Kawanami Gustavo Hideki, Fortaleza Carlos Magno Castelo Branco
Department of Tropical Diseases and Imaging Diagnosis, Botucatu School of Medicine, São Paulo State University, UNESP, Botucatu, Brazil.
Scand J Infect Dis. 2011 Jul;43(6-7):528-35. doi: 10.3109/00365548.2011.565795. Epub 2011 Mar 14.
The identification of patterns of inappropriate antimicrobial prescriptions in hospitals contributes to the improvement of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP).
We conducted a cross-sectional study to identify predictors of inappropriateness in requests for parenteral antimicrobials (RPAs) in a teaching hospital with 285 beds. We reviewed 25% of RPAs for therapeutic purposes from y 2005. Appropriateness was evaluated according to current guidelines for antimicrobial therapy. We assessed predictors of inappropriateness through univariate and multivariate models. RPAs classified as 'appropriate' or 'probably appropriate' were selected as controls. Case groups comprised inappropriate RPAs, either in general or for specific errors.
Nine hundred and sixty-three RPAs were evaluated, 34.6% of which were considered inappropriate. In the multivariate analysis, general predictors of inappropriateness were: prescription on weekends/holidays (odds ratio (OR) 1.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20-2.28, p = 0.002), patient in the intensive care unit (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.11-2.23, p = 0.01), peritoneal infection (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.27-3.65, p = 0.004), urinary tract infection (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.25-2.87, p = 0.01), combination therapy with 2 or more antimicrobials (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.15-2.57, p = 0.008) and prescriptions including penicillins (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.39-3.25, p = 0.001) or 1(st) generation cephalosporins (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.01-3.00, p = 0.048). Previous consultation with an infectious diseases (ID) specialist had a protective effect against inappropriate prescription (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.24-0.50, p < 0.001). Factors independently associated with specific prescription errors varied. However, consultation with an ID specialist was protective against both unnecessary antimicrobial use (OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01-0.26, p = 0.001) and requests for agents with an insufficient antimicrobial spectrum (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.30, p = 0.01).
Our results demonstrate the importance of previous consultation with an ID specialist in assuring the quality of prescriptions. Also, they highlight prescription patterns that should be approached by ASP policies.
识别医院中不恰当抗菌药物处方模式有助于改进抗菌药物管理计划(ASP)。
我们进行了一项横断面研究,以确定一家拥有285张床位的教学医院中肠外抗菌药物申请(RPA)不恰当的预测因素。我们回顾了2005年用于治疗目的的25%的RPA。根据当前抗菌治疗指南评估适宜性。我们通过单变量和多变量模型评估不恰当的预测因素。被归类为“恰当”或“可能恰当”的RPA被选为对照。病例组包括一般不恰当的RPA或特定错误的RPA。
共评估了963份RPA,其中34.6%被认为不恰当。在多变量分析中,不恰当的一般预测因素为:周末/节假日开具处方(比值比(OR)1.67,95%置信区间(CI)1.20 - 2.28,p = 0.002)、重症监护病房患者(OR 1.57,95% CI 1.11 - 2.23,p = 0.01)、腹腔感染(OR 2.15,95% CI 1.27 - 3.65,p = 0.004)、尿路感染(OR 1.89,95% CI 1.25 - 2.87,p = 0.01)、联合使用2种或更多抗菌药物(OR 1.72,95% CI 1.15 - 2.57,p = 0.008)以及包括青霉素(OR 2.12,95% CI 1.39 - 3.25,p = 0.001)或第一代头孢菌素(OR 1.74,95% CI 表1.01 - 3.00,p = 0.048)的处方。先前咨询感染病(ID)专科医生对不恰当处方有保护作用(OR 0.34,95% CI 0.24 - 0.50,p < 0.001)。与特定处方错误独立相关 的因素各不相同。然而,咨询ID专科医生对预防不必要的抗菌药物使用(OR 0.04,95% CI 0.01 - 0.26,p = 0.001)和申请抗菌谱不足的药物(OR 0.14,95% CI 0.03 - 0.30,p = 0.01)均有保护作用。
我们的结果表明先前咨询ID专科医生对确保处方质量的重要性。此外,它们突出了ASP政策应处理的处方模式。