Background:Nudging in microbiology is an antimicrobial stewardship strategy to influence decision making through the strategic reporting of microbiology results while preserving prescriber autonomy. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify the evidence that demonstrates the effectiveness of nudging strategies in susceptibility result reporting to improve antimicrobial use.Methods:A search for studies in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and All EBM Reviews was conducted. All simulated and vignette studies were excluded. Two independent reviewers were used throughout screening and data extraction.Results:Of a total of 1,346 citations screened, 15 relevant studies were identified. Study types included pre- and postintervention (n = 10), retrospective cohort (n = 4), and a randomized controlled trial (n = 1). Most studies were performed in acute-care settings (n = 13), and the remainder were in primary care (n = 2). Most studies used a strategy to alter the default antibiotic choices on the antibiotic report. All studies reported at least 1 outcome of antimicrobial use: utilization (n = 9), appropriateness (n = 7), de-escalation (n = 2), and cost (n = 1). Moreover, 12 studies reported an overall benefit in antimicrobial use outcomes associated with nudging, and 4 studies evaluated the association of nudging strategy with subsequent antimicrobial resistance, with 2 studies noting overall improvement.Conclusions:The number of heterogeneous studies evaluating the impact of applying nudging strategies to susceptibility result reports is small; however, most strategies do show promise in altering prescriber’s antibiotic selection. Selective and cascade reporting of targeted agents in a hospital setting represent the majority of current research. Gaps and opportunities for future research identified from our scoping review include performing prospective randomized controlled trials and evaluating other approaches aside from selective reporting.

ObjectivesTo determine whether a smartphone app, containing local bacterial resistance patterns (antibiogram) and treatment guidelines, improved knowledge of prescribing antimicrobials among medical trainees. MethodsWe conducted a prospective, controlled, pre-post study of medical trainees with access to a smartphone app (app group) containing our hospital’s antibiogram and treatment guidelines compared to those without access (control group). Participants completed a survey which included a knowledge assessment test (score range, 0 [lowest possible score] to 12 [highest possible score]) at the start of the study and four weeks later. The primary outcome was change in mean knowledge assessment test scores between week 0 and week 4. Change in knowledge assessment test scores in the app group were compared to the difference in scores in the control group using multivariable linear regression. ResultsSixty-two residents and senior medical students participated in the study. In a multivariable analysis controlling for sex and prior knowledge, app use was associated with a 1.1 point (95% CI: 0.10, 2.1) [β = 1.08, t(1) = 2.08, p = 0.04]  higher change in knowledge score compared to the change in knowledge scores in the control group. Among those in the app group, 88% found it easy to navigate, 85% found it useful, and about one- quarter used it daily. ConclusionsAn antibiogram and treatment algorithm app increased knowledge of prescribing antimicrobials in the context of local antibiotic resistance patterns. These findings reinforce the notion that smartphone apps can be a useful and innovative means of delivering medical education.

No abstract

Selective pulmonary vasodilation can be achieved through delivery of vasodilators directly to the lungs or targeting pulmonary specific processes. Several therapeutic options are available that demonstrate selectivity for the pulmonary vasculature. These agents can facilitate optimization of cardiopulmonary hemodynamics.

Cumulative susceptibility test data (CSTD) are used to guide empirical antimicrobial therapy and to track trends in antibiotic resistance. The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute recommends reporting CSTD at least annually and sets the minimum number of isolates per reported organism at 30. To comply, many hospitals combine data from multiple intensive care units (ICUs); however, this may not be appropriate to guide empirical therapy because of variations in patient populations. In this study, susceptibility data for two different ICUs at a tertiary care hospital in Toronto, Canada, were used to create a traditional CSTD report, which combined data from different ICUs, and a rolling-average CSTD report, which pooled 2 years of data for each ICU separately. For simplicity, data for only the most common Gram-negative organisms (Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa) and the most relevant antibiotics (ciprofloxacin, piperacillin-tazobactam) were examined. With the rolling-average method, significant differences in susceptibility were seen between the ICUs in 50% of the organism-antimicrobial combinations. Furthermore, the 3% median year-over-year difference in susceptibilities seen for the 16 organism-antibiotic combinations by using the traditional method was lower than the 14% median difference seen for the 20 between-ICU within-year comparisons obtained using the rolling-average method. Changes in our selection of empirical antibiotics resulted from this revised approach, and our results suggest that pooling data from ICUs with different patient populations may not be appropriate. A rolling-average method may be an appropriate strategy for the creation of individual-unit CSTD reports. C umulative susceptibility test data (CSTD) are used to guide empirical antimicrobial therapy and to detect changes in antibiotic resistance over time. A recommended methodology for generating CSTD has been published by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) in order to improve the consistency of CSTD within and across institutions (1, 2). It is recommended that these data be generated annually, and, in order to ensure adequate sample size and statistical power, CLSI guidelines recommend that only organisms with a minimum of 30 isolates be reported.To ensure applicability to specific patient populations, CLSI also recommends that CSTD be reported by patient location, clinical service, or patient population (e.g., patients with cystic fibrosis [CF]) (1). Allocation by patient or clinical characteristics will rapidly reduce the number of isolates included in the data, so institutions must choose whether it is more important to ensure an adequate sample size (e.g., by pooling different locations, clinical services, or populations) or to provide data applicable to a specific patient population, which may occur at the risk of reducing statistical confidence.Many hospitals, including our own, comply with the need for annual CSTD reports and for Ն30 organisms by ignoring the issue of specific patient populations...