IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0207991.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development of actionable quality indicators and an action implementation toolbox for appropriate antibiotic use at intensive care units: A modified-RAND Delphi study

Author

Listed:
  • Marlot C Kallen
  • Marie-Jose Roos-Blom
  • Dave A Dongelmans
  • Jeroen A Schouten
  • Wouter T Gude
  • Evert de Jonge
  • Jan M Prins
  • Nicolette F de Keizer

Abstract

Introduction: Extensive antibiotic use makes the intensive care unit (ICU) an important focus for antibiotic stewardship programs. The aim of this study was to develop a set of actionable quality indicators for appropriate antibiotic use at ICUs and an implementation toolbox, which can be used to assess and improve the appropriateness of antibiotic use in the treatment of adult patients at an ICU. Methods: A four round modified-RAND Delphi procedure was used. Potential indicators were identified by a multidisciplinary panel of 15 Dutch experts, from international literature and guidelines. Using an online survey, the identified indicators were rated on three criteria: relevance, actionability and feasibility. Experts discussed and rated the indicators for the second time during a face-to-face consensus meeting. During a final consensus meeting the toolbox was developed, containing potential barriers and improvement strategies which were identified using a validated checklist by Flottorp et al., and if available also containing supporting material. Results: The first round resulted in 24 potential indicators. After the final meeting a set of three process indicators, one structure indicator and one quantity metric remained: 1) perform at least two sets of blood cultures before start of empirical systemic therapy; 2) perform therapeutic drug monitoring in patients treated with vancomycin or aminoglycosides; 3) perform surveillance cultures if selective digestive or oropharyngeal decontamination is applied at the ICU; 4) biannual face-to-face meetings between ICU and microbiology staff in which local resistance rates are discussed; and 5) quantitative antibiotic use at the ICU expressed in days of therapy (DOT). The toolbox contains 24 unique barriers and 37 improvement strategies. Conclusions: Our study identified a set of four actionable quality indicators and one quantity metric, together with an implementation toolbox, to improve appropriate antibiotic use at ICUs.

Suggested Citation

  • Marlot C Kallen & Marie-Jose Roos-Blom & Dave A Dongelmans & Jeroen A Schouten & Wouter T Gude & Evert de Jonge & Jan M Prins & Nicolette F de Keizer, 2018. "Development of actionable quality indicators and an action implementation toolbox for appropriate antibiotic use at intensive care units: A modified-RAND Delphi study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-12, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0207991
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207991
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207991
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207991&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0207991?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0207991. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.