those that cause river blindness and lymphatic filariasis.

Today, ivermectin is used in all parts of the world that are plagued by parasitic diseases. The drug has proven effective against a range of parasites and has limited side effects. Thanks to ivermectin, river blindness and lymphatic filariasis are on the verge of eradication.

About the winners

Youyou Tu was born in 1930 in China. She graduated from Beijing Medical University in 1955. Tu has worked at the China Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine since 1965. She has been chief professor there since 2000.

William C. Campbell was born in 1930 in Ramelton, Ireland. He received a BA from Trinity College, University of Dublin, in Ireland in 1952. He received a PhD from the University of Wisconsin in Madison, Wisconsin, in 1957.

From 1957 to 1990, Dr Campbell was with the Merck Institute for Therapeutic Research, from 1984 to 1990 as a senior scientist and director for assay research and development. Dr Campbell is currently a research fellow emeritus at Drew University in Madison, New Jersey.

Satoshi Ōmura was born in 1935 in the Yamanashi Prefecture, Japan. He received a PhD in pharmaceutical sciences in 1968 from the University of Tokyo and a PhD in chemistry in 1970 from Tokyo University of Science.

 

 

Dr Ōmura was a researcher at the Kitasato Institute in Japan from 1965 to 1971 and a professor at Kitasato University from 1975 to 2007. Since 2007, Dr Ōmura has been a professor emeritus at Kitasato University.

Youyou Tu

Three researchers have won the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for discoveries related to parasitic diseases.

One half of the prize was awarded to Youyou Tu for discoveries concerning a novel therapy against malaria—artemisinin.

The other half of the prize was awarded to William C. Campbell, PhD, and Satoshi Ōmura, PhD, for their discoveries concerning a novel therapy against infections caused by roundworm parasites.

Drs Ōmura and Campbell discovered the drug avermectin. A derivative of this drug has lowered the incidence of river blindness and lymphatic filariasis and demonstrated efficacy against other parasitic diseases.

Artemisinin

Before artemisinin came into use, malaria was treated with chloroquine or quinine—with declining success. By the late 1960s, efforts to eradicate malaria had failed, and the disease was on the rise.

At that time, Tu turned to traditional herbal medicine to tackle the challenge of developing novel malaria therapies. From a large-scale screen of herbal remedies in malaria-infected animals, an extract from the plant Artemisia annua emerged as an interesting candidate.

However, the results were inconsistent. So Tu revisited the ancient literature and discovered clues that guided her in her quest to extract the active component from Artemisia annua. Tu was the first to show that this component, later called artemisinin, was effective against the malaria parasite in animals and humans.

Artemisinin is now used in all malaria-ridden parts of the world. When used in combination therapy, it is estimated to reduce mortality from malaria by more than 20% overall and by more than 30% in children.

Avermectin

The discovery of avermectin began with Streptomyces, bacteria that live in the soil and are known to produce agents with antibacterial activities.

Dr Ōmura isolated new strains of Streptomyces from soil samples and cultured them in the lab. He selected about 50 of the most promising cultures to analyze for their activity against harmful microorganisms. One of these cultures turned out to be Streptomyces avermitilis, the source of avermectin.

Dr Campbell acquired Dr Ōmura’s Streptomyces cultures and explored their efficacy. Dr Campbell showed that a component from one of the cultures could combat parasites in domestic and farm animals.

The bioactive agent was purified and named avermectin. It was subsequently modified to a more effective compound called ivermectin. Ivermectin turned out to be effective against a variety of parasites, including those that cause river blindness and lymphatic filariasis.

Today, ivermectin is used in all parts of the world that are plagued by parasitic diseases. The drug has proven effective against a range of parasites and has limited side effects. Thanks to ivermectin, river blindness and lymphatic filariasis are on the verge of eradication.

About the winners

Youyou Tu was born in 1930 in China. She graduated from Beijing Medical University in 1955. Tu has worked at the China Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine since 1965. She has been chief professor there since 2000.

William C. Campbell was born in 1930 in Ramelton, Ireland. He received a BA from Trinity College, University of Dublin, in Ireland in 1952. He received a PhD from the University of Wisconsin in Madison, Wisconsin, in 1957.

From 1957 to 1990, Dr Campbell was with the Merck Institute for Therapeutic Research, from 1984 to 1990 as a senior scientist and director for assay research and development. Dr Campbell is currently a research fellow emeritus at Drew University in Madison, New Jersey.

Satoshi Ōmura was born in 1935 in the Yamanashi Prefecture, Japan. He received a PhD in pharmaceutical sciences in 1968 from the University of Tokyo and a PhD in chemistry in 1970 from Tokyo University of Science.

 

 

Dr Ōmura was a researcher at the Kitasato Institute in Japan from 1965 to 1971 and a professor at Kitasato University from 1975 to 2007. Since 2007, Dr Ōmura has been a professor emeritus at Kitasato University.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Trio wins Nobel Prize for parasite-related discoveries
Display Headline
Trio wins Nobel Prize for parasite-related discoveries
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Guideline‐Concordant Antibiotic Use

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Barriers to guideline‐concordant antibiotic use among inpatient physicians: A case vignette qualitative study

Clinical guidelines are prevalent in the field of medicine, but physicians do not consistently provide guideline‐concordant care. Nonadherence to guidelines has been documented for a variety of clinical conditions, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,[1, 2] pain management,[3, 4] and major depressive disorder.[5, 6]

Although several professional societies, including the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), have developed and disseminated guidelines on antibiotic use, adherence to antibiotic‐prescribing guidelines is inconsistent. Several studies have documented inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for specific infections, including acute respiratory infections,[7, 8, 9] cellulitis,[10, 11] and asymptomatic bacteriuria.[12, 13]

Improving adherence to guidelines on antibiotic use could have several benefits. For certain infections, guideline adherence has been shown to improve patient outcomes and reduce resource utilization.[10, 14, 15] In general, guidelines promote more judicious use of antibiotics by clarifying when an antibiotic is indicated, which antibiotics to prescribe, and duration of antibiotic therapy. The more judicious use of antibiotics decreases a given patient's risk of developing an antibiotic‐resistant infection and Clostridium difficileassociated diarrhea.[16] Judicious antibiotic use will also have societal benefits by slowing the spread of antibiotic‐resistant bacteria.

As part of a local effort to improve antibiotic use, we decided to present physicians with hypothetical cases of common clinical scenarios to identify barriers to following antibiotic‐prescribing guidelines. Previous investigators have used case vignettes to assess the quality of care physicians provide, including decisions about antibiotics.[17, 18, 19, 20, 21] We used case vignettes to assess physicians' familiarity with and acceptance of IDSA guidelines for 3 common infectious conditions: skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI), suspected hospital‐acquired pneumonia (HAP), and asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB). The findings from our project were intended to inform local interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing.

METHODS

All interviews were conducted at 2 acute care hospitals in Indianapolis, Indiana: Sidney and Lois Eskenazi Hospital and the Richard Roudebush Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC). Eskenazi Hospital is a 316‐bed safety‐net hospital for Marion County, Indiana. The Roudebush VAMC is a 209‐bed tertiary care facility that provides comprehensive medical care for 85,000 veterans. Both hospitals are academically affiliated with Indiana University's School of Medicine.

Both hospitals have empiric antibiotic‐prescribing guidelines printed in their annual antibiograms. These guidelines, developed by each hospital's pharmacy department and the local infectious disease (ID) physicians, are distributed annually as a pocket booklet. During this study, an antibiotic stewardship program was active at hospital A but not hospital B. As part of this program at hospital A, an ID physician reviewed inpatients on antibiotics twice a week and, with the help of inpatient team pharmacists, provided feedback to the frontline prescribers.

For this study, inpatient physicians who prescribe antibiotics at either facility were invited to participate in a 30‐minute confidential interview about their antibiotic‐prescribing habits. All invitations were sent through electronic mail. The target enrollment was 30 physicians, which is consistent with prior literature on qualitative sampling.[22] Sampling was purposeful to recruit a heterogeneous group of participants from both hospital sites. Although such a sampling strategy precluded us from making conclusions about individual subgroups, our intention was to obtain the broadest range of information and perspectives, thereby challenging our own preconceived understandings and biases.

The protocol and conduct of this study were reviewed and approved by the Indiana University Institutional Review Board. Participants read and provided signed informed consent. No compensation was provided to physician participants.

A research assistant (A.R.C.) trained in qualitative interviewing conducted all interviews.[23] These interviews covered social norms, perceptions of risk, self‐efficacy, knowledge, and acceptance of guidelines. At the end of the interview, each participant was asked to respond to 3 case vignettes (Table 1), which had been developed by an ID physician (D.L.) based on both local and IDSA guidelines.[24, 25, 26] Participants decided whether to prescribe antibiotics and, if so, which antibiotic to use. After their response, the interviewer read aloud specific recommendations from IDSA guidelines and asked, Would you feel comfortable applying this recommendation to your practice? Are there situations when you would not apply this recommendation?

Case Vignettes Presented to Thirty Inpatient Physician Participants
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: ESBL, extended‐spectrum ‐lactamase; ICU, intensive care unit; IV, intravenous; PMNs, polymorphonuclear cells; WBC, white blood cell, UTI, urinary tract infection.

1. A 40‐year‐old man with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes develops pain and redness over the dorsum of his foot. He presents to the emergency room the day after these symptoms started. He denies any recent penetrating injuries to his foot, including no animal bites, and denies any water exposure. At the time of presentation, his temperature is 101.1F, pulse 89, his blood pressure is 124/76, and his respiratory rate is 16. Tender edema, warmth, and erythema extend up to the pretibial area of his right lower leg. Fissures are present between his toes, but he has no foot ulcers. There are no blisters or purulence. When you palpate, you don't feel any crepitus or fluctuance. He has a strong pulse at both dorsal pedis and posterior tibial arteries. Labs reveal a normal WBC count. What is your diagnosis? What antibiotics would you start?
2. A 72‐year‐old man is admitted for a lobectomy. About 6 days after his operation, while still on mechanical ventilation, he develops findings suggestive of pneumonia, based on a new right lower lobe infiltrate on chest x‐ray, increased secretions, and fever (101.1F). A blood sample and an endotracheal aspirate are sent for culture. He is empirically started on vancomycin and piperacillin/tazobactam. After 3 days of empiric antibiotics, he has had no additional fevers and has been extubated to room air. His WBC count has normalized. Blood cultures show no growth. The respiratory sample shows >25 PMNs and <10 epithelial cells; no organisms are seen on Gram stain, and there is no growth on culture. Would you make any changes to his antibiotic regimen at this time? If so, how would you justify the change?
3. A 72‐year‐old man presented with a severe Clostridium difficile infection, which resulted in both respiratory and acute renal failure. He gradually improved with supportive care, oral vancomycin, and IV metronidazole. After over a month of being hospitalized in the ICU, his Foley was removed. He was subsequently found to have urinary retention, so he was straight catheterized. The urine obtained from the straight catheterization was cloudy. A urinalysis showed 53 WBCs, positive nitrite, and many bacteria. Urine culture grew >100K ESBL‐producing Escherichia coli. He wasn't having fevers. He had no leukocytosis and no signs or symptoms attributable to a UTI. What is you diagnosis? What antibiotics would you start?

All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and deidentified. All transcripts were reviewed by the study's research assistant (A.R.C.) for accuracy and completeness.

