Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-lm65w Total loading time: 0.006 Render date: 2025-07-26T01:44:44.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Challenges in monitoring vancomycin in outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy: opportunities for mitigation utilizing OSHA’s framework for mitigating workplace hazards

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2025

Dominic C. Regli
Affiliation:
Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, NE, USA
Seth Warner
Affiliation:
Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, NE, USA
Ethan Wilcox
Affiliation:
Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, NE, USA
Jennifer Zimmerman
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, NE, USA
Marvin J. Bittner*
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, NE, USA
*
Corresponding author: Marvin J. Bittner; Email: marvinbittner@creighton.edu

Abstract

Information

Type
Letter to the Editor
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America

Introduction

A recent study of loss to follow-up in outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) Reference Kaul, Haller and Yang1 highlighted weaknesses in transitions of care and generated a response identifying several ways to mitigate these weaknesses. Reference Jensen, Van Abel, Frykman and Rivera2 These challenges have been recognized for some time, and they constitute a hazard interfering with appropriate clinical and laboratory monitoring in OPAT. Reference Wolie, Roberts, Gilchrist, McCarthy and Sime3

We recently encountered a series of patients illustrating persistence of this hazard. We also identified several ways to mitigate this hazard. In evaluating these mitigation measures, we looked for a framework to identify the most reliable mitigation strategies. COVID-19 highlighted occupational safety concepts in infection prevention, including the concept of relative effectiveness of mitigation controls. This hierarchy of controls developed from efforts to mitigate hazards in the workplace, such as dangerous chemicals, making it appropriate for mitigating the risks of a drug with a narrow therapeutic index, such as vancomycin, in OPAT. Evaluation of various mitigation measures within the Occupational Safety and Health Administration framework may reduce the bias towards administrative controls, which are less effective and thus less appropriate for high-reliability organizations. Reference Sehgal and Milton4

Report of cases

Within a six-month period, we encountered three situations where administrative problems interfered with vancomycin therapeutic drug monitoring in OPAT. In one case, an unexpectedly high vancomycin level came to the attention of an infectious diseases physician, who was unable to reach the pharmacist, home health agency, and even the patient for more than 48 hours. In a second case, an unexpectedly low vancomycin level required over 7 hours to reach the OPAT staff. In a third case, the OPAT pharmacist recognized the need for laboratory testing but could not identify the physician monitoring the patient, and the pharmacist ordered testing in the name of an uninvolved physician without telling that physician. These cases demonstrated breakdowns at multiple levels within the OPAT framework. This led to consideration of several mitigation measures.

Hierarchy of controls

From most effective to least effective, the OSHA hierarchy of controls Reference Sehgal and Milton4 includes three categories relevant to reducing vancomycin hazards in OPAT: elimination, substitution, and administrative controls.

Elimination

“Shorter is better” has become a mantra in antimicrobial stewardship. Reference Spellberg and Rice5 Shorter courses of vancomycin may, in some cases, be completed in the hospital. That obviates the need for vancomycin in OPAT. In other cases, shorter courses eliminate the need for therapeutic drug monitoring required.

Evidence continues to accumulate showing that shorter courses of antibiotics are adequate for types of osteomyelitis, intra-abdominal infection, and several other infections commonly managed in the OPAT setting.

Another form of elimination is replacement with well-absorbed oral drugs, requiring less extensive monitoring. Reference Jensen, Van Abel, Frykman and Rivera2 A systematic review concluded that, even with risks of adverse effects, intravenous therapy could be replaced with oral therapy for “selected patients with osteomyelitis, bacteremia, and endocarditis.” Reference Wald-Dickler, Holtom and Phillips6

Substitution

Oritavancin and dalbavancin have spectrums of antimicrobial activity similar to vancomycin but much longer half-lives. Studies have used one dose of oritavancin or two doses of dalbavancin as an alternative to standard of care with vancomycin. These drugs don’t require the same therapeutic drug monitoring. The newer lipopeptides showed similar outcomes to standard of care and demonstrated significant cost savings across a variety of hospitalization cost levels. Reference Agarwal, Bartsch and Kelly7 Daptomycin, lacking the need for routine therapeutic drug monitoring and with a better safety profile, is an additional vancomycin alternative. Reference Wolie, Roberts, Gilchrist, McCarthy and Sime3

Administrative controls

Despite the identification of weaknesses in transitions of care involving OPAT, Reference Kaul, Haller and Yang1 expectations to mitigate this hazard are absent from the 2024 edition of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education’s guide to the Clinical Learning Environment Review, despite that publication’s specific guidance on transitions of care and teaming. 8 One approach to mitigation of this hazard is consistent use of the I-PASS (Illness severity, Patient summary, Action list, Situation summary and contingency awareness, Synthesis by receiver) structure, which has decreased handoff errors within hospitals that implemented this framework. Reference Starmer, Spector and O’Toole9 Using structured handoffs, such as I-PASS, for OPAT could reduce handoff errors.

