↓ Skip to main content

Protocol to disseminate a hospital-site controlled intervention using audit and feedback to implement guidelines concerning inappropriate treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
26 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
147 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Protocol to disseminate a hospital-site controlled intervention using audit and feedback to implement guidelines concerning inappropriate treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria
Published in
Implementation Science, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13012-018-0709-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Barbara W. Trautner, Pooja Prasad, Larissa Grigoryan, Sylvia J. Hysong, Jennifer R. Kramer, Suja Rajan, Nancy J. Petersen, Tracey Rosen, Dimitri M. Drekonja, Christopher Graber, Payal Patel, Paola Lichtenberger, Timothy P. Gauthier, Steve Wiseman, Makoto Jones, Anne Sales, Sarah Krein, Aanand Dinkar Naik, The Less is More Study Group

Abstract

Antimicrobial stewardship to combat the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria has become a national priority. This project focuses on reducing inappropriate use of antimicrobials for asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB), a very common condition that leads to antimicrobial overuse in acute and long-term care. We previously conducted a successful intervention, entitled "Kicking Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infection (CAUTI): the No Knee-Jerk Antibiotics Campaign," to decrease guideline-discordant ordering of urine cultures and antibiotics for ASB. The current objective is to facilitate implementation of a scalable version of the Kicking CAUTI campaign across four geographically diverse Veterans Health Administration facilities while assessing what aspects of an antimicrobial stewardship intervention are essential to success and sustainability. This project uses an interrupted time series design with four control sites. The two main intervention tools are (1) an evidence-based algorithm that distills the guidelines into a streamlined clinical pathway and (2) case-based audit and feedback to train clinicians to use the algorithm. Our conceptual framework for the development and implementation of this intervention draws on May's General Theory of Implementation. The intervention is directed at providers in acute and long-term care, and the goal is to reduce inappropriate screening for and treatment of ASB in all patients and residents, not just those with urinary catheters. The start-up for each facility consists of centrally-led phone calls with local site champions and baseline surveys. Case-based audit and feedback will begin at a given site after the start-up period and continue for 12 months, followed by a sustainability assessment. In addition to the clinical outcomes, we will explore the relationship between the dose of the intervention and clinical outcomes. This project moves from a proof-of-concept effectiveness study to implementation involving significantly more sites, and uses the General Theory of Implementation to embed the intervention into normal processes of care with usual care providers. Aspects of implementation that will be explored include dissemination, internal and external facilitation, and organizational partnerships. "Less is More" is the natural next step from our prior successful Kicking CAUTI intervention, and has the potential to improve patient care while advancing the science of implementation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 147 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 6%
Other 9 6%
Other 30 20%
Unknown 49 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 5%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 3%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 62 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 February 2018.
All research outputs
#2,389,821
of 25,101,232 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#481
of 1,797 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,690
of 453,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#21
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,101,232 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,797 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 453,489 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.