An ID physician (D.L.) reviewed each transcript to determine whether the participant's stated plan for each case vignette was in accordance with IDSA guidelines. Participants were evaluated on their decision to prescribe antibiotics and their choice of agents.

Transcripts were also analyzed using emergent thematic analysis.[27, 28, 29] First, 2 members of the research team (D.L., A.R.C.) reviewed all interview transcripts and discussed general impressions. Next, the analytic team reread one‐fifth of the transcripts, assigning codes to the data line by line. Codes were discussed among team members to determine the most prominent themes. During this phase, codes were added, eliminated, and combined while applying the codes to the remaining transcripts.[30] The analysts then performed focused coding: finalized codes from the first phase were applied to each transcript. The 2 analysts performed focused coding individually on each transcript in a consecutive fashion and met after every 10 transcripts to ensure consistency in their coding for the prior 10 transcripts. Analysts discussed any discrepancies to reach a consensus. Evidence was sought that may call observations and classifications into question.[31] Theoretical saturation was reached through the 30 interviews, so additional enrollment was deemed unnecessary. NVivo version 9 software (QSR International, Cambridge, MA) was used to facilitate all coding and analysis.

RESULTS

All participants were physicians who practiced inpatient medicine. Ten were women, and 20 were men. The median age of participants was 34 years (interquartile range [IQR] 3042). Twenty were attending or staff physicians and had spent a median of 10 years (IQR 315) in clinical practice. Of these attending physicians, 3 practiced pulmonary/critical care, 16 were hospitalists without subspecialty training, and 1 was a hospitalist with ID training. Seven attending physicians practiced exclusively at hospital A, 8 practiced exclusively at hospital B, and 5 practiced at both A and B. The remaining 10 participants were physicians in training or residents, who practiced at both hospitals and were either in their third or fourth year of an internal medicine or medicine/pediatrics residency program.

All participants expressed general awareness of and familiarity with clinical guidelines. Most participants also found guidelines useful in their clinical practice. According to a resident:

[Guidelines] give you a framework for what to do. If somebody questions what you are doing, it is easy to point to the guidelines (24, resident).

Others recognized that guidelines synthesized the latest evidence:

The guidelines tend to keep us up‐to‐date, because unless you're focused on 1 system, it can be impossible to keep up with everything that is changing across the board (28, attending).

Some recognized the authoritative nature of guidelines:

Most of the guidelines are well‐researched and are approved by a lot of people, so I don't usually go against them (6, attending).

Another attending noted: I'm not a specialist in the field, so I need to follow the guidelines (8, attending).

 

Despite general agreement with guidelines in principle, our interviews identified 3 major barriers to following guidelines in practice: (1) lack of awareness of specific guideline recommendations, (2) tension between adhering to guidelines and the desire to individualize patient care, and (3) skepticism of certain guideline recommendations.

Lack of Awareness of Specific Guideline Recommendations

Although participants stated that they agreed with guidelines in general, many had difficulty describing specific guideline recommendations. Two residents acknowledged that their attending physicians did not seem familiar with guidelines. In response to hearing a guideline recommendation on HAP, a resident stated: I'm learning from them [the guidelines] as we speak. In addition, an attending admitted that she was not familiar with the guidelines:

Now that you're asking about [prescribing] outside of the clinical guidelines, I am sitting here thinking, I can't think of any [guidelines]. In fact, I will say that I am probably not aware of all of the clinical guidelines or changes in them in recent years (28, attending).

Knowledge deficits were evident in participants' responses to the case vignettes (Table 2, quotations 12). For the case of SSTI, 3 staff physicians wanted to prescribe antibiotics with activity against gram‐negative bacteria, which is not in accordance with IDSA guidelines. In the case of suspected HAP, the majority of physicians were unaware that, according to guidelines, negative cultures from the lower respiratory tract and clinical improvement should prompt consideration of stopping antibiotics. Finally, for the case of ASB, 6 participants (3 attendings, 3 residents) stated a desire to treat with antibiotics, which was not in accordance with IDSA guidelines.

 

Themes and Illustrative Quotations Identified From Semistructured Interviews of Thirty Inpatient Physicians
CategoryCase VignetteIllustrative Quotation
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: ASB, asymptomatic bacteriuria; HAP, hospital‐acquired pneumonia; MRSA, methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus; SSTI, skin and soft tissue infection; UTI, urinary tract infection.

1. Lack of awareness of specific guideline recommendationsSSTI1. [Treating for] methicillin susceptible [Staphylococcus aureus] without MRSA? Oh, oh, wow.[and] not doing any gram‐negative coverage? I guess I am most discomfortable with that, but if that's the guideline [recommendation], yes, I will probably start following it (8, attending).
ASB2. I still think that he has a UTI, even though he doesn't necessarily have symptoms, because he was catheterized for so long. I also know after you reach a certain age, we generally treat you even though you don't necessarily have symptoms just because of all the risks associated with having bacteria in your urine (29, resident).
2. Tension between adhering to guidelines and individualizing patient careSSTI3. If he had a known history of MRSA, if he had something else likea temporary dialysis lineor prosthetic joint or something else that if he were to get bacteremic with MRSA, it would cause him more operations and significant morbidity. [In that case], I might add vancomycin to his regimen from the beginning (12, resident).
HAP4. He has only 1 lung because he had part of his lung taken out. So, anyway, part of a lung taken out, and he's got a new infiltrate on his x‐ray, and he's got all the risk factors for pneumonia, so I would say generally I would leave him on antibiotics, but cut down (5, attending).
5. I would be concerned, especially since the patient was febrile. He did have a new infiltrate, and he seemed to have gotten better on antibiotics. I would definitely take it [the guideline recommendation] into consideration, but I would probably go ahead and give a course of oral antibiotics (6, attending).
ASB6. I would say this is a UTI. I'm sure the guidelines are going to say no, but since he was having retention and it wasn't a urine [culture] obtained from him having a Foley, I have less comfort calling it colonization. I would say that it is probably an infection. You don't see a lot of fevers in just a bladder infection (25, attending).
3. Skepticism of guideline recommendationsSSTI7. My big concern is methicillin‐resistant S aureus [MRSA]. I think personally I have some concern about not covering for MRSA (17, attending).
HAP8. Those are the guidelines, so I mean it is agreeable if there are studies that back it up. It is not something I feel that great about, but I could trial them off antibiotics and see how they do (14, resident).
 9. I guess I would have to look more at the studies that led to the recommendations. I don't know that I would stop antibiotics completely because of how sick he was (29, resident).
ASB10. They [the guidelines] are tough to swallow, but we follow them because that is what the evidence shows. A lot of people would be very, very tempted to treat this (19, attending).
11. A guy has a catheter in for a month and has a ton of white cells in his urine and is growing something that is clearly pathogenic: he needs treatment. I do not care what the guidelines say (7, attending).

Tension Between Adhering to Guidelines and Individualizing Patient Care

Although participants agreed with guidelines in principle, they had difficulty applying specific guideline recommendations to an individual patient's care. Many participants acknowledged modifying these recommendations to better suit the needs of a specific patient:

So guidelines are guidelines, but at the end of the day, it still comes down to individualizing patient care, and so sometimes those guidelines do not cover all the bases, and you still need to do what you think is best for the patient (10, attending).

The guidelines are not examining the patient, and I am examining the patient. So I will do what the guidelines say unless I feel that that patient needs more care (11, resident).

Participants valued their own clinical observations over guideline‐recommended care (Table 2, quotations 36). In the case vignette of suspected HAP, the observation that the patient's clinical status improved while receiving antibiotics took precedence over the negative culture results or the guideline recommendations. Guideline recommendations and the primary literature were in conflict with the objective evidence the physicians collected at the bedside:

Fine, the study says something, but your objective evidence about what happened [is different]. He had this fever, he had these radiologic changes that are suggestive of pneumonia, you start antibiotics, he gets better, so that clinical scenario suggests an infection that is getting better (15, resident).

Participants readily acknowledged the limitations of clinical guidelines. They described unique clinical situations that guidelines did not address and specific patient populations that have not been well studied. According to many participants, these unique situations demanded independent decision making:

[I would treat outside of guidelines] when we are treating severe sepsis in somebody with advanced liver disease. Most of the clinical research programsexclude patients with advanced liver disease if they have risks for certain types of infections that are unusual (16, attending).

Two attending physicians believed that guidelines on pneumonia could not be applied to patients who recently had lobectomies (Table 2, quotation 4). One attending physician argued that guidelines on ASB could not be applied to sedated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) with an indwelling urethral catheter:

If it's a patient who is intubated and sick, they can't complain [about urinary symptoms], so the asymptomatic part of that goes out the window. For critically ill patients on ventilators that have bacteriuria, particularly if it's an ESBL [extended‐spectrum ‐lactamase], which is a bad bacteria, not wanting the patient to get sicker and not knowing if they are having symptoms of pain or both, I might consider treating in that kind of situation, even though they are afebrile and no [elevated] white count (20, attending).

 

Skepticism of Guideline Recommendations

A third barrier to guideline adherence was physicians' skepticism of what the guidelines recommend in certain cases. This skepticism stemmed, in part, from guidelines promoting a standardized, one size fits all approach even in situations when participants were more comfortable using their own judgment:

To me, the guidelines are adding a little bit more of a stress, because the guidelines are good for the more obvious things; they're more black and white, this than that. But clinical medicine is never like that. There is always something that makes it really gray, and some of it has to do with things that you're seeing because you're there with the patient that doesn't quite fit (25, attending).

One resident acknowledged difficulty with guidelines that recommended against doing something; he felt more comfortable offering treatment as opposed to withholding it:

Overall, guidelines are easy to follow when they have what to do as opposed to what not to do. We are trained to do something and fix something, so to not do anything is probably the hardest guideline to follow (11, resident).

This skepticism was evident in the participants' responses to the case vignettes (Table 2). One attending found the recommendation not to treat ASB tough to swallow (19, attending). A resident also expressed concern with not prescribing treatment for the positive urine culture:

It is just scary that he is growing such a bad bug and with a bad microbe, I would be worried about it progressing (11, resident).

For the case of suspected HAP, an attending described the recommendation to consider stopping antibiotics nerve‐wracking (28, attending).

 

Another acknowledged she would have difficulty stopping all antibiotics after only 3 days of therapy:

It would make me a little nervous following them [the guidelines]. I think I would finish the course because he had a fever, and we started him on antibiotics and he got better. I still feel clinically that he could have had pneumonia (25, attending).

Both residents and attending physicians expressed skepticism about the evidence behind some guideline recommendations or admitted that they did not agree with the recommendations (Table 2, quotations 711). For example, when presented with the guideline recommendation to stop antibiotics for HAP if the patient has clinically improved and a lower respiratory tract culture was negative, a majority of participants stated that they were not comfortable following it.

 

DISCUSSION

In this study, we used case vignettes to identify barriers to following IDSA guidelines. Case vignettes require few resources and provide a common starting point for assessing physician decision making. Prior studies have used case vignettes to measure the quality of physicians' practice, including antibiotic prescribing.[17, 18, 19, 20, 21] Case vignettes have been used to assess antibiotic prescribing in the neonatal ICU and medical students' knowledge of upper respiratory tract infections.[21, 32] In 1 study, physicians who scored poorly on a series of case vignettes more frequently prescribed antibiotics inappropriately in actual practice.[17]

Using case vignettes, we identified 3 barriers to following IDSA guidelines on SSTI, HAP, and ASB: (1) lack of awareness of specific guideline recommendations, (2) tension between adhering to guidelines and the desire to individualize patient care, and (3) skepticism of certain guideline recommendations. These barriers were distributed unevenly across participants, highlighting the heterogeneity that exists even within a subgroup of hospital medicine physicians.

