OBJECTIVE The goal of this long-term quasi-experimental retrospective study was to assess the impact of a 5-year serial infection control and antimicrobial stewardship intervention on surgical site infections (SSIs). METHODS This study was conducted in a tertiary-care public teaching institution over a 5-year period from January 2010 to December 2014. All patients undergoing hepatobiliary surgery and liver, kidney, pancreas, and simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation were included. Outcomes were compared between a preintervention group (2010-2011) and a postintervention group (2012-2014). RESULTS A total of 1,424 procedures averaged an overall SSI rate of 11.2%. After implementation of the interventions, a decrease of 52.8% in SSI rates from 17.4% to 8.2% was observed (P50% (relative rate; P<.001) was observed in superficial incisional and organ-space infections between pre- and postintervention groups. In addition, a 54.9% decrease from 19.7% to 8.9% (P<.001; OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4-3.5) and a 51.6% decrease from 15.5% to 7.5% (P=.001; OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4-3.5) were observed for SSI rates in hepatobiliary surgery and solid organ transplantation, respectively. The antimicrobial stewardship intervention increased overall conformity to the internal surgical prophylaxis protocol by 15.2% (absolute rate) from 45.1% to 60.3% (P<.003; 95% CI, 5.4-24.9). CONCLUSIONS A long-term serial infection control and antimicrobial stewardship intervention decreased SSIs among patients undergoing hepatobiliary surgery and liver, kidney, pancreas, and simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;1468-1474.

Background: Patient-level surveillance (indication, appropriate choice, dosing, route, duration) of antimicrobial use in Canadian hospitals is needed to reduce antimicrobial overuse and misuse. Patient-level surveillance has not been performed on a national level in Canada. The Global Point Prevalence Survey of Antimicrobial Consumption and Resistance (Global-PPS) is an international collaborative to monitor antimicrobial use and resistance in hospitals worldwide. Global-PPS locally documents on a single day patient-level antimicrobial prescribing practices. This article presents the results of the 2017 Global-PPS in Canadian hospitals with established antimicrobial stewardship programs. Methods: Hospitals part of the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program were invited to participate. Surveys could be performed any time in the 2017 calendar year. All in-patient wards in each hospital were surveyed by a physician, pharmacist or nurse with infectious disease training. Results: Fourteen Canadian hospitals participated in the survey. Of 4118 patients, 1400 patients (34.0%) received a total of 2041 antimicrobials. Overall, 73.1% (n = 1493) of antimicrobials were for therapeutic use, 14.2% (n = 288) were for medical prophylaxis, 8.3% (n = 170) were for surgical prophylaxis, 1.8% (n = 37) were for other reasons, and 0.2% (n = 3) were used as prokinetic agents. Only 2.5% (n = 50) were for unknown reasons. For antimicrobials for therapeutic use, 29.9% of patients were treated for lower respiratory tract (343/1147), 10.5% for intra-abdominal (120/1147), 9.3% for skin and soft tissue (107/1147) and 7.5% for gastro-intestinal (86/1147) infections. Conclusions: Standardized methodology amongst Global-PPSs allows the comparison of our results to the 2015 Global-PPS. The prevalence of antimicrobial use on medical, surgical, and intensive care wards are similar to those previously observed in North America. Indication of antimicrobials has not been previously reported on such a large scale in Canadian hospitals. This report serves as a comparison for further point prevalence surveys that are currently underway. It will be used for identifying opportunities and benchmarking in antibiotic stewardship.

No abstract

Rationale, aims and objectives Patients undergoing haemodialysis receive on average 10–17 medications, which increase the risk of falls, adverse drug reactions and hospitalizations. Supervised discontinuation of potentially inappropriate medications may lower these risks. Although many calls have been made for deprescribing in the haemodialysis setting, little is known about how patients and providers in this setting experience it. The aim of this study is to explore patient and provider experiences and perceptions of one of the rare deprescribing intervention in haemodialysis. Methods Ten semi‐structured interviews were held with patients, and a focus group was done with dialysis clinic team members at a Montreal area health network’s haemodialysis clinic after the implementation of a standardized deprescribing intervention using the patient‐as‐partner approach. The interviews and focus group were recorded, and verbatims were coded to determine emerging themes. Grounded theory was used for interview guide design and data analysis. Results The three emerging themes were (1) ambivalence towards medication creating a favourable context for deprescribing, (2) the empowering elements of the deprescribing process and (3) the uncertain future of deprescribing in the clinics even though the intervention was considered successful. Conclusion Haemodialysis patients and providers viewed deprescribing favourably, believed the intervention was valuable, and offered suggestions for long term implementation while expressing concerns about feasibility. Notwithstanding the underlying uncertainties, a structured and integrated approach in routine practice involving all members of the care team may facilitate the continuity of deprescribing as an intervention in the setting of a haemodialysis clinic.