Adecuacy of pediatric antimicrobial prescribing in the Emergency Department at discharge.

INTRODUCTION

In January 2019, the Community of Madrid's Health Department published a guide about the use of antimicrobials in outpatient children. Taking this regional Guide as reference, this study was aimed at estimating the adequacy of the antimicrobial stewardship at discharge from a pediatric Emergency Department (ED). Secondarily, the differences in adequacy according to the diagnosis and the prescriber were studied, and the agreement between this Guide and the protocols of the ED was assessed.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An observational, descriptive, retrospective study was conducted on patients under 16 years old, with a diagnosis included in the regional Guide who were discharged from a pediatric ED between March of 2018 and February of 2019. Prescription was considered adequate when the indication, the antibiotic and the posology (dosage, dosing interval, length of treatment and route of administration) were correct.

RESULTS

165 out of 648 (25,5%) infectious diseases processes analyzed received antimicrobial treatment. In 23 processes treated with antimicrobial, the adequacy could not be evaluated due to the absence of data necessary to assess any aspect of posology. Therapy was considered appropriate in 550/625 processes (88.0%). When antimicrobial treatment was prescribed, 70/142 (49.3%) were appropriate and no statistically significant differences in adequacy were found between prescribers. Posology was the worst