We identified lack of familiarity with guideline recommendations as a barrier in our sample of physicians. Interestingly, participants initially expressed agreement with guidelines, but when presented with case vignettes and asked for their own treatment recommendations, it became clear that their familiarity with guidelines was superficial. The disconnect between self‐reported practice and actual adherence has also been described in a separate study on healthcare‐associated pneumonia.[33] In all likelihood, participants genuinely believed that they were practicing guideline‐concordant care, but without a formal process for audit and feedback, their lack of adherence had never been raised as an issue.

A second barrier to guideline‐concordant care was the tension between individualizing patient care and adhering to standardized recommendations. On one hand, this tension is unavoidable and is inherent in the practice of medicine. However, participants' responses to our case vignettes suggested that they find their patients too different to fit into any standardized guideline. This tension was also discussed by Charani et al., who interviewed 39 healthcare professionals at 4 hospitals in the United Kingdom. These investigators found that physicians routinely consider their patients to be outside the recommendations of local evidence‐based policies.[34] Instead of referring to guidelines, physicians rely on their knowledge and clinical experience to guide their antibiotic prescribing.

The final barrier to guideline adherence that we identified was providers' skepticism of what the guidelines were recommending. Although physician discomfort with certain guideline recommendations may be alleviated by reviewing the literature informing the recommendation, education alone is often insufficient to change antibiotic prescribing practices.[35] Furthermore, part of this skepticism may reflect the lack of data from randomized controlled trials to support every guideline recommendation. For example, most guideline recommendations are based on low‐quality evidence.[36] The guideline recommendations presented in this study were based on moderate‐ to high‐quality evidence.[24, 25, 26]

To our knowledge, this study is 1 of the few to describe barriers to guideline‐concordant antibiotic use among inpatient medicine physicians in the United States. The barriers discussed above have also been described by investigators in Europe who studied antibiotic use among inpatient physicians.[34, 37, 38] These commonalities highlight the shared challenges faced by local initiatives to improve antibiotic prescribing.

Our findings suggest that the 2 hospitals we studied need more active interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing. One attractive idea is involving hospitalist physicians in future improvement efforts. Hospitalists are well positioned for this role; they care for a large proportion of hospital patients, they frequently prescribe antibiotics, andas a professionthey are committed to the efficient use of healthcare resources. Hospitalists could assist in the dissemination of local guidelines, the implementation of reliable processes to prompt antibiotic de‐escalation, and the development of local standards for documenting the indication for antibiotics and the planned duration of therapy.[39]

One limitation of this study was that we did not validate whether a physician's self‐reported response to the case vignettes correlated with his or her actual practice. Interviews were conducted by a nonphysician and kept confidential, but participants may nonetheless have been inclined to give socially desirable responses. However, this is less likely because participants readily admitted to not knowing and often not following guidelines. In addition, our case vignettes presented simplistic, hypothetical situations and were therefore less able to account for all determinants of antibiotic‐prescribing decisions. Prior research has shown that antibiotic‐prescribing decisions are influenced by a multitude of factors, including social norms and the physician's underlying beliefs and emotions.[34, 40] Antibiotic‐prescribing decisions can also be influenced by audit and feedback processes.[35] Thus, we acknowledge that our findings may have been different if this study was conducted exclusively at hospitals without an antimicrobial stewardship program.

In conclusion, case vignettes may be a useful tool to assess physician knowledge and acceptance of antibiotic‐prescribing guidelines on a local level. This study used case vignettes to identify key barriers to guideline‐concordant antibiotic use. Developing local interventions to target each of these barriers will be the next step in improving antibiotic prescribing.

Disclosure: This project was supported by a Project Development Team within the ICTSI NIH/NCRR grant number UL1TR001108. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Files
References
  1. Fitch K, Iwasaki K, Pyenson B, Plauschinat C, Zhang J. Variation in adherence with Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) drug therapy guidelines: a retrospective actuarial claims data analysis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27:14251429.
  2. Sharif R, Cuevas CR, Wang Y, Arora M, Sharma G. Guideline adherence in management of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Respir Med. 2013;107:10461052.
  3. Gaither JR, Goulet JL, Becker WC, et al. Guideline‐concordant management of opioid therapy among human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)‐infected and uninfected veterans. J Pain. 2014;15:11301140.
  4. Corson K, Doak MN, Denneson L, et al. Primary care clinician adherence to guidelines for the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain: results from the study of the effectiveness of a collaborative approach to pain. Pain Med. 2011;12:14901501.
  5. Sewitch MJ, Blais R, Rahme E, Bexton B, Galarneau S. Receiving guideline‐concordant pharmacotherapy for major depression: impact on ambulatory and inpatient health service use. Can J Psychiatry. 2007;52:191200.
  6. Chen SY, Hansen RA, Gaynes BN, Farley JF, Morrissey JP, Maciejewski ML. Guideline‐concordant antidepressant use among patients with major depressive disorder. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2010;32:360367.
  7. Barnett ML, Linder JA. Antibiotic prescribing to adults with sore throat in the United States, 1997–2010. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174:138140.
  8. Fairlie T, Shapiro DJ, Hersh AL, Hicks LA. National trends in visit rates and antibiotic prescribing for adults with acute sinusitis. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:15131514.
  9. Zhang Y, Steinman MA, Kaplan CM. Geographic variation in outpatient antibiotic prescribing among older adults. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:14651471.
  10. Jenkins TC, Knepper BC, Sabel AL, et al. Decreased antibiotic utilization after implementation of a guideline for inpatient cellulitis and cutaneous abscess. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:10721079.
  11. Jenkins TC, Sabel AL, Sarcone EE, Price CS, Mehler PS, Burman WJ. Skin and soft‐tissue infections requiring hospitalization at an academic medical center: opportunities for antimicrobial stewardship. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51:895903.
  12. Cope M, Cevallos ME, Cadle RM, Darouiche RO, Musher DM, Trautner BW. Inappropriate treatment of catheter‐associated asymptomatic bacteriuria in a tertiary care hospital. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48:11821188.
  13. Trautner BW. Asymptomatic bacteriuria: when the treatment is worse than the disease. Nat Rev Urol. 2012;9:8593.
  14. Arnold FW, LaJoie AS, Brock GN, et al. Improving outcomes in elderly patients with community‐acquired pneumonia by adhering to national guidelines: Community‐Acquired Pneumonia Organization International cohort study results. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:15151524.
  15. Trautner BW, Grigoryan L, Petersen NJ, et al. Effectiveness of an Antimicrobial Stewardship Approach for Urinary Catheter‐Associated Asymptomatic Bacteriuria. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:11201127.
  16. Costelloe C, Metcalfe C, Lovering A, Mant D, Hay AD. Effect of antibiotic prescribing in primary care on antimicrobial resistance in individual patients: systematic review and meta‐analysis. BMJ. 2010;340:c2096.
  17. Lucet JC, Nicolas‐Chanoine MH, Lefort A, et al. Do case vignettes accurately reflect antibiotic prescription? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011;32:10031009.
  18. Lucet JC, Nicolas‐Chanoine MH, Roy C, et al. Antibiotic use: knowledge and perceptions in two university hospitals. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011;66:936940.
  19. Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P, Dresselhaus TR, Lee M. Comparison of vignettes, standardized patients, and chart abstraction: a prospective validation study of 3 methods for measuring quality. JAMA. 2000;283:17151722.
  20. Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P, et al. Measuring the quality of physician practice by using clinical vignettes: a prospective validation study. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:771780.
  21. Patel S, Landers T, Larson E, et al. Clinical vignettes provide an understanding of antibiotic prescribing practices in neonatal intensive care units. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011;32:597602.
  22. Kuzel AJ. Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In: Crabtree BF, Miller WL, eds. Doing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1999:3345.
  23. Livorsi D, Comer A, Matthias MS, Perencevich EN, Bair MJ. Factors influencing antibiotic‐prescribing decisions among inpatient physicians: a qualitative investigation. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015;36(9):10651072.
  24. Stevens DL, Bisno AL, Chambers HF, et al. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft tissue infections: 2014 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59:e10e52.
  25. American Thoracic Society and the Infectious Disease Society of North America. The new American Thoracic Society/Infectious Disease Society of North America guidelines for the management of hospital‐acquired, ventilator‐associated and healthcare‐associated pneumonia: a current view and new complementary information. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2006;12:444445.
  26. Nicolle LE, Bradley S, Colgan R, et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria in adults. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;40:643654.
  27. Miller WL, Crabtree BF. The dance of interpretation. In: Crabtree BF, Miller WL, eds. Doing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1999:127143.
  28. Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994.
  29. Bernard H. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira; 2002.
  30. Charmaz K. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2006.
  31. Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter; 1967.
  32. Ibia E, Sheridan M, Schwartz R. Knowledge of the principles of judicious antibiotic use for upper respiratory infections: a survey of senior medical students. South Med J. 2005;98:889895.
  33. Seymann GB, Francesco L, Sharpe B, et al. The HCAP gap: differences between self‐reported practice patterns and published guidelines for health care‐associated pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49:18681874.
  34. Charani E, Castro‐Sanchez E, Sevdalis N, et al. Understanding the determinants of antimicrobial prescribing within hospitals: the role of “prescribing etiquette”. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;57:188196.
  35. Dellit TH, Owens RC, McGowan JE, et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America guidelines for developing an institutional program to enhance antimicrobial stewardship. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44:159177.
  36. Khan AR, Khan S, Zimmerman V, Baddour LM, Tleyjeh IM. Quality and strength of evidence of the Infectious Diseases Society of America clinical practice guidelines. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51:11471156.
  37. Cortoos PJ, Witte K, Peetermans WE, Simoens S, Laekeman G. Opposing expectations and suboptimal use of a local antibiotic hospital guideline: a qualitative study. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008;62:189195.
  38. Schouten JA, Hulscher ME, Natsch S, Kullberg BJ, Meer JW, Grol RP. Barriers to optimal antibiotic use for community‐acquired pneumonia at hospitals: a qualitative study. Qual Saf Health Care. 2007;16:143149.
  39. Rohde JM, Jacobsen D, Rosenberg DJ. Role of the hospitalist in antimicrobial stewardship: a review of work completed and description of a multisite collaborative. Clin Ther. 2013;35:751757.
  40. Charani E, Edwards R, Sevdalis N, et al. Behavior change strategies to influence antimicrobial prescribing in acute care: a systematic review. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;53:651662.
Article PDF
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 11(3)
Page Number
174-180
Sections
Files
Files
Article PDF
Article PDF

Clinical guidelines are prevalent in the field of medicine, but physicians do not consistently provide guideline‐concordant care. Nonadherence to guidelines has been documented for a variety of clinical conditions, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,[1, 2] pain management,[3, 4] and major depressive disorder.[5, 6]

Although several professional societies, including the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), have developed and disseminated guidelines on antibiotic use, adherence to antibiotic‐prescribing guidelines is inconsistent. Several studies have documented inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for specific infections, including acute respiratory infections,[7, 8, 9] cellulitis,[10, 11] and asymptomatic bacteriuria.[12, 13]

Improving adherence to guidelines on antibiotic use could have several benefits. For certain infections, guideline adherence has been shown to improve patient outcomes and reduce resource utilization.[10, 14, 15] In general, guidelines promote more judicious use of antibiotics by clarifying when an antibiotic is indicated, which antibiotics to prescribe, and duration of antibiotic therapy. The more judicious use of antibiotics decreases a given patient's risk of developing an antibiotic‐resistant infection and Clostridium difficileassociated diarrhea.[16] Judicious antibiotic use will also have societal benefits by slowing the spread of antibiotic‐resistant bacteria.

As part of a local effort to improve antibiotic use, we decided to present physicians with hypothetical cases of common clinical scenarios to identify barriers to following antibiotic‐prescribing guidelines. Previous investigators have used case vignettes to assess the quality of care physicians provide, including decisions about antibiotics.[17, 18, 19, 20, 21] We used case vignettes to assess physicians' familiarity with and acceptance of IDSA guidelines for 3 common infectious conditions: skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI), suspected hospital‐acquired pneumonia (HAP), and asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB). The findings from our project were intended to inform local interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing.

METHODS

All interviews were conducted at 2 acute care hospitals in Indianapolis, Indiana: Sidney and Lois Eskenazi Hospital and the Richard Roudebush Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC). Eskenazi Hospital is a 316‐bed safety‐net hospital for Marion County, Indiana. The Roudebush VAMC is a 209‐bed tertiary care facility that provides comprehensive medical care for 85,000 veterans. Both hospitals are academically affiliated with Indiana University's School of Medicine.

Both hospitals have empiric antibiotic‐prescribing guidelines printed in their annual antibiograms. These guidelines, developed by each hospital's pharmacy department and the local infectious disease (ID) physicians, are distributed annually as a pocket booklet. During this study, an antibiotic stewardship program was active at hospital A but not hospital B. As part of this program at hospital A, an ID physician reviewed inpatients on antibiotics twice a week and, with the help of inpatient team pharmacists, provided feedback to the frontline prescribers.

For this study, inpatient physicians who prescribe antibiotics at either facility were invited to participate in a 30‐minute confidential interview about their antibiotic‐prescribing habits. All invitations were sent through electronic mail. The target enrollment was 30 physicians, which is consistent with prior literature on qualitative sampling.[22] Sampling was purposeful to recruit a heterogeneous group of participants from both hospital sites. Although such a sampling strategy precluded us from making conclusions about individual subgroups, our intention was to obtain the broadest range of information and perspectives, thereby challenging our own preconceived understandings and biases.

The protocol and conduct of this study were reviewed and approved by the Indiana University Institutional Review Board. Participants read and provided signed informed consent. No compensation was provided to physician participants.

A research assistant (A.R.C.) trained in qualitative interviewing conducted all interviews.[23] These interviews covered social norms, perceptions of risk, self‐efficacy, knowledge, and acceptance of guidelines. At the end of the interview, each participant was asked to respond to 3 case vignettes (Table 1), which had been developed by an ID physician (D.L.) based on both local and IDSA guidelines.[24, 25, 26] Participants decided whether to prescribe antibiotics and, if so, which antibiotic to use. After their response, the interviewer read aloud specific recommendations from IDSA guidelines and asked, Would you feel comfortable applying this recommendation to your practice? Are there situations when you would not apply this recommendation?

Case Vignettes Presented to Thirty Inpatient Physician Participants
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: ESBL, extended‐spectrum ‐lactamase; ICU, intensive care unit; IV, intravenous; PMNs, polymorphonuclear cells; WBC, white blood cell, UTI, urinary tract infection.

1. A 40‐year‐old man with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes develops pain and redness over the dorsum of his foot. He presents to the emergency room the day after these symptoms started. He denies any recent penetrating injuries to his foot, including no animal bites, and denies any water exposure. At the time of presentation, his temperature is 101.1F, pulse 89, his blood pressure is 124/76, and his respiratory rate is 16. Tender edema, warmth, and erythema extend up to the pretibial area of his right lower leg. Fissures are present between his toes, but he has no foot ulcers. There are no blisters or purulence. When you palpate, you don't feel any crepitus or fluctuance. He has a strong pulse at both dorsal pedis and posterior tibial arteries. Labs reveal a normal WBC count. What is your diagnosis? What antibiotics would you start?
2. A 72‐year‐old man is admitted for a lobectomy. About 6 days after his operation, while still on mechanical ventilation, he develops findings suggestive of pneumonia, based on a new right lower lobe infiltrate on chest x‐ray, increased secretions, and fever (101.1F). A blood sample and an endotracheal aspirate are sent for culture. He is empirically started on vancomycin and piperacillin/tazobactam. After 3 days of empiric antibiotics, he has had no additional fevers and has been extubated to room air. His WBC count has normalized. Blood cultures show no growth. The respiratory sample shows >25 PMNs and <10 epithelial cells; no organisms are seen on Gram stain, and there is no growth on culture. Would you make any changes to his antibiotic regimen at this time? If so, how would you justify the change?
3. A 72‐year‐old man presented with a severe Clostridium difficile infection, which resulted in both respiratory and acute renal failure. He gradually improved with supportive care, oral vancomycin, and IV metronidazole. After over a month of being hospitalized in the ICU, his Foley was removed. He was subsequently found to have urinary retention, so he was straight catheterized. The urine obtained from the straight catheterization was cloudy. A urinalysis showed 53 WBCs, positive nitrite, and many bacteria. Urine culture grew >100K ESBL‐producing Escherichia coli. He wasn't having fevers. He had no leukocytosis and no signs or symptoms attributable to a UTI. What is you diagnosis? What antibiotics would you start?

All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and deidentified. All transcripts were reviewed by the study's research assistant (A.R.C.) for accuracy and completeness.

An ID physician (D.L.) reviewed each transcript to determine whether the participant's stated plan for each case vignette was in accordance with IDSA guidelines. Participants were evaluated on their decision to prescribe antibiotics and their choice of agents.

Transcripts were also analyzed using emergent thematic analysis.[27, 28, 29] First, 2 members of the research team (D.L., A.R.C.) reviewed all interview transcripts and discussed general impressions. Next, the analytic team reread one‐fifth of the transcripts, assigning codes to the data line by line. Codes were discussed among team members to determine the most prominent themes. During this phase, codes were added, eliminated, and combined while applying the codes to the remaining transcripts.[30] The analysts then performed focused coding: finalized codes from the first phase were applied to each transcript. The 2 analysts performed focused coding individually on each transcript in a consecutive fashion and met after every 10 transcripts to ensure consistency in their coding for the prior 10 transcripts. Analysts discussed any discrepancies to reach a consensus. Evidence was sought that may call observations and classifications into question.[31] Theoretical saturation was reached through the 30 interviews, so additional enrollment was deemed unnecessary. NVivo version 9 software (QSR International, Cambridge, MA) was used to facilitate all coding and analysis.

RESULTS

All participants were physicians who practiced inpatient medicine. Ten were women, and 20 were men. The median age of participants was 34 years (interquartile range [IQR] 3042). Twenty were attending or staff physicians and had spent a median of 10 years (IQR 315) in clinical practice. Of these attending physicians, 3 practiced pulmonary/critical care, 16 were hospitalists without subspecialty training, and 1 was a hospitalist with ID training. Seven attending physicians practiced exclusively at hospital A, 8 practiced exclusively at hospital B, and 5 practiced at both A and B. The remaining 10 participants were physicians in training or residents, who practiced at both hospitals and were either in their third or fourth year of an internal medicine or medicine/pediatrics residency program.

All participants expressed general awareness of and familiarity with clinical guidelines. Most participants also found guidelines useful in their clinical practice. According to a resident:

[Guidelines] give you a framework for what to do. If somebody questions what you are doing, it is easy to point to the guidelines (24, resident).

Others recognized that guidelines synthesized the latest evidence:

The guidelines tend to keep us up‐to‐date, because unless you're focused on 1 system, it can be impossible to keep up with everything that is changing across the board (28, attending).

Some recognized the authoritative nature of guidelines:

Most of the guidelines are well‐researched and are approved by a lot of people, so I don't usually go against them (6, attending).

Another attending noted: I'm not a specialist in the field, so I need to follow the guidelines (8, attending).

 

Despite general agreement with guidelines in principle, our interviews identified 3 major barriers to following guidelines in practice: (1) lack of awareness of specific guideline recommendations, (2) tension between adhering to guidelines and the desire to individualize patient care, and (3) skepticism of certain guideline recommendations.

Lack of Awareness of Specific Guideline Recommendations

Although participants stated that they agreed with guidelines in general, many had difficulty describing specific guideline recommendations. Two residents acknowledged that their attending physicians did not seem familiar with guidelines. In response to hearing a guideline recommendation on HAP, a resident stated: I'm learning from them [the guidelines] as we speak. In addition, an attending admitted that she was not familiar with the guidelines:

Now that you're asking about [prescribing] outside of the clinical guidelines, I am sitting here thinking, I can't think of any [guidelines]. In fact, I will say that I am probably not aware of all of the clinical guidelines or changes in them in recent years (28, attending).

Knowledge deficits were evident in participants' responses to the case vignettes (Table 2, quotations 12). For the case of SSTI, 3 staff physicians wanted to prescribe antibiotics with activity against gram‐negative bacteria, which is not in accordance with IDSA guidelines. In the case of suspected HAP, the majority of physicians were unaware that, according to guidelines, negative cultures from the lower respiratory tract and clinical improvement should prompt consideration of stopping antibiotics. Finally, for the case of ASB, 6 participants (3 attendings, 3 residents) stated a desire to treat with antibiotics, which was not in accordance with IDSA guidelines.

 

Themes and Illustrative Quotations Identified From Semistructured Interviews of Thirty Inpatient Physicians
CategoryCase VignetteIllustrative Quotation
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: ASB, asymptomatic bacteriuria; HAP, hospital‐acquired pneumonia; MRSA, methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus; SSTI, skin and soft tissue infection; UTI, urinary tract infection.

1. Lack of awareness of specific guideline recommendationsSSTI1. [Treating for] methicillin susceptible [Staphylococcus aureus] without MRSA? Oh, oh, wow.[and] not doing any gram‐negative coverage? I guess I am most discomfortable with that, but if that's the guideline [recommendation], yes, I will probably start following it (8, attending).
ASB2. I still think that he has a UTI, even though he doesn't necessarily have symptoms, because he was catheterized for so long. I also know after you reach a certain age, we generally treat you even though you don't necessarily have symptoms just because of all the risks associated with having bacteria in your urine (29, resident).
2. Tension between adhering to guidelines and individualizing patient careSSTI3. If he had a known history of MRSA, if he had something else likea temporary dialysis lineor prosthetic joint or something else that if he were to get bacteremic with MRSA, it would cause him more operations and significant morbidity. [In that case], I might add vancomycin to his regimen from the beginning (12, resident).
HAP4. He has only 1 lung because he had part of his lung taken out. So, anyway, part of a lung taken out, and he's got a new infiltrate on his x‐ray, and he's got all the risk factors for pneumonia, so I would say generally I would leave him on antibiotics, but cut down (5, attending).
5. I would be concerned, especially since the patient was febrile. He did have a new infiltrate, and he seemed to have gotten better on antibiotics. I would definitely take it [the guideline recommendation] into consideration, but I would probably go ahead and give a course of oral antibiotics (6, attending).
ASB6. I would say this is a UTI. I'm sure the guidelines are going to say no, but since he was having retention and it wasn't a urine [culture] obtained from him having a Foley, I have less comfort calling it colonization. I would say that it is probably an infection. You don't see a lot of fevers in just a bladder infection (25, attending).
3. Skepticism of guideline recommendationsSSTI7. My big concern is methicillin‐resistant S aureus [MRSA]. I think personally I have some concern about not covering for MRSA (17, attending).
HAP8. Those are the guidelines, so I mean it is agreeable if there are studies that back it up. It is not something I feel that great about, but I could trial them off antibiotics and see how they do (14, resident).
 9. I guess I would have to look more at the studies that led to the recommendations. I don't know that I would stop antibiotics completely because of how sick he was (29, resident).
ASB10. They [the guidelines] are tough to swallow, but we follow them because that is what the evidence shows. A lot of people would be very, very tempted to treat this (19, attending).
11. A guy has a catheter in for a month and has a ton of white cells in his urine and is growing something that is clearly pathogenic: he needs treatment. I do not care what the guidelines say (7, attending).

Tension Between Adhering to Guidelines and Individualizing Patient Care

Although participants agreed with guidelines in principle, they had difficulty applying specific guideline recommendations to an individual patient's care. Many participants acknowledged modifying these recommendations to better suit the needs of a specific patient:

So guidelines are guidelines, but at the end of the day, it still comes down to individualizing patient care, and so sometimes those guidelines do not cover all the bases, and you still need to do what you think is best for the patient (10, attending).

The guidelines are not examining the patient, and I am examining the patient. So I will do what the guidelines say unless I feel that that patient needs more care (11, resident).

Participants valued their own clinical observations over guideline‐recommended care (Table 2, quotations 36). In the case vignette of suspected HAP, the observation that the patient's clinical status improved while receiving antibiotics took precedence over the negative culture results or the guideline recommendations. Guideline recommendations and the primary literature were in conflict with the objective evidence the physicians collected at the bedside:

Fine, the study says something, but your objective evidence about what happened [is different]. He had this fever, he had these radiologic changes that are suggestive of pneumonia, you start antibiotics, he gets better, so that clinical scenario suggests an infection that is getting better (15, resident).

Participants readily acknowledged the limitations of clinical guidelines. They described unique clinical situations that guidelines did not address and specific patient populations that have not been well studied. According to many participants, these unique situations demanded independent decision making:

[I would treat outside of guidelines] when we are treating severe sepsis in somebody with advanced liver disease. Most of the clinical research programsexclude patients with advanced liver disease if they have risks for certain types of infections that are unusual (16, attending).

Two attending physicians believed that guidelines on pneumonia could not be applied to patients who recently had lobectomies (Table 2, quotation 4). One attending physician argued that guidelines on ASB could not be applied to sedated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) with an indwelling urethral catheter:

If it's a patient who is intubated and sick, they can't complain [about urinary symptoms], so the asymptomatic part of that goes out the window. For critically ill patients on ventilators that have bacteriuria, particularly if it's an ESBL [extended‐spectrum ‐lactamase], which is a bad bacteria, not wanting the patient to get sicker and not knowing if they are having symptoms of pain or both, I might consider treating in that kind of situation, even though they are afebrile and no [elevated] white count (20, attending).

 

Skepticism of Guideline Recommendations

A third barrier to guideline adherence was physicians' skepticism of what the guidelines recommend in certain cases. This skepticism stemmed, in part, from guidelines promoting a standardized, one size fits all approach even in situations when participants were more comfortable using their own judgment:

To me, the guidelines are adding a little bit more of a stress, because the guidelines are good for the more obvious things; they're more black and white, this than that. But clinical medicine is never like that. There is always something that makes it really gray, and some of it has to do with things that you're seeing because you're there with the patient that doesn't quite fit (25, attending).

One resident acknowledged difficulty with guidelines that recommended against doing something; he felt more comfortable offering treatment as opposed to withholding it:

Overall, guidelines are easy to follow when they have what to do as opposed to what not to do. We are trained to do something and fix something, so to not do anything is probably the hardest guideline to follow (11, resident).

This skepticism was evident in the participants' responses to the case vignettes (Table 2). One attending found the recommendation not to treat ASB tough to swallow (19, attending). A resident also expressed concern with not prescribing treatment for the positive urine culture:

It is just scary that he is growing such a bad bug and with a bad microbe, I would be worried about it progressing (11, resident).

For the case of suspected HAP, an attending described the recommendation to consider stopping antibiotics nerve‐wracking (28, attending).

 

Another acknowledged she would have difficulty stopping all antibiotics after only 3 days of therapy:

It would make me a little nervous following them [the guidelines]. I think I would finish the course because he had a fever, and we started him on antibiotics and he got better. I still feel clinically that he could have had pneumonia (25, attending).

Both residents and attending physicians expressed skepticism about the evidence behind some guideline recommendations or admitted that they did not agree with the recommendations (Table 2, quotations 711). For example, when presented with the guideline recommendation to stop antibiotics for HAP if the patient has clinically improved and a lower respiratory tract culture was negative, a majority of participants stated that they were not comfortable following it.

 

DISCUSSION

In this study, we used case vignettes to identify barriers to following IDSA guidelines. Case vignettes require few resources and provide a common starting point for assessing physician decision making. Prior studies have used case vignettes to measure the quality of physicians' practice, including antibiotic prescribing.[17, 18, 19, 20, 21] Case vignettes have been used to assess antibiotic prescribing in the neonatal ICU and medical students' knowledge of upper respiratory tract infections.[21, 32] In 1 study, physicians who scored poorly on a series of case vignettes more frequently prescribed antibiotics inappropriately in actual practice.[17]

Using case vignettes, we identified 3 barriers to following IDSA guidelines on SSTI, HAP, and ASB: (1) lack of awareness of specific guideline recommendations, (2) tension between adhering to guidelines and the desire to individualize patient care, and (3) skepticism of certain guideline recommendations. These barriers were distributed unevenly across participants, highlighting the heterogeneity that exists even within a subgroup of hospital medicine physicians.

We identified lack of familiarity with guideline recommendations as a barrier in our sample of physicians. Interestingly, participants initially expressed agreement with guidelines, but when presented with case vignettes and asked for their own treatment recommendations, it became clear that their familiarity with guidelines was superficial. The disconnect between self‐reported practice and actual adherence has also been described in a separate study on healthcare‐associated pneumonia.[33] In all likelihood, participants genuinely believed that they were practicing guideline‐concordant care, but without a formal process for audit and feedback, their lack of adherence had never been raised as an issue.

A second barrier to guideline‐concordant care was the tension between individualizing patient care and adhering to standardized recommendations. On one hand, this tension is unavoidable and is inherent in the practice of medicine. However, participants' responses to our case vignettes suggested that they find their patients too different to fit into any standardized guideline. This tension was also discussed by Charani et al., who interviewed 39 healthcare professionals at 4 hospitals in the United Kingdom. These investigators found that physicians routinely consider their patients to be outside the recommendations of local evidence‐based policies.[34] Instead of referring to guidelines, physicians rely on their knowledge and clinical experience to guide their antibiotic prescribing.

The final barrier to guideline adherence that we identified was providers' skepticism of what the guidelines were recommending. Although physician discomfort with certain guideline recommendations may be alleviated by reviewing the literature informing the recommendation, education alone is often insufficient to change antibiotic prescribing practices.[35] Furthermore, part of this skepticism may reflect the lack of data from randomized controlled trials to support every guideline recommendation. For example, most guideline recommendations are based on low‐quality evidence.[36] The guideline recommendations presented in this study were based on moderate‐ to high‐quality evidence.[24, 25, 26]

To our knowledge, this study is 1 of the few to describe barriers to guideline‐concordant antibiotic use among inpatient medicine physicians in the United States. The barriers discussed above have also been described by investigators in Europe who studied antibiotic use among inpatient physicians.[34, 37, 38] These commonalities highlight the shared challenges faced by local initiatives to improve antibiotic prescribing.

Our findings suggest that the 2 hospitals we studied need more active interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing. One attractive idea is involving hospitalist physicians in future improvement efforts. Hospitalists are well positioned for this role; they care for a large proportion of hospital patients, they frequently prescribe antibiotics, andas a professionthey are committed to the efficient use of healthcare resources. Hospitalists could assist in the dissemination of local guidelines, the implementation of reliable processes to prompt antibiotic de‐escalation, and the development of local standards for documenting the indication for antibiotics and the planned duration of therapy.[39]

One limitation of this study was that we did not validate whether a physician's self‐reported response to the case vignettes correlated with his or her actual practice. Interviews were conducted by a nonphysician and kept confidential, but participants may nonetheless have been inclined to give socially desirable responses. However, this is less likely because participants readily admitted to not knowing and often not following guidelines. In addition, our case vignettes presented simplistic, hypothetical situations and were therefore less able to account for all determinants of antibiotic‐prescribing decisions. Prior research has shown that antibiotic‐prescribing decisions are influenced by a multitude of factors, including social norms and the physician's underlying beliefs and emotions.[34, 40] Antibiotic‐prescribing decisions can also be influenced by audit and feedback processes.[35] Thus, we acknowledge that our findings may have been different if this study was conducted exclusively at hospitals without an antimicrobial stewardship program.

In conclusion, case vignettes may be a useful tool to assess physician knowledge and acceptance of antibiotic‐prescribing guidelines on a local level. This study used case vignettes to identify key barriers to guideline‐concordant antibiotic use. Developing local interventions to target each of these barriers will be the next step in improving antibiotic prescribing.

Disclosure: This project was supported by a Project Development Team within the ICTSI NIH/NCRR grant number UL1TR001108. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Clinical guidelines are prevalent in the field of medicine, but physicians do not consistently provide guideline‐concordant care. Nonadherence to guidelines has been documented for a variety of clinical conditions, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,[1, 2] pain management,[3, 4] and major depressive disorder.[5, 6]

Although several professional societies, including the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), have developed and disseminated guidelines on antibiotic use, adherence to antibiotic‐prescribing guidelines is inconsistent. Several studies have documented inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for specific infections, including acute respiratory infections,[7, 8, 9] cellulitis,[10, 11] and asymptomatic bacteriuria.[12, 13]

Improving adherence to guidelines on antibiotic use could have several benefits. For certain infections, guideline adherence has been shown to improve patient outcomes and reduce resource utilization.[10, 14, 15] In general, guidelines promote more judicious use of antibiotics by clarifying when an antibiotic is indicated, which antibiotics to prescribe, and duration of antibiotic therapy. The more judicious use of antibiotics decreases a given patient's risk of developing an antibiotic‐resistant infection and Clostridium difficileassociated diarrhea.[16] Judicious antibiotic use will also have societal benefits by slowing the spread of antibiotic‐resistant bacteria.

As part of a local effort to improve antibiotic use, we decided to present physicians with hypothetical cases of common clinical scenarios to identify barriers to following antibiotic‐prescribing guidelines. Previous investigators have used case vignettes to assess the quality of care physicians provide, including decisions about antibiotics.[17, 18, 19, 20, 21] We used case vignettes to assess physicians' familiarity with and acceptance of IDSA guidelines for 3 common infectious conditions: skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI), suspected hospital‐acquired pneumonia (HAP), and asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB). The findings from our project were intended to inform local interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing.

METHODS

All interviews were conducted at 2 acute care hospitals in Indianapolis, Indiana: Sidney and Lois Eskenazi Hospital and the Richard Roudebush Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC). Eskenazi Hospital is a 316‐bed safety‐net hospital for Marion County, Indiana. The Roudebush VAMC is a 209‐bed tertiary care facility that provides comprehensive medical care for 85,000 veterans. Both hospitals are academically affiliated with Indiana University's School of Medicine.

Both hospitals have empiric antibiotic‐prescribing guidelines printed in their annual antibiograms. These guidelines, developed by each hospital's pharmacy department and the local infectious disease (ID) physicians, are distributed annually as a pocket booklet. During this study, an antibiotic stewardship program was active at hospital A but not hospital B. As part of this program at hospital A, an ID physician reviewed inpatients on antibiotics twice a week and, with the help of inpatient team pharmacists, provided feedback to the frontline prescribers.

For this study, inpatient physicians who prescribe antibiotics at either facility were invited to participate in a 30‐minute confidential interview about their antibiotic‐prescribing habits. All invitations were sent through electronic mail. The target enrollment was 30 physicians, which is consistent with prior literature on qualitative sampling.[22] Sampling was purposeful to recruit a heterogeneous group of participants from both hospital sites. Although such a sampling strategy precluded us from making conclusions about individual subgroups, our intention was to obtain the broadest range of information and perspectives, thereby challenging our own preconceived understandings and biases.

The protocol and conduct of this study were reviewed and approved by the Indiana University Institutional Review Board. Participants read and provided signed informed consent. No compensation was provided to physician participants.

A research assistant (A.R.C.) trained in qualitative interviewing conducted all interviews.[23] These interviews covered social norms, perceptions of risk, self‐efficacy, knowledge, and acceptance of guidelines. At the end of the interview, each participant was asked to respond to 3 case vignettes (Table 1), which had been developed by an ID physician (D.L.) based on both local and IDSA guidelines.[24, 25, 26] Participants decided whether to prescribe antibiotics and, if so, which antibiotic to use. After their response, the interviewer read aloud specific recommendations from IDSA guidelines and asked, Would you feel comfortable applying this recommendation to your practice? Are there situations when you would not apply this recommendation?

Case Vignettes Presented to Thirty Inpatient Physician Participants
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: ESBL, extended‐spectrum ‐lactamase; ICU, intensive care unit; IV, intravenous; PMNs, polymorphonuclear cells; WBC, white blood cell, UTI, urinary tract infection.

1. A 40‐year‐old man with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes develops pain and redness over the dorsum of his foot. He presents to the emergency room the day after these symptoms started. He denies any recent penetrating injuries to his foot, including no animal bites, and denies any water exposure. At the time of presentation, his temperature is 101.1F, pulse 89, his blood pressure is 124/76, and his respiratory rate is 16. Tender edema, warmth, and erythema extend up to the pretibial area of his right lower leg. Fissures are present between his toes, but he has no foot ulcers. There are no blisters or purulence. When you palpate, you don't feel any crepitus or fluctuance. He has a strong pulse at both dorsal pedis and posterior tibial arteries. Labs reveal a normal WBC count. What is your diagnosis? What antibiotics would you start?
2. A 72‐year‐old man is admitted for a lobectomy. About 6 days after his operation, while still on mechanical ventilation, he develops findings suggestive of pneumonia, based on a new right lower lobe infiltrate on chest x‐ray, increased secretions, and fever (101.1F). A blood sample and an endotracheal aspirate are sent for culture. He is empirically started on vancomycin and piperacillin/tazobactam. After 3 days of empiric antibiotics, he has had no additional fevers and has been extubated to room air. His WBC count has normalized. Blood cultures show no growth. The respiratory sample shows >25 PMNs and <10 epithelial cells; no organisms are seen on Gram stain, and there is no growth on culture. Would you make any changes to his antibiotic regimen at this time? If so, how would you justify the change?
3. A 72‐year‐old man presented with a severe Clostridium difficile infection, which resulted in both respiratory and acute renal failure. He gradually improved with supportive care, oral vancomycin, and IV metronidazole. After over a month of being hospitalized in the ICU, his Foley was removed. He was subsequently found to have urinary retention, so he was straight catheterized. The urine obtained from the straight catheterization was cloudy. A urinalysis showed 53 WBCs, positive nitrite, and many bacteria. Urine culture grew >100K ESBL‐producing Escherichia coli. He wasn't having fevers. He had no leukocytosis and no signs or symptoms attributable to a UTI. What is you diagnosis? What antibiotics would you start?

All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and deidentified. All transcripts were reviewed by the study's research assistant (A.R.C.) for accuracy and completeness.

An ID physician (D.L.) reviewed each transcript to determine whether the participant's stated plan for each case vignette was in accordance with IDSA guidelines. Participants were evaluated on their decision to prescribe antibiotics and their choice of agents.

Transcripts were also analyzed using emergent thematic analysis.[27, 28, 29] First, 2 members of the research team (D.L., A.R.C.) reviewed all interview transcripts and discussed general impressions. Next, the analytic team reread one‐fifth of the transcripts, assigning codes to the data line by line. Codes were discussed among team members to determine the most prominent themes. During this phase, codes were added, eliminated, and combined while applying the codes to the remaining transcripts.[30] The analysts then performed focused coding: finalized codes from the first phase were applied to each transcript. The 2 analysts performed focused coding individually on each transcript in a consecutive fashion and met after every 10 transcripts to ensure consistency in their coding for the prior 10 transcripts. Analysts discussed any discrepancies to reach a consensus. Evidence was sought that may call observations and classifications into question.[31] Theoretical saturation was reached through the 30 interviews, so additional enrollment was deemed unnecessary. NVivo version 9 software (QSR International, Cambridge, MA) was used to facilitate all coding and analysis.

RESULTS

All participants were physicians who practiced inpatient medicine. Ten were women, and 20 were men. The median age of participants was 34 years (interquartile range [IQR] 3042). Twenty were attending or staff physicians and had spent a median of 10 years (IQR 315) in clinical practice. Of these attending physicians, 3 practiced pulmonary/critical care, 16 were hospitalists without subspecialty training, and 1 was a hospitalist with ID training. Seven attending physicians practiced exclusively at hospital A, 8 practiced exclusively at hospital B, and 5 practiced at both A and B. The remaining 10 participants were physicians in training or residents, who practiced at both hospitals and were either in their third or fourth year of an internal medicine or medicine/pediatrics residency program.

All participants expressed general awareness of and familiarity with clinical guidelines. Most participants also found guidelines useful in their clinical practice. According to a resident:

[Guidelines] give you a framework for what to do. If somebody questions what you are doing, it is easy to point to the guidelines (24, resident).

Others recognized that guidelines synthesized the latest evidence:

The guidelines tend to keep us up‐to‐date, because unless you're focused on 1 system, it can be impossible to keep up with everything that is changing across the board (28, attending).

Some recognized the authoritative nature of guidelines:

Most of the guidelines are well‐researched and are approved by a lot of people, so I don't usually go against them (6, attending).

Another attending noted: I'm not a specialist in the field, so I need to follow the guidelines (8, attending).

 

Despite general agreement with guidelines in principle, our interviews identified 3 major barriers to following guidelines in practice: (1) lack of awareness of specific guideline recommendations, (2) tension between adhering to guidelines and the desire to individualize patient care, and (3) skepticism of certain guideline recommendations.

Lack of Awareness of Specific Guideline Recommendations

Although participants stated that they agreed with guidelines in general, many had difficulty describing specific guideline recommendations. Two residents acknowledged that their attending physicians did not seem familiar with guidelines. In response to hearing a guideline recommendation on HAP, a resident stated: I'm learning from them [the guidelines] as we speak. In addition, an attending admitted that she was not familiar with the guidelines:

Now that you're asking about [prescribing] outside of the clinical guidelines, I am sitting here thinking, I can't think of any [guidelines]. In fact, I will say that I am probably not aware of all of the clinical guidelines or changes in them in recent years (28, attending).

Knowledge deficits were evident in participants' responses to the case vignettes (Table 2, quotations 12). For the case of SSTI, 3 staff physicians wanted to prescribe antibiotics with activity against gram‐negative bacteria, which is not in accordance with IDSA guidelines. In the case of suspected HAP, the majority of physicians were unaware that, according to guidelines, negative cultures from the lower respiratory tract and clinical improvement should prompt consideration of stopping antibiotics. Finally, for the case of ASB, 6 participants (3 attendings, 3 residents) stated a desire to treat with antibiotics, which was not in accordance with IDSA guidelines.

 

Themes and Illustrative Quotations Identified From Semistructured Interviews of Thirty Inpatient Physicians
CategoryCase VignetteIllustrative Quotation
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: ASB, asymptomatic bacteriuria; HAP, hospital‐acquired pneumonia; MRSA, methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus; SSTI, skin and soft tissue infection; UTI, urinary tract infection.

1. Lack of awareness of specific guideline recommendationsSSTI1. [Treating for] methicillin susceptible [Staphylococcus aureus] without MRSA? Oh, oh, wow.[and] not doing any gram‐negative coverage? I guess I am most discomfortable with that, but if that's the guideline [recommendation], yes, I will probably start following it (8, attending).
ASB2. I still think that he has a UTI, even though he doesn't necessarily have symptoms, because he was catheterized for so long. I also know after you reach a certain age, we generally treat you even though you don't necessarily have symptoms just because of all the risks associated with having bacteria in your urine (29, resident).
2. Tension between adhering to guidelines and individualizing patient careSSTI3. If he had a known history of MRSA, if he had something else likea temporary dialysis lineor prosthetic joint or something else that if he were to get bacteremic with MRSA, it would cause him more operations and significant morbidity. [In that case], I might add vancomycin to his regimen from the beginning (12, resident).
HAP4. He has only 1 lung because he had part of his lung taken out. So, anyway, part of a lung taken out, and he's got a new infiltrate on his x‐ray, and he's got all the risk factors for pneumonia, so I would say generally I would leave him on antibiotics, but cut down (5, attending).
5. I would be concerned, especially since the patient was febrile. He did have a new infiltrate, and he seemed to have gotten better on antibiotics. I would definitely take it [the guideline recommendation] into consideration, but I would probably go ahead and give a course of oral antibiotics (6, attending).
ASB6. I would say this is a UTI. I'm sure the guidelines are going to say no, but since he was having retention and it wasn't a urine [culture] obtained from him having a Foley, I have less comfort calling it colonization. I would say that it is probably an infection. You don't see a lot of fevers in just a bladder infection (25, attending).
3. Skepticism of guideline recommendationsSSTI7. My big concern is methicillin‐resistant S aureus [MRSA]. I think personally I have some concern about not covering for MRSA (17, attending).
HAP8. Those are the guidelines, so I mean it is agreeable if there are studies that back it up. It is not something I feel that great about, but I could trial them off antibiotics and see how they do (14, resident).
 9. I guess I would have to look more at the studies that led to the recommendations. I don't know that I would stop antibiotics completely because of how sick he was (29, resident).
ASB10. They [the guidelines] are tough to swallow, but we follow them because that is what the evidence shows. A lot of people would be very, very tempted to treat this (19, attending).
11. A guy has a catheter in for a month and has a ton of white cells in his urine and is growing something that is clearly pathogenic: he needs treatment. I do not care what the guidelines say (7, attending).

Tension Between Adhering to Guidelines and Individualizing Patient Care

Although participants agreed with guidelines in principle, they had difficulty applying specific guideline recommendations to an individual patient's care. Many participants acknowledged modifying these recommendations to better suit the needs of a specific patient:

So guidelines are guidelines, but at the end of the day, it still comes down to individualizing patient care, and so sometimes those guidelines do not cover all the bases, and you still need to do what you think is best for the patient (10, attending).

The guidelines are not examining the patient, and I am examining the patient. So I will do what the guidelines say unless I feel that that patient needs more care (11, resident).

Participants valued their own clinical observations over guideline‐recommended care (Table 2, quotations 36). In the case vignette of suspected HAP, the observation that the patient's clinical status improved while receiving antibiotics took precedence over the negative culture results or the guideline recommendations. Guideline recommendations and the primary literature were in conflict with the objective evidence the physicians collected at the bedside:

Fine, the study says something, but your objective evidence about what happened [is different]. He had this fever, he had these radiologic changes that are suggestive of pneumonia, you start antibiotics, he gets better, so that clinical scenario suggests an infection that is getting better (15, resident).

Participants readily acknowledged the limitations of clinical guidelines. They described unique clinical situations that guidelines did not address and specific patient populations that have not been well studied. According to many participants, these unique situations demanded independent decision making:

[I would treat outside of guidelines] when we are treating severe sepsis in somebody with advanced liver disease. Most of the clinical research programsexclude patients with advanced liver disease if they have risks for certain types of infections that are unusual (16, attending).

Two attending physicians believed that guidelines on pneumonia could not be applied to patients who recently had lobectomies (Table 2, quotation 4). One attending physician argued that guidelines on ASB could not be applied to sedated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) with an indwelling urethral catheter:

If it's a patient who is intubated and sick, they can't complain [about urinary symptoms], so the asymptomatic part of that goes out the window. For critically ill patients on ventilators that have bacteriuria, particularly if it's an ESBL [extended‐spectrum ‐lactamase], which is a bad bacteria, not wanting the patient to get sicker and not knowing if they are having symptoms of pain or both, I might consider treating in that kind of situation, even though they are afebrile and no [elevated] white count (20, attending).

 

Skepticism of Guideline Recommendations

A third barrier to guideline adherence was physicians' skepticism of what the guidelines recommend in certain cases. This skepticism stemmed, in part, from guidelines promoting a standardized, one size fits all approach even in situations when participants were more comfortable using their own judgment:

To me, the guidelines are adding a little bit more of a stress, because the guidelines are good for the more obvious things; they're more black and white, this than that. But clinical medicine is never like that. There is always something that makes it really gray, and some of it has to do with things that you're seeing because you're there with the patient that doesn't quite fit (25, attending).

One resident acknowledged difficulty with guidelines that recommended against doing something; he felt more comfortable offering treatment as opposed to withholding it:

Overall, guidelines are easy to follow when they have what to do as opposed to what not to do. We are trained to do something and fix something, so to not do anything is probably the hardest guideline to follow (11, resident).

This skepticism was evident in the participants' responses to the case vignettes (Table 2). One attending found the recommendation not to treat ASB tough to swallow (19, attending). A resident also expressed concern with not prescribing treatment for the positive urine culture:

It is just scary that he is growing such a bad bug and with a bad microbe, I would be worried about it progressing (11, resident).

For the case of suspected HAP, an attending described the recommendation to consider stopping antibiotics nerve‐wracking (28, attending).

 

Another acknowledged she would have difficulty stopping all antibiotics after only 3 days of therapy:

It would make me a little nervous following them [the guidelines]. I think I would finish the course because he had a fever, and we started him on antibiotics and he got better. I still feel clinically that he could have had pneumonia (25, attending).

Both residents and attending physicians expressed skepticism about the evidence behind some guideline recommendations or admitted that they did not agree with the recommendations (Table 2, quotations 711). For example, when presented with the guideline recommendation to stop antibiotics for HAP if the patient has clinically improved and a lower respiratory tract culture was negative, a majority of participants stated that they were not comfortable following it.

 

DISCUSSION

In this study, we used case vignettes to identify barriers to following IDSA guidelines. Case vignettes require few resources and provide a common starting point for assessing physician decision making. Prior studies have used case vignettes to measure the quality of physicians' practice, including antibiotic prescribing.[17, 18, 19, 20, 21] Case vignettes have been used to assess antibiotic prescribing in the neonatal ICU and medical students' knowledge of upper respiratory tract infections.[21, 32] In 1 study, physicians who scored poorly on a series of case vignettes more frequently prescribed antibiotics inappropriately in actual practice.[17]

Using case vignettes, we identified 3 barriers to following IDSA guidelines on SSTI, HAP, and ASB: (1) lack of awareness of specific guideline recommendations, (2) tension between adhering to guidelines and the desire to individualize patient care, and (3) skepticism of certain guideline recommendations. These barriers were distributed unevenly across participants, highlighting the heterogeneity that exists even within a subgroup of hospital medicine physicians.

We identified lack of familiarity with guideline recommendations as a barrier in our sample of physicians. Interestingly, participants initially expressed agreement with guidelines, but when presented with case vignettes and asked for their own treatment recommendations, it became clear that their familiarity with guidelines was superficial. The disconnect between self‐reported practice and actual adherence has also been described in a separate study on healthcare‐associated pneumonia.[33] In all likelihood, participants genuinely believed that they were practicing guideline‐concordant care, but without a formal process for audit and feedback, their lack of adherence had never been raised as an issue.

A second barrier to guideline‐concordant care was the tension between individualizing patient care and adhering to standardized recommendations. On one hand, this tension is unavoidable and is inherent in the practice of medicine. However, participants' responses to our case vignettes suggested that they find their patients too different to fit into any standardized guideline. This tension was also discussed by Charani et al., who interviewed 39 healthcare professionals at 4 hospitals in the United Kingdom. These investigators found that physicians routinely consider their patients to be outside the recommendations of local evidence‐based policies.[34] Instead of referring to guidelines, physicians rely on their knowledge and clinical experience to guide their antibiotic prescribing.

The final barrier to guideline adherence that we identified was providers' skepticism of what the guidelines were recommending. Although physician discomfort with certain guideline recommendations may be alleviated by reviewing the literature informing the recommendation, education alone is often insufficient to change antibiotic prescribing practices.[35] Furthermore, part of this skepticism may reflect the lack of data from randomized controlled trials to support every guideline recommendation. For example, most guideline recommendations are based on low‐quality evidence.[36] The guideline recommendations presented in this study were based on moderate‐ to high‐quality evidence.[24, 25, 26]

To our knowledge, this study is 1 of the few to describe barriers to guideline‐concordant antibiotic use among inpatient medicine physicians in the United States. The barriers discussed above have also been described by investigators in Europe who studied antibiotic use among inpatient physicians.[34, 37, 38] These commonalities highlight the shared challenges faced by local initiatives to improve antibiotic prescribing.

Our findings suggest that the 2 hospitals we studied need more active interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing. One attractive idea is involving hospitalist physicians in future improvement efforts. Hospitalists are well positioned for this role; they care for a large proportion of hospital patients, they frequently prescribe antibiotics, andas a professionthey are committed to the efficient use of healthcare resources. Hospitalists could assist in the dissemination of local guidelines, the implementation of reliable processes to prompt antibiotic de‐escalation, and the development of local standards for documenting the indication for antibiotics and the planned duration of therapy.[39]

One limitation of this study was that we did not validate whether a physician's self‐reported response to the case vignettes correlated with his or her actual practice. Interviews were conducted by a nonphysician and kept confidential, but participants may nonetheless have been inclined to give socially desirable responses. However, this is less likely because participants readily admitted to not knowing and often not following guidelines. In addition, our case vignettes presented simplistic, hypothetical situations and were therefore less able to account for all determinants of antibiotic‐prescribing decisions. Prior research has shown that antibiotic‐prescribing decisions are influenced by a multitude of factors, including social norms and the physician's underlying beliefs and emotions.[34, 40] Antibiotic‐prescribing decisions can also be influenced by audit and feedback processes.[35] Thus, we acknowledge that our findings may have been different if this study was conducted exclusively at hospitals without an antimicrobial stewardship program.

In conclusion, case vignettes may be a useful tool to assess physician knowledge and acceptance of antibiotic‐prescribing guidelines on a local level. This study used case vignettes to identify key barriers to guideline‐concordant antibiotic use. Developing local interventions to target each of these barriers will be the next step in improving antibiotic prescribing.

Disclosure: This project was supported by a Project Development Team within the ICTSI NIH/NCRR grant number UL1TR001108. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

References
  1. Fitch K, Iwasaki K, Pyenson B, Plauschinat C, Zhang J. Variation in adherence with Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) drug therapy guidelines: a retrospective actuarial claims data analysis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27:14251429.
  2. Sharif R, Cuevas CR, Wang Y, Arora M, Sharma G. Guideline adherence in management of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Respir Med. 2013;107:10461052.
  3. Gaither JR, Goulet JL, Becker WC, et al. Guideline‐concordant management of opioid therapy among human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)‐infected and uninfected veterans. J Pain. 2014;15:11301140.
  4. Corson K, Doak MN, Denneson L, et al. Primary care clinician adherence to guidelines for the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain: results from the study of the effectiveness of a collaborative approach to pain. Pain Med. 2011;12:14901501.
  5. Sewitch MJ, Blais R, Rahme E, Bexton B, Galarneau S. Receiving guideline‐concordant pharmacotherapy for major depression: impact on ambulatory and inpatient health service use. Can J Psychiatry. 2007;52:191200.
  6. Chen SY, Hansen RA, Gaynes BN, Farley JF, Morrissey JP, Maciejewski ML. Guideline‐concordant antidepressant use among patients with major depressive disorder. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2010;32:360367.
  7. Barnett ML, Linder JA. Antibiotic prescribing to adults with sore throat in the United States, 1997–2010. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174:138140.
  8. Fairlie T, Shapiro DJ, Hersh AL, Hicks LA. National trends in visit rates and antibiotic prescribing for adults with acute sinusitis. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:15131514.
  9. Zhang Y, Steinman MA, Kaplan CM. Geographic variation in outpatient antibiotic prescribing among older adults. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:14651471.
  10. Jenkins TC, Knepper BC, Sabel AL, et al. Decreased antibiotic utilization after implementation of a guideline for inpatient cellulitis and cutaneous abscess. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:10721079.
  11. Jenkins TC, Sabel AL, Sarcone EE, Price CS, Mehler PS, Burman WJ. Skin and soft‐tissue infections requiring hospitalization at an academic medical center: opportunities for antimicrobial stewardship. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51:895903.
  12. Cope M, Cevallos ME, Cadle RM, Darouiche RO, Musher DM, Trautner BW. Inappropriate treatment of catheter‐associated asymptomatic bacteriuria in a tertiary care hospital. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48:11821188.
  13. Trautner BW. Asymptomatic bacteriuria: when the treatment is worse than the disease. Nat Rev Urol. 2012;9:8593.
  14. Arnold FW, LaJoie AS, Brock GN, et al. Improving outcomes in elderly patients with community‐acquired pneumonia by adhering to national guidelines: Community‐Acquired Pneumonia Organization International cohort study results. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:15151524.
  15. Trautner BW, Grigoryan L, Petersen NJ, et al. Effectiveness of an Antimicrobial Stewardship Approach for Urinary Catheter‐Associated Asymptomatic Bacteriuria. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:11201127.
  16. Costelloe C, Metcalfe C, Lovering A, Mant D, Hay AD. Effect of antibiotic prescribing in primary care on antimicrobial resistance in individual patients: systematic review and meta‐analysis. BMJ. 2010;340:c2096.
  17. Lucet JC, Nicolas‐Chanoine MH, Lefort A, et al. Do case vignettes accurately reflect antibiotic prescription? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011;32:10031009.
  18. Lucet JC, Nicolas‐Chanoine MH, Roy C, et al. Antibiotic use: knowledge and perceptions in two university hospitals. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011;66:936940.
  19. Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P, Dresselhaus TR, Lee M. Comparison of vignettes, standardized patients, and chart abstraction: a prospective validation study of 3 methods for measuring quality. JAMA. 2000;283:17151722.
  20. Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P, et al. Measuring the quality of physician practice by using clinical vignettes: a prospective validation study. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:771780.
  21. Patel S, Landers T, Larson E, et al. Clinical vignettes provide an understanding of antibiotic prescribing practices in neonatal intensive care units. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011;32:597602.
  22. Kuzel AJ. Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In: Crabtree BF, Miller WL, eds. Doing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1999:3345.
  23. Livorsi D, Comer A, Matthias MS, Perencevich EN, Bair MJ. Factors influencing antibiotic‐prescribing decisions among inpatient physicians: a qualitative investigation. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015;36(9):10651072.
  24. Stevens DL, Bisno AL, Chambers HF, et al. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft tissue infections: 2014 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59:e10e52.
  25. American Thoracic Society and the Infectious Disease Society of North America. The new American Thoracic Society/Infectious Disease Society of North America guidelines for the management of hospital‐acquired, ventilator‐associated and healthcare‐associated pneumonia: a current view and new complementary information. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2006;12:444445.
  26. Nicolle LE, Bradley S, Colgan R, et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria in adults. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;40:643654.
  27. Miller WL, Crabtree BF. The dance of interpretation. In: Crabtree BF, Miller WL, eds. Doing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1999:127143.
  28. Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994.
  29. Bernard H. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira; 2002.
  30. Charmaz K. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2006.
  31. Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter; 1967.
  32. Ibia E, Sheridan M, Schwartz R. Knowledge of the principles of judicious antibiotic use for upper respiratory infections: a survey of senior medical students. South Med J. 2005;98:889895.
  33. Seymann GB, Francesco L, Sharpe B, et al. The HCAP gap: differences between self‐reported practice patterns and published guidelines for health care‐associated pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49:18681874.
  34. Charani E, Castro‐Sanchez E, Sevdalis N, et al. Understanding the determinants of antimicrobial prescribing within hospitals: the role of “prescribing etiquette”. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;57:188196.
  35. Dellit TH, Owens RC, McGowan JE, et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America guidelines for developing an institutional program to enhance antimicrobial stewardship. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44:159177.
  36. Khan AR, Khan S, Zimmerman V, Baddour LM, Tleyjeh IM. Quality and strength of evidence of the Infectious Diseases Society of America clinical practice guidelines. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51:11471156.
  37. Cortoos PJ, Witte K, Peetermans WE, Simoens S, Laekeman G. Opposing expectations and suboptimal use of a local antibiotic hospital guideline: a qualitative study. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008;62:189195.
  38. Schouten JA, Hulscher ME, Natsch S, Kullberg BJ, Meer JW, Grol RP. Barriers to optimal antibiotic use for community‐acquired pneumonia at hospitals: a qualitative study. Qual Saf Health Care. 2007;16:143149.
  39. Rohde JM, Jacobsen D, Rosenberg DJ. Role of the hospitalist in antimicrobial stewardship: a review of work completed and description of a multisite collaborative. Clin Ther. 2013;35:751757.
  40. Charani E, Edwards R, Sevdalis N, et al. Behavior change strategies to influence antimicrobial prescribing in acute care: a systematic review. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;53:651662.
References
  1. Fitch K, Iwasaki K, Pyenson B, Plauschinat C, Zhang J. Variation in adherence with Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) drug therapy guidelines: a retrospective actuarial claims data analysis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27:14251429.
  2. Sharif R, Cuevas CR, Wang Y, Arora M, Sharma G. Guideline adherence in management of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Respir Med. 2013;107:10461052.
  3. Gaither JR, Goulet JL, Becker WC, et al. Guideline‐concordant management of opioid therapy among human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)‐infected and uninfected veterans. J Pain. 2014;15:11301140.
  4. Corson K, Doak MN, Denneson L, et al. Primary care clinician adherence to guidelines for the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain: results from the study of the effectiveness of a collaborative approach to pain. Pain Med. 2011;12:14901501.
  5. Sewitch MJ, Blais R, Rahme E, Bexton B, Galarneau S. Receiving guideline‐concordant pharmacotherapy for major depression: impact on ambulatory and inpatient health service use. Can J Psychiatry. 2007;52:191200.
  6. Chen SY, Hansen RA, Gaynes BN, Farley JF, Morrissey JP, Maciejewski ML. Guideline‐concordant antidepressant use among patients with major depressive disorder. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2010;32:360367.
  7. Barnett ML, Linder JA. Antibiotic prescribing to adults with sore throat in the United States, 1997–2010. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174:138140.
  8. Fairlie T, Shapiro DJ, Hersh AL, Hicks LA. National trends in visit rates and antibiotic prescribing for adults with acute sinusitis. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:15131514.
  9. Zhang Y, Steinman MA, Kaplan CM. Geographic variation in outpatient antibiotic prescribing among older adults. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:14651471.
  10. Jenkins TC, Knepper BC, Sabel AL, et al. Decreased antibiotic utilization after implementation of a guideline for inpatient cellulitis and cutaneous abscess. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:10721079.
  11. Jenkins TC, Sabel AL, Sarcone EE, Price CS, Mehler PS, Burman WJ. Skin and soft‐tissue infections requiring hospitalization at an academic medical center: opportunities for antimicrobial stewardship. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51:895903.
  12. Cope M, Cevallos ME, Cadle RM, Darouiche RO, Musher DM, Trautner BW. Inappropriate treatment of catheter‐associated asymptomatic bacteriuria in a tertiary care hospital. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48:11821188.
  13. Trautner BW. Asymptomatic bacteriuria: when the treatment is worse than the disease. Nat Rev Urol. 2012;9:8593.
  14. Arnold FW, LaJoie AS, Brock GN, et al. Improving outcomes in elderly patients with community‐acquired pneumonia by adhering to national guidelines: Community‐Acquired Pneumonia Organization International cohort study results. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:15151524.
  15. Trautner BW, Grigoryan L, Petersen NJ, et al. Effectiveness of an Antimicrobial Stewardship Approach for Urinary Catheter‐Associated Asymptomatic Bacteriuria. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:11201127.
  16. Costelloe C, Metcalfe C, Lovering A, Mant D, Hay AD. Effect of antibiotic prescribing in primary care on antimicrobial resistance in individual patients: systematic review and meta‐analysis. BMJ. 2010;340:c2096.
  17. Lucet JC, Nicolas‐Chanoine MH, Lefort A, et al. Do case vignettes accurately reflect antibiotic prescription? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011;32:10031009.
  18. Lucet JC, Nicolas‐Chanoine MH, Roy C, et al. Antibiotic use: knowledge and perceptions in two university hospitals. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011;66:936940.
  19. Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P, Dresselhaus TR, Lee M. Comparison of vignettes, standardized patients, and chart abstraction: a prospective validation study of 3 methods for measuring quality. JAMA. 2000;283:17151722.
  20. Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P, et al. Measuring the quality of physician practice by using clinical vignettes: a prospective validation study. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:771780.
  21. Patel S, Landers T, Larson E, et al. Clinical vignettes provide an understanding of antibiotic prescribing practices in neonatal intensive care units. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011;32:597602.
  22. Kuzel AJ. Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In: Crabtree BF, Miller WL, eds. Doing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1999:3345.
  23. Livorsi D, Comer A, Matthias MS, Perencevich EN, Bair MJ. Factors influencing antibiotic‐prescribing decisions among inpatient physicians: a qualitative investigation. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015;36(9):10651072.
  24. Stevens DL, Bisno AL, Chambers HF, et al. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft tissue infections: 2014 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59:e10e52.
  25. American Thoracic Society and the Infectious Disease Society of North America. The new American Thoracic Society/Infectious Disease Society of North America guidelines for the management of hospital‐acquired, ventilator‐associated and healthcare‐associated pneumonia: a current view and new complementary information. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2006;12:444445.
  26. Nicolle LE, Bradley S, Colgan R, et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria in adults. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;40:643654.
  27. Miller WL, Crabtree BF. The dance of interpretation. In: Crabtree BF, Miller WL, eds. Doing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1999:127143.
  28. Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994.
  29. Bernard H. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira; 2002.
  30. Charmaz K. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2006.
  31. Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter; 1967.
  32. Ibia E, Sheridan M, Schwartz R. Knowledge of the principles of judicious antibiotic use for upper respiratory infections: a survey of senior medical students. South Med J. 2005;98:889895.
  33. Seymann GB, Francesco L, Sharpe B, et al. The HCAP gap: differences between self‐reported practice patterns and published guidelines for health care‐associated pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49:18681874.
  34. Charani E, Castro‐Sanchez E, Sevdalis N, et al. Understanding the determinants of antimicrobial prescribing within hospitals: the role of “prescribing etiquette”. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;57:188196.
  35. Dellit TH, Owens RC, McGowan JE, et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America guidelines for developing an institutional program to enhance antimicrobial stewardship. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44:159177.
  36. Khan AR, Khan S, Zimmerman V, Baddour LM, Tleyjeh IM. Quality and strength of evidence of the Infectious Diseases Society of America clinical practice guidelines. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51:11471156.
  37. Cortoos PJ, Witte K, Peetermans WE, Simoens S, Laekeman G. Opposing expectations and suboptimal use of a local antibiotic hospital guideline: a qualitative study. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008;62:189195.
  38. Schouten JA, Hulscher ME, Natsch S, Kullberg BJ, Meer JW, Grol RP. Barriers to optimal antibiotic use for community‐acquired pneumonia at hospitals: a qualitative study. Qual Saf Health Care. 2007;16:143149.
  39. Rohde JM, Jacobsen D, Rosenberg DJ. Role of the hospitalist in antimicrobial stewardship: a review of work completed and description of a multisite collaborative. Clin Ther. 2013;35:751757.
  40. Charani E, Edwards R, Sevdalis N, et al. Behavior change strategies to influence antimicrobial prescribing in acute care: a systematic review. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;53:651662.
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 11(3)
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 11(3)
Page Number
174-180
Page Number
174-180
Article Type
Display Headline
Barriers to guideline‐concordant antibiotic use among inpatient physicians: A case vignette qualitative study
Display Headline
Barriers to guideline‐concordant antibiotic use among inpatient physicians: A case vignette qualitative study
Sections
Article Source

© 2015 Society of Hospital Medicine

Disallow All Ads
Correspondence Location
Address for correspondence and reprint requests: Daniel Livorsi, MD, Assistant Professor, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa VA Health Care System, 601 Highway 6 West, Iowa City, IA 52246; Telephone: 319‐338‐0581; Fax: 319‐887‐4932; E‐mail: daniel-livorsi@uiowa.edu
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media
Media Files