Education of physicians through academic detailing and handoff training further increases reliability. These programs, through one-on-one counseling of physicians, decrease educational gaps in antibiotic usage. Academic detailing is a key part of the CDC’s Core Elements for Outpatient Antibiotic Stewardship white paper, which notes the effectiveness of academic detailing in decreasing overall antibiotic usage in other contexts. Reference Sanchez, Fleming-Dutra, Roberts and Hicks10

Overall, these administrative controls—while potentially effective—suffer from the same weakness attributable to administrative controls in general: dependence on consistent compliance. That is why they occupy a lower rung in the hierarchy of controls and for them to be effective, they must be paired with consistent implementation.

Conclusions

After experiencing problems with therapeutic drug monitoring of vancomycin in OPAT, we identified several potential mitigation strategies. In identifying the most reliable strategies, we utilized OSHA’s hierarchy of controls to minimize the bias toward relatively unreliable administrative interventions. As such, we recommend consideration of interventions in this order of priority: elimination through either shorter antibiotic courses or use of oral antimicrobials, substitution of oritavancin or dalbavancin for vancomycin, and administrative controls to improve handoffs to OPAT providers and use of academic detailing to discourage inappropriate OPAT. This framework gives us a structure appropriate for high-reliability organizations to go beyond “let’s have better communications.”

Author contribution

DCR and SW contributed equally to the drafting of the manuscript. DCR, SW, EW, and MB contributed to the review of the literature. JZ provided clinical data. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Financial support

None reported.

Competing interests

All authors report no conflicts of interest.

References

Kaul, CM, Haller, M, Yang, J, et al. Factors associated with loss to follow-up in outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy: a retrospective cohort study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2024;45:387389.10.1017/ice.2023.216CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, KL, Van Abel, A, Frykman, P, Rivera, CG. Off-site facilities: friend or foe of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT)? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2024;45:798799.10.1017/ice.2024.20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolie, ZT, Roberts, JA, Gilchrist, M, McCarthy, K, Sime, FB. Current practices and challenges of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy: a narrative review. J Antimicrob Chemother 2024;79:20832102.10.1093/jac/dkae177CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sehgal, NJ, Milton, DK. Applying the hierarchy of controls: What occupational safety can teach us about safely navigating the next phase of the global COVID-19 pandemic. Front Public Health 2021;9:747894.10.3389/fpubh.2021.747894CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spellberg, B, Rice, LB. The Shorter Is Better movement: past, present, future. Clin Microbiol Infect 2023;29:141142.10.1016/j.cmi.2022.04.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wald-Dickler, N, Holtom, PD, Phillips, MC, et al. Oral is the new IV. Challenging decades of blood and bone infection dogma: a systematic review. Am J Med 2022;135:369379.e1.10.1016/j.amjmed.2021.10.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agarwal, R, Bartsch, SM, Kelly, BJ, et al. Newer glycopeptide antibiotics for treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections: systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost analysis. Clin Microbiol Infect 2018;24:361368.10.1016/j.cmi.2017.08.028CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CLER Evaluation Committee. CLER pathways to excellence: Expectations for an optimal clinical learning environment to achieve safe and high-quality patient care, Version 3.0. Chicago, IL: Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education; 2024. https://www.acgme.org/globalassets/pdfs/cler/acgme-cler-2024-pte3.pdf. Accessed February 3, 2025.Google Scholar
Starmer, AJ, Spector, ND, O’Toole, JK, et al. Implementation of the I-PASS handoff program in diverse clinical environments: a multicenter prospective effectiveness implementation study. J Hosp Med 2023;18:514.10.1002/jhm.12979CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanchez, GV, Fleming-Dutra, KE, Roberts, RM, Hicks, LA. Core elements of outpatient antibiotic stewardship. MMWR Recomm Rep 2016;65:112.10.15585/mmwr.rr6506a1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed