To determine risk factors for ciprofloxacin resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Patients with cultures (any site) positive for P aeruginosa, susceptible to ciprofloxacin, between January 1993 and December 1996 were identified using a computerized database. Factors predictive of emergence of ciprofloxacin resistance in P aeruginosa strains isolated from the same cultured site, within 21 days of the initial culture, were determined. Factors considered included length of stay prior to initial P aeruginosa culture, isolation site, initial minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), antibiotic area under the 24-hour concentration curve (AUC24), total area under the 24-hour inhibitory concentration curve ([AUIC24] AUC24/MIC summed for all active drugs), antibiotic(s) used as dichotomous variables (yes/no), and use of monotherapy or combination therapy.

Of 635 patients, 43 (7%) subsequently had ciprofloxacin-resistant P aeruginosa isolated. Four significantly differing patient groups were identified: group 1, P aeruginosa isolates from all sites other than the respiratory tract, treated with any drugs; group 2, respiratory tract isolates treated with drugs other than ciprofloxacin; group 3, respiratory tract isolates treated with ciprofloxacin at AUIC24 > 110 (μg·h/mL)/μg/mL; and group 4, respiratory tract isolates treated with ciprofloxacin at AUIC24 ≤110 (μg·h/mL)/μg/mL. The observed percentage resistant was a continuous function of prior length of stay in all four groups. Respiratory tract isolates had higher rates of ciprofloxacin resistance (12%) than isolates from other infection sites (4%). Respiratory tract isolates exposed to ciprofloxacin at AUIC24 ≤110 (μg·h/mL)/μg/mL had the highest resistance (17%). At AUIC24 >110 (μg·h/mL)/μg/mL, resistance was decreased to 11%, a rate similar to that seen in respiratory isolates not exposed to ciprofloxacin (7%).

Application of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic principles to dosing of ciprofloxacin may reduce the risk of ciprofloxacin resistance to the level seen in isolates exposed to other agents.

To evaluate collaborative efforts and intervention strategies by peer-review organizations (PROs) and long-term-care facilities (LTCFs) for improving pneumococcal vaccination rates among residents of LTCFs.

Prospective, before-after quality improvement project.

133 LTCFs in Alaska, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.

All residents of participating LTCFs.

Baseline pneumococcal vaccination rates were determined by medical-record review, self-reporting by patient or family members, and review of Medicare claims information. Remeasurement of vaccination rates was accomplished from documentation of vaccination of eligible residents by each LTCF.

133 LTCFs with 7,623 residents from Alaska, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming participated in this quality-improvement project. This accounted for 41% (133/321) of the potential nursing homes and resident population in the participating states. Baseline overall vaccination rates were 40% (3,050/7,589). The overall vaccination rate improved to 75% (5,720/7,623, P<.001). The number of facilities meeting the Healthy People 2000 vaccination goal of 80% improved from 18% (24/133) to 62% (83/133, P<.001). Initial use of chart stickers and implementation of standing orders led to similar increases in vaccination rates, but the standing-order strategy required commitment of fewer PRO resources at a statewide level. Remeasurement of vaccination rates in a subset of participating Idaho LTCFs 1 year after initial vaccination efforts demonstrated a sustained vaccination rate of 70% in facilities enforcing a standing-order policy.

Simple and straightforward vaccination strategies implemented in LTCFs over a short period of time can have a significant impact on vaccination rates. Collaborative efforts between state PROs and LTCFs enhance implementation of these strategies and can result in the achievement of national vaccination objectives. Standing orders appear to be one intervention effective in sustaining successful vaccination efforts. Regardless of the specific interventions employed, PROs played a significant role in facilitating vaccination program development and intervention implementation.