Fawcett Nicola Jk, Jones Nicola, Quan T Phuong, Mistry Vikash, Crook Derrick, Peto Tim, Walker A Sarah
Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Department of Acute/General Medicine, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
BMJ Open. 2016 Aug 23;6(8):e010969. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010969.
To assess the magnitude of difference in antibiotic use between clinical teams in the acute setting and assess evidence for any adverse consequences to patient safety or healthcare delivery.
Prospective cohort study (1 week) and analysis of linked electronic health records (3 years).
UK tertiary care centre.
All patients admitted sequentially to the acute medical service under an infectious diseases acute physician (IDP) and other medical teams during 1 week in 2013 (n=297), and 3 years 2012-2014 (n=47 585).
Antibiotic use in days of therapy (DOT): raw group metrics and regression analysis adjusted for case mix.
30-day all-cause mortality, treatment failure and length of stay.
Antibiotic use was 173 vs 282 DOT/100 admissions in the IDP versus non-IDP group. Using case mix-adjusted zero-inflated Poisson regression, IDP patients were significantly less likely to receive an antibiotic (adjusted OR=0.25 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.84), p=0.03) and received shorter courses (adjusted rate ratio (RR)=0.71 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.93), p=0.01). Clinically stable IDP patients of uncertain diagnosis were more likely to have antibiotics held (87% vs 55%; p=0.02). There was no significant difference in treatment failure or mortality (adjusted p>0.5; also in the 3-year data set), but IDP patients were more likely to be admitted overnight (adjusted OR=3.53 (95% CI 1.24 to 10.03), p=0.03) and have longer length of stay (adjusted RR=1.19 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.36), p=0.007).
The IDP-led group used 30% less antibiotic therapy with no adverse clinical outcome, suggesting antibiotic use can be reduced safely in the acute setting. This may be achieved in part by holding antibiotics and admitting the patient for observation rather than prescribing, which has implications for costs and hospital occupancy. More information is needed to indicate whether any such longer admission will increase or decrease risk of antibiotic-resistant infections.
评估急症环境下不同临床团队之间抗生素使用的差异程度,并评估对患者安全或医疗服务产生任何不良后果的证据。
前瞻性队列研究(1周)以及对关联电子健康记录的分析(3年)。
英国三级医疗中心。
2013年1周内由传染病急症医师(IDP)和其他医疗团队依次收治到急症医疗服务科室的所有患者(n = 297),以及2012 - 2014年3年期间的患者(n = 47585)。
以治疗天数(DOT)衡量的抗生素使用情况:原始组指标以及针对病例组合进行调整的回归分析。
30天全因死亡率、治疗失败率和住院时间。
IDP组与非IDP组的抗生素使用情况分别为173 DOT/100例入院和282 DOT/100例入院。使用病例组合调整的零膨胀泊松回归分析,IDP组患者接受抗生素治疗的可能性显著更低(调整后的OR = 0.25(95%CI 0.07至0.84),p = 0.03),且疗程更短(调整后的率比(RR)= 0.71(95%CI 0.54至0.93),p = 0.01)。诊断不明但临床稳定的IDP组患者更有可能停用抗生素(87%对55%;p = 0.02)。治疗失败率或死亡率无显著差异(调整后的p>0.5;3年数据集亦如此),但IDP组患者更有可能留院过夜(调整后的OR = 3.53(95%CI 1.24至10.03),p = 0.03)且住院时间更长(调整后的RR = 1.19(95%CI 1.05至1.36),p = 0.007)。
由IDP主导的组抗生素治疗使用量减少了30%,且无不良临床结局,这表明在急症环境下可以安全地减少抗生素使用。这部分可以通过停用抗生素并收治患者进行观察而非开处方来实现,这对成本和医院床位占用有影响。需要更多信息来表明这种更长时间的住院是否会增加或降低耐抗生素感染的风险。