Pharmacist-led antimicrobial stewardship at transitions of care from inpatient hospital to home: a scoping review

Mishka Danchuk-Lauzon

doi:10.1017/ash.2024.349

Pharmacist-led antimicrobial stewardship at transitions of care from inpatient hospital to home: a scoping review

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 August 2024

Mishka Danchuk-Lauzon

Show author details

Mishka Danchuk-Lauzon*: Affiliation:
Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, CanadaDepartment of Pharmacy, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
*: Corresponding author: Mishka Danchuk-Lauzon; Email: mishka.danchuk.lauzon@mail.utoronto.ca

Article contents

Abstract
Objective:
Design:
Methods:
Results:
Conclusions:
Introduction
Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Supplementary material
Author contribution
Financial support
Competing interests
References

Abstract

Objective:

To summarize available literature and highlight research gaps pertaining to the role of a pharmacist in providing antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions for antibiotics at transitions of care (TOC) from inpatient hospital settings to home.

Design:

Scoping review.

Methods:

This scoping review follows the Arksey and O’Malley methodological framework. The literature search was conducted using the MEDLINE (OVID) database.

Results:

The MEDLINE (OVID) search returned 45 results. Of these, 26 were excluded during title and abstract screening and 11 were excluded after full-text review. Overall, eight studies were included in this scoping review. In six of the studies, AMS interventions were pharmacist-led. In two studies, they were led by an AMS team which included a pharmacist. Six of the studies used a similar intervention where a pharmacist led the review of antibiotics prior to patient discharge and made recommendations to change therapy where appropriate. The details of how these interventions were carried out vary between studies.

Conclusions:

Overall, all studies included in this scoping review concluded that pharmacists have a role in providing AMS interventions at TOC. This scoping review summarized available literature pertaining to the role of the pharmacist in providing AMS interventions for antibiotics at TOC. Research gaps that were highlighted are optimal level of AMS training for pharmacists providing AMS interventions, optimal workflow, ideal method of communication to the prescriber, and quality improvement metrics.

Information

Type: Review
Information: Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , 2024, e108
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2024.349 [Opens in a new window]
Creative Commons: This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons licence is used to distribute the re-used or adapted article and the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained prior to any commercial use.
Copyright: © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America

Introduction

Antimicrobial resistance is a top global public health threat, affecting all countries at all income levels.¹ In 2019, an estimated 4.95 million deaths were associated with bacterial antimicrobial resistance.² Of those, approximately 1.27 million were attributable to bacterial antimicrobial resistance.² Antimicrobial resistance creates the need for more costly and intensive care, while also affecting the productivity of patients and their caregivers.¹ Notably, data from across the globe exhibits concerning rates of third-generation cephalosporin-resistant E. coli and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.¹

Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) helps limit the development of organisms resistant to antimicrobials through the promotion of judicious use.³ Many hospitals have a formal Antimicrobial Stewardship Program (ASP) which supports the implementation of interventions that improve and measure the appropriate use of antimicrobials (selection, dosing, duration of therapy, and route of administration).³ Pharmacists often play a large role in ASP, with responsibilities that include but are not limited to (1) reviewing patient antimicrobial regimens; (2) influencing choice of antimicrobials through formulary restrictions, decision support systems, and practice guidelines; (3) offering guidance with regards to dosage, preparation, and administration of antimicrobials; (4) ensuring proper antimicrobial duration of therapy; and (5) assessing antimicrobial prescriptions provided at discharge.⁴ Although antibiotics are commonly prescribed at transitions of care (TOC) (eg, inpatient hospital discharge to home), review of antibiotics at hospital discharge is not a common function of an ASP.

A study published in 2020 by Brower et al sought to assess total antibiotic duration for patients with select infectious disease (ID) diagnoses across TOC from the inpatient to outpatient setting.^{Reference Brower, Hecke, Mangino, Gerlach and Goff5} This was done through retrospective analysis of discharge prescriptions for patients admitted to general surgery and medicine services at an academic medical center.^{Reference Brower, Hecke, Mangino, Gerlach and Goff5} A total of 101 patients were included in the study.^{Reference Brower, Hecke, Mangino, Gerlach and Goff5} The researchers found that most patients (81%) were prescribed antibiotics longer than was recommended by national guidelines with only 3% of patients receiving less than the recommendation.^{Reference Brower, Hecke, Mangino, Gerlach and Goff5} These study results highlight a gap in patient care and a potential opportunity for evaluation of antibiotic use at TOC.^{Reference Brower, Hecke, Mangino, Gerlach and Goff5}

Pharmacists, as medication experts, are well positioned to tailor antimicrobial therapy (eg, dosing, choice of antimicrobial, drug interactions) at the time of TOC from inpatient hospital settings to home. The extent of the literature published on this topic is not currently known, and research gaps have not yet been highlighted.

Objectives

The primary objective of this scoping review is to summarize available literature pertaining to the role of the pharmacist in providing AMS interventions for antibiotics at TOC from inpatient hospital settings to home. The secondary objective is to highlight research gaps pertaining to this topic.

Methods

This scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O’Malley methodological framework.^{Reference Arksey and O’Malley6} This framework is comprised of five stages: (1) identifying the research question, (2) identifying relevant studies, (3) study selection, (4) charting the data, and (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results.^{Reference Arksey and O’Malley6}

Identifying the research question

The research question for this scoping review was: what is known from the existing literature about the role of pharmacists in AMS interventions at the time of hospital discharge? From this, three key concepts were identified: pharmacists, AMS, and TOC. The author, Mishka Danchuk-Lauzon (MDL), consulted with a librarian to create a search strategy.

Identifying relevant studies

The literature search strategy used for this scoping review is provided in Appendix 1. The search was conducted through the MEDLINE database on January 3, 2023.

Study selection

After briefly screening the literature, inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed to help with study selection. Studies detailing pharmacist-led AMS interventions with regard to antibiotics at TOC (inpatient to outpatient/home) were included. The exclusion criteria for this study were as follows: focus on pediatric patients (<18 years of age), pharmacists included but not involved in a primary role, focus on a single disease state, and focus on an emergency medicine setting. The above were excluded as this scoping review was focused on adult patients with TOC from an inpatient hospital setting to outpatient/home with treatment of any disease. The role of pharmacists is a key element in the research question, and thus, they must have been involved in the AMS interventions. Figure 1 provides an overview of the study selection process. Study abstracts and titles were screened by MDL using Covidence software. Subsequently, full-text review of articles was completed by MDL. Citations were managed through EndNote 20.

Figure 1.

Flow diagram of included studies.

Charting the data

Key information was charted in Microsoft Excel for Mac (version 16.73). The following information was recorded: authors, year published, country, study design, setting, time frame, TOC type, whether or not the intervention was pharmacist-led, intervention, number of participants in intervention group, control/comparator, number of participants in the control group, results, and conclusion.

Collating, summarizing, and reporting the results

The summarized data in table format can be found in Tables 1 and 2 and are described below. The PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation was completed to ensure this scoping review met required standards (see supplementary material).^{Reference Tricco, Lillie and Zarin7}

Table 1.

Overview of studies

TOC, transition of care; ID, infectious disease; AMS, antimicrobial stewardship; QI, quality improvement; RXs, prescriptions; PGY-2, postgraduate year two.

Table 2.

Comparison of studies

AMS, antimicrobial stewardship; TOC, transitions of care; DRP, drug-related problem; ID, infectious disease; ASP, Antimicrobial Stewardship Program; ME, medication error; RXs, prescriptions; D/C, discharge.

