English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background Converting intravenous (IV) antibiotics to an oral (PO) route is an important stewardship activity to reduce patient harm, including extravasation, thrombophlebitis, and catheter-related infections. The INFORMER Project aims to develop a “smart” electronic tool to streamline IV to PO conversion in eligible patients using an algorithm derived from patient-level data. In designing the algorithm, we noted significant clinician subjectivity in reviewing PO eligibility criteria. To support algorithm development and frontline clinician buy in for future e-tool use, an initial step of our project explored agreement level for IV to PO switch between general internal medicine (GIM) vs. ID clinicians. Methods A convenience sample of GIM patients (tertiary teaching hospital) were reviewed in a 4-month pilot. Patients were still on the ward and received a target IV antibiotic (fluoroquinolone, sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim, clindamycin, metronidazole, linezolid, fluconazole, voriconazole, azithromycin). To mimic real-time decision-making, clinicians (MD and PharmDs) retrospectively assessed IV to PO eligibility of the last IV antibiotic dose on admission for (1) GI/absorption, (2) clinical stability and (3) global review (but not given specific thresholds/criteria). Agreement level was compared for ID vs. non-ID reviews. Results Overall, 52 patients’ IV to PO eligibility was assessed by multiple clinicians; 5 GIM teams and 6 ID MDs or PharmDs participated. ID vs. GIM respective assessment of Global eligibility was 61% vs. 48% (agreement in 71% of cases). ID vs. GIM assessment of acceptable absorption was 82% vs. 67%; acceptable clinical stability was 64% vs. 62% (Fig 1). Clinician comments were reviewed to identify algorithm improvements and areas for frontline education. Conclusion Our results are consistent with prior data suggesting up to 40–50% of patients may be eligible for IV to PO conversion, even at institutions that have IV to PO protocols. Our data also shows that overall, ID clinicians were more likely to assess a patient as ready for PO antibiotics vs. non-ID clinicians. Our findings are important as understanding cases of non-agreement and obtaining GIM consensus for tool utility are important for our next step, assessing INFORMER implementation on realtime IV to PO conversion rates. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

open forum infectious diseases

2072. Do ID and Non-ID Clinicians Agree on IV to PO Switch Criteria? Results from Phase I of the INForming IV to ORal MEdication Report (INFORMER) Project