Skip to main content

"Turning Infectious Disease Consultation on Its Head" by Steven P. LaRosa, M.D.

CMS currently requires that all hospitals have an Antimicrobial Stewardship program in place to assure proper antimicrobial usage. This mandate is part of an effort to stem the ever increasing problem of antimicrobial resistance. These programs are usually comprised on a "physician champion", usually an Infectious Disease (ID) physician as well as an ID trained pharmacist. These programs usually entail some form of prospective audit and feedback to prescribing physicians to ensure appropriate antibiotic choice and duration. Most of these stewardship programs are under-funded in terms of percent time and salaries support such that only a small percentage of patients on antibiotics are reviewed i.e. we barely scratch the surface.

A similar shortcoming to stewardship programs is also encountered on most hospital's Infectious Disease Consult services. In hospitals the attending physicians call for consults on cases that they deem to be difficult and require assistance. Unfortunately, with this setup an Infectious Disease consultation is not called on patients that could most benefit from the expertise of an ID physician. A typical hospital ID consult service will see about 15 patients were day. In an average sized community hospital of 250 beds this would equate to ~6% of inpatients being seen. Data from numerous studies indicate that at least 50% of inpatients are on systemic antibiotics equating to ~125 patients in a 250 bed hospital.

So, what we currently have at most hospitals are "half ass" stewardship programs that meet the CMS criteria and "half ass" ID consult services with a number of patients falling through the cracks. I say we scrap the arcane ID consult service entirely and revamp and re-fund the stewardship programs. Hospitals should hire and 100% fund an ID physician or physicians for a large hospital to run with pharmacy and entirely new type of stewardship program. In this setting ALL patients in the hospital with positive cultures or on systemic antibiotics would be reviewed in real-time. The stewardship program would conduct walk rounds floor by floor speaking with Attending Physicians and making countless interventions. Physical exam findings, micro results, lab studies and radiographic studies could be still be interpreted and acted upon by ID physicians but gone would be the requirements of the incessant documentation required to fulfill billing requirements.

Data actually is available that this approach works. Sarah Parker and her colleagues at the Children's Hospital Colorado developed an approach where all inpatient antimicrobial prescriptions were reviewed by physician and pharmacist "stewards" (Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 2016; 35:1104-1110). The stewards then relayed all recommendations in person to the treating physicians on the hospital wards. They also fielded questions from physicians even if there were no specific recommendations. They termed this program "Handshake Stewardship". Implementation of the program was associated with a 10% decrease in antimicrobial use. The Clostridium difficile incidence rate decreased significantly during the implementation phase from 8.3 down to 4.9/10, 000 patient days ;p<0.01.

These troubling times of increasing antimicrobial resistance and deadly C. difficile infections call for radical solutions. Get rid of the formal Infectious Disease consultation service I say and instead implement "Handshake Stewardship". In athletics a goal is often to get the ball in the hands of talented athletes as often possible to make meaningful plays that affect the game's outcome. This is referred to as getting the star "touches". Handshake Stewardship ensures that Infectious Disease physicians get the maximum amount of touches to improve outcomes.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

"I'm Throwing you (ID) Pearls Here" by Steven P. LaRosa, M.D.

Prior to me employed by a non-academic teaching hospital I spent 11 years teaching Infectious Disease to medical students, Internal Medicine residents and ID fellows at 3 different academic teaching hospitals. I had a vast array of clinical pearls that I would share on teaching rounds. In my last 5 years in a non-teaching setting I am often amazed that no one ever taught physicians who are Board Certified in Internal Medicine these important teaching points. I thought it might be useful to share some of my favorite ID teaching points or "pearls" in this blog. 1) oral Beta lactam agents are not adequate treatment of bacteremia 2) Beta-lactam- beta lactamase drugs (Unasyn, Zosyn) and Carbapenems (Ertapenem and Meropenem) have perfectly adequate anaerobic coverage and do not require the addition of Metronidazole 3) Oral vancomycin has no bioavailability 4) Vancomycin is inferior to Beta lactam drugs for the treatment of serious MSSA infections 5) When awaiting sensiti

"The Viral Hypothesis of Alzheimer's Disease: Time to put it to the test!" by Steven P. LaRosa, M.D.

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) was estimated to affect 35.5 million people worldwide in 2010 and is expected to affect 115.4 million people by 2050. Approximately 10% of people over 65 are affected and 50% of population > 85 are affected. The currently approved drugs provide minimal benefit. The benefit of experimental drugs observed in Phase II clinical trials has been followed by resounding failures in adequately powered Phase III clinical trials. Even the results of the highly publicized Biogen study have significant questions associated with it. It is quite clear that a new strategy must be entertained and tested. Four members of the Human Herpes Virus family have been associated with development of Alzheimer’s disease; HSV-1, VZV, HHV-6A, and HHV-7. HSV-1 is capable in vitro leading to the production the Beta amyloid protein found in senile plaques and phosphorylating tau protein seen in neurofibrillary tangles seen in Alzheimer’s, a   phenomenon that can be blocked by co-incub

"Testing Strategies Against Lyme Persisters" by Steven LaRosa, MD

Recently I was contacted and interviewed by a party to get my feelings about the state of treatment of Lyme disease. On the phone we lamented about the sizable number of poor souls who continue to suffer symptoms after what is considered standard of care treatment. I made it clear to the interviewer that I practice only evidence-based medicine and that I treat patients based upon the IDSA guidelines. I also railed against physicians who treat patients with months of parenteral antibiotic therapy for “Chronic Limes’ Disease” (ha ha). I stated fairly aggressive and believe that such practices opens the patient to life threatening infections including catheter-related bacteremia and Clostridium difficile colitis. After I got off the phone I started to do some soul searching. I have gotten so used to saying the same lines over and over again, but when was the last time that I actually had looked at the literature? The answer obviously was way too long ago. I was able to identify 5 cli