Results

Study characteristics

The MEDLINE search returned 45 results. Of these, 26 were excluded during the title and abstract screening (see Figure 1 for more detail). Subsequently, 19 studies were considered for inclusion in the scoping review. Of these, nine were excluded as they were focused on an emergency medicine setting; one was excluded as it focused on an outpatient setting (urgent care center), and one was excluded as it did not contain a specific intervention. Overall, eight studies were included in this scoping review.^{Reference Chavada, Davey, O’Connor and Tong8–Reference Su, Hidayat, Rahman and Venugopalan15} All studies were conducted in the United States, except for the study by Chavada et al, which was conducted in Australia.^{Reference Chavada, Davey, O’Connor and Tong8–Reference Su, Hidayat, Rahman and Venugopalan15} Five of the studies were prospective and three of them were retrospective.^{Reference Chavada, Davey, O’Connor and Tong8–Reference Su, Hidayat, Rahman and Venugopalan15} The study time frame ranged from 4 weeks to 1 year, and the studies were all conducted between 2013 and 2021.^{Reference Chavada, Davey, O’Connor and Tong8–Reference Su, Hidayat, Rahman and Venugopalan15} All studies were published between 2018 and 2022.^{Reference Chavada, Davey, O’Connor and Tong8–Reference Su, Hidayat, Rahman and Venugopalan15} Most were single-center studies in a wide range of institutions such as teaching hospitals, non-teaching hospitals, community hospitals, tertiary care centers, and a quaternary care center.^{Reference Chavada, Davey, O’Connor and Tong8–Reference Manis, Kyle and Dajani12,Reference Parsels, Kufel and Burgess14,Reference Su, Hidayat, Rahman and Venugopalan15} The study by Mercuro et al was conducted in a health system that included one academic tertiary center and four community hospitals.^{Reference Mercuro, Medler and Kenney13} The number of participants in the intervention group ranged quite widely with the study by Leia et al, being the one with the most participants (1,100 participants), and the study by Manis et al, being the one with the least participants (20 participants).^{Reference Chavada, Davey, O’Connor and Tong8–Reference Su, Hidayat, Rahman and Venugopalan15}

Overview of interventions

The type of intervention varied across the included studies. In six of the studies, AMS interventions were pharmacist-led.^{Reference Giesler, Krein and Brancaccio9–Reference Parsels, Kufel and Burgess14} In two studies, they were led by a team which included a pharmacist (these were AMS teams).^{Reference Chavada, Davey, O’Connor and Tong8,Reference Su, Hidayat, Rahman and Venugopalan15} The type of TOC was not explicitly stated in any study. In Parsels et al, the type of TOC is not specified, but all prescriptions reviewed were sent to the outpatient hospital pharmacy.^{Reference Parsels, Kufel and Burgess14} It is implied in other studies that transitions are to an outpatient setting.^{Reference Chavada, Davey, O’Connor and Tong8–Reference Mercuro, Medler and Kenney13,Reference Su, Hidayat, Rahman and Venugopalan15} All studies concluded that pharmacists have a role in providing AMS interventions at TOC.^{Reference Chavada, Davey, O’Connor and Tong8–Reference Su, Hidayat, Rahman and Venugopalan15}

Retrospective audit of interventions

The study by Chavada et al retrospectively audited patient discharge prescriptions that were processed by the pharmacy department and noted whether any interventions were performed by the AMS team (which included a pharmacist).^{Reference Chavada, Davey, O’Connor and Tong8} They found that of the discharge prescriptions that contained antimicrobials, 74% were appropriate for choice of antimicrobial, 64% for the dose and frequency, and 21% for the duration of therapy.^{Reference Chavada, Davey, O’Connor and Tong8} If the AMS team was involved, discharged prescriptions were more likely to be appropriate.^{Reference Chavada, Davey, O’Connor and Tong8}

Postdischarge intervention

The intervention in the study by Jones et al was conducted postdischarge.^{Reference Jones, Leedahl, Losing, Carson and Leedahl10} In their study, they followed up on unresolved cultures and whether the pathogen was susceptible to the prescribed antimicrobials, if not susceptible, a recommendation to change therapy was made to the prescriber.^{Reference Jones, Leedahl, Losing, Carson and Leedahl10} When compared to a historical cohort, there was a 3.6-fold increase in AMS-related interventions among the discharged patients; additionally, inappropriate outpatient antimicrobial use was reduced by 39%.^{Reference Jones, Leedahl, Losing, Carson and Leedahl10}

Predischarge intervention

The remaining six studies all used a similar intervention where a pharmacist facilitated the review of antimicrobials prior to patient discharge and made recommendations to change therapy where appropriate.^{Reference Giesler, Krein and Brancaccio9,Reference Leja, Collins and Duker11–16} The details of how these interventions were carried out vary slightly between studies.^{Reference Giesler, Krein and Brancaccio9,Reference Leja, Collins and Duker11–16} For example, in the study by Parsels et al, discharge prescriptions for antimicrobials sent to the hospital outpatient pharmacy were reviewed by the inpatient ID pharmacist (who was alerted by the outpatient pharmacist of these).^{Reference Parsels, Kufel and Burgess14} Prescribers were then contacted if issues were identified and recommendations were made.^{Reference Parsels, Kufel and Burgess14} In the study by Leja et al, TOC pharmacists reviewed discharge medication lists to optimize their pharmacological therapy (including antimicrobials).^{Reference Leja, Collins and Duker11} Prescribers were then contacted if issues were identified and recommendations were made.^{Reference Leja, Collins and Duker11} Results of these studies are summarized in Tables 1 and 2.

