No differences in microbiological cure, length of stay or mortality were identified between the groups. This study suggests that linezolid and daptomycin are each reasonable options for treating vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus bacteremia in oncology patients. Further prospective, randomized controlled trials are needed to assess the optimal treatment for vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus bacteremia in this patient population.

Respiratory viral illnesses account for many hospitalizations and inappropriate antibiotic use. Respiratory viral panels by polymerase chain reaction (RVP-PCR) provide a reliable means of diagnosis. In 2015, the RVP-PCR assay at our institution was switched from respiratory viral panel (RVP) to rapid respiratory panel (rapid RP), which has a faster turnaround time (24 hours vs 12 hours, respectively). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of RVP-PCR tests on duration of antibiotic use and length of stay (LOS) in hospitalized patients. We performed a retrospective chart review of patients who had a RVP-PCR ordered within a 1-year time period before and after the assay switch. Patients who were pregnant, had received antibiotics within 30 days prior to admission, were not discharged, or had not completed antibiotics by end of study period were excluded. Data were obtained from a total of 140 patients (70 in each group). Of these, 25 (35.7%) in the RVP group and 28 (40.0%) in the rapid RP group had a positive result. The median LOS was 4.5 days (IQR, 3-9 days) in the RVP group and 5 days (IQR, 3-9 days) in the rapid RP group ( = .78). The median duration of antibiotic use was 4 days (IQR, 2-7 days) in the RVP group and 5 days (IQR, 1-7 days) in the rapid RP group ( = .8). Despite faster turnaround time, there was no significant difference in duration of antibiotic use, or LOS between the RVP and rapid RP groups.

Background Over the past decade there has been a greater emphasis on optimizing antimicrobial stewardship. Most stewardship models rely upon a central team, often led by infectious disease doctors and pharmacists to oversee institutional prescribing. We believe there is opportunity to complement this model by incorporating stewardship into interdisciplinary rounds.ObjectiveTo access feasibility and acceptance of antimicrobial stewardship into interdisciplinary rounds.Method We piloted a stewardship model driven by hospitalists and pharmacists through interdisciplinary rounds on four medicine units. We hypothesized that our process would not hamper existing tasks of interdisciplinary rounds. We surveyed team members to understand how the initiative was experienced.ResultsMany clinicians reported that antimicrobial prescribing was ‘often’ or ‘always’ discussed, and the process was ‘not too burdensome’ to incorporate. These responses varied based on the type of provider. A majority of the advanced practice providers (88%) reported the model prompted them to reconsider their individual antimicrobial prescribing. A 28.1% overall reduction of target antibiotic utilization was realized, however, there may be other contributors to this reduction.ConclusionWe believe interdisciplinary rounds can provide a good platform to extend hospital-based antimicrobial stewardship. It was not felt to disrupt the efficiency of achieving other goals of interdisciplinary rounds.

Purpose: Describe the process of obtaining the best possible medication history (BPMH) by Certified Pharmacy Technicians (CPhTs) on hospital admission to identify medication discrepancies. Methods: Cross-sectional, descriptive study conducted between December 2016 and June 2017 at a quaternary center in New York, including all patients 18 years and older admitted to the medicine service through the Emergency Department (ED) and seen by a CPhT. CPhTs obtained the BPMH using a systematic approach involving a standardized interview, checking medications with secondary sources and updating the electronic health record (EHR). Medication discrepancies were identified and categorized by type and risk. Summary statistics were provided as average and standard deviation (SD) for continuous variables, and as frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. Multivariable regression was used to test for associations between patient factors and presence of a medication discrepancy. Results: Of the 3,087 patient visits, the average age was 69 (SD 17.8), 54% were female (n = 1652) and 65% white (n = 2017); comorbidity score breakdown was: 0 (25%, n = 757), 1-2 (33%, n = 1023), 3-4 (23%, n = 699), > 4 (20%, n = 608). The average number of home and discharge medications were 10 (SD 6.1) and 10 (SD 5.4), respectively. The average time spent obtaining the BPMH was 30.6 minutes (SD 12.9). 69% of patients (n = 2130) had at least 1 discrepancy with an average of 4.2 (SD 4.6), of which 43% (n = 920) included high-risk medications. Having a medication discrepancy was associated with a higher number of home medications (p < 0.0001) comorbidities (p < 0.0001), and source of information (p < 0.04). Conclusion: Obtaining the BPMH by CPhTs on hospital admission frequently identifies medication discrepancies. Further studies are needed to evaluate the association between obtaining the BPMH and clinical outcomes.