Discussion

All studies included in the scoping review highlighted the opportunity or importance of pharmacist-led AMS interventions at discharge.^{Reference Chavada, Davey, O’Connor and Tong8–Reference Su, Hidayat, Rahman and Venugopalan15} From the literature summarized in the scoping review, key elements have been identified that need to be considered for the successful implementation of AMS interventions by pharmacists at discharge.

AMS training

Pharmacists included in the studies had varied backgrounds, these included AMS, ID, TOC, and no specialization.^{Reference Chavada, Davey, O’Connor and Tong8–Reference Su, Hidayat, Rahman and Venugopalan15} It is not clear from the literature whether an AMS intervention at TOC has the same impact when recommended by a pharmacist specialized in AMS/ID compared to a pharmacist with no specialization. This needs to be clarified as many ASPs may not be able to receive additional funding and expand their activities to patients at TOC. For pharmacists with no specialized training in AMS/ID, it would be helpful to define the type of training needed to provide AMS interventions, ensuring that this practice is generalizable.

Workflow

Workflows vary greatly across hospitals, as evidenced by the various approaches to AMS interventions described in studies included in this scoping review. Therefore, the optimal approach to implementing AMS interventions is likely site specific with established guiding principles. Establishing the AMS interventions as routine practice and communicating impact is likely important for consistency. AMS interventions may become a component of an already established workflow where a pharmacist is involved (such as medication reconciliation on discharge) for ease of implementation.

Additional research is needed regarding optimal timing for the AMS intervention. In five of the studies reviewed, the AMS intervention was conducted prior to discharge.^{Reference Giesler, Krein and Brancaccio9,Reference Manis, Kyle and Dajani12–Reference Su, Hidayat, Rahman and Venugopalan15} In one of the studies, it was conducted after discharge.^{Reference Jones, Leedahl, Losing, Carson and Leedahl10}

Interprofessional communication

A crucial step in conducting AMS interventions is the communication to the prescriber of the recommendation.^{Reference Giesler, Krein and Brancaccio9,Reference Jones, Leedahl, Losing, Carson and Leedahl10,Reference Manis, Kyle and Dajani12–Reference Su, Hidayat, Rahman and Venugopalan15} Consideration should be made for the way in which AMS interventions are communicated for successful implementation while avoiding delays in patient care. Responsibilities regarding order adaptation and patient counseling also need to be defined.

For individual institutions, the process should be mapped prior to being implemented. There may be process barriers to implementation such as Electronic Health Record limitations, medical directives that need to be put into place, and inadequate staffing.

Quality improvement

Metrics need to be defined that can be used to assess the success of implementation of pharmacist-led AMS interventions at TOC. It will be important to track the impact of pharmacist-led AMS interventions on appropriate baseline metrics. This data can be used for continuous quality improvement, increased funding, and identification of gaps in the process.

Strengths and limitations

This scoping review has many strengths. First, this scoping review provides a comprehensive overview of the available literature related to the research question. Second, this scoping review highlights research gaps and provides direction for future research. Third, the methodology used to conduct this scoping review is commonly used and easily replicable. Finally, the literature included in this scoping review is quite diverse with regard to methodology, size, and type of intervention.

This scoping review carries some limitations. First, due to the nature of scoping review methodology, the quality of studies was not assessed. Second, only one database was searched for literature. However, MEDLINE OVID is one of the most widely used databases for medical research, and the search was conducted with the help of a librarian to ensure it was comprehensive.

Overall, the literature included in this scoping review suggests that pharmacist-led AMS interventions prior to discharge from an inpatient hospital setting to home is a potentially beneficial strategy for reducing inappropriate antibiotic use at TOC. Many evidence gaps were highlighted that need to be addressed for successful implementation of these interventions. Further research should be conducted to determine: optimal level of AMS training for pharmacists providing AMS interventions, ideal workflow, ideal method of communication with the prescriber, and quality improvement metrics.

Supplementary material

For supplementary material accompanying this paper visit https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2024.349

Acknowledgments

Dr Savithiri Ratnapalan for inspiring this project and providing guidance, Elizabeth Uleryk for assisting with designing and performing the literature search, and Jennifer Lo for proofreading the draft manuscript and providing AMS input.

Author contribution

None.

Financial support

None reported.

Competing interests

The author reports no competing of interests relevant to this article.

Appendix

Appendix 1. MEDLINE (OVID) search strategy (Jan 3, 2023)

References

Organization WH. Antimicrobial resistance. 2024. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/antimicrobial-resistance Google Scholar

Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: a systematic analysis. Lancet 2022;399 (10325):629–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(21)02724-0 CrossRef Google Scholar

Antimicrobial Stewardship. Public Health Ontario. https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/health-topics/antimicrobial-stewardship. Accessed December, 2022Google Scholar

Pharmacists’ and Nurses’ Role in Antimicrobial Stewardship, Antimicrobial Resistance, and Sepsis Care. Institute for Safe Medication Practices. Accessed December, 2022. https://www.ismp.org/resources/pharmacists-and-nurses-role-antimicrobial-stewardship-antimicrobial-resistance-and-sepsis Google Scholar

Brower, KI, Hecke, A, Mangino, JE, Gerlach, AT, Goff, DA. Duration of antibiotic therapy for general medicine and general surgery patients throughout transitions of care: an antibiotic stewardship opportunity for noninfectious disease pharmacists. Hosp Pharm 2021;56(5):532–536. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018578720928265 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Arksey, H, O’Malley, L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005;8(1):19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 CrossRef Google Scholar

Tricco, AC, Lillie, E, Zarin, W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018;169(7):467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/m18-085 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Chavada, R, Davey, J, O’Connor, L, Tong, D. ‘Careful goodbye at the door’: is there role for antimicrobial stewardship interventions for antimicrobial therapy prescribed on hospital discharge? BMC Infect Dis 2018;18(1):225. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-018-3147-0 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Giesler, DL, Krein, S, Brancaccio, A, et al. Reducing overuse of antibiotics at discharge home: A single-center mixed methods pilot study. Am J Infect Control 2022;50(7):777–786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2021.11.016 CrossRef Google Scholar

Jones, JM, Leedahl, ND, Losing, A, Carson, PJ, Leedahl, DD. A pilot study for antimicrobial stewardship post-discharge: avoiding pitfalls at the transitions of care. J Pharm Pract 2018;31(2):140–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0897190017699775 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Leja, N, Collins, CD, Duker, J. Antimicrobial stewardship by transitions of care pharmacists at hospital discharge. Hosp Pharm 2021;56(6):714–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018578720951170 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Manis, MM, Kyle, JA, Dajani, D, et al. Evaluating the impact of a pharmacist-led antimicrobial stewardship intervention at discharge in a community, nonteaching hospital. Ann Pharmacother 2023;57(3):292–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/10600280221111795 CrossRef Google Scholar

Mercuro, NJ, Medler, CJ, Kenney, RM, et al. Pharmacist-driven transitions of care practice model for prescribing oral antimicrobials at hospital discharge. JAMA Netw 2022;5(5):e2211331. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.11331 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Parsels, KA, Kufel, WD, Burgess, J, et al. Hospital discharge: an opportune time for antimicrobial stewardship. Ann Pharmacother 2022;56(8):869–877. https://doi.org/10.1177/10600280211052677 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Su, CP, Hidayat, L, Rahman, S, Venugopalan, V. Use of an anti-infective medication review process at hospital discharge to identify medication errors and optimize therapy. J Pharm Pract 2019;32(5):488–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/0897190018761411 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Canadian Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System Report (Public Health Agency of Canada) (2020). Google Scholar

Figure 1.Flow diagram of included studies.

Table 1.Overview of studies

Table 2.Comparison of studies

Article contents

Pharmacist-led antimicrobial stewardship at transitions of care from inpatient hospital to home: a scoping review

Abstract

Information

Introduction

Objectives

Methods

Identifying the research question

Identifying relevant studies

Study selection

Charting the data

Collating, summarizing, and reporting the results

Results

Study characteristics

Overview of interventions

Retrospective audit of interventions

Postdischarge intervention

Predischarge intervention

Discussion

AMS training

Workflow

Interprofessional communication

Quality improvement

Strengths and limitations

Supplementary material

Acknowledgments

Author contribution

Financial support

Competing interests

Appendix

Appendix 1. MEDLINE (OVID) search strategy (Jan 3, 2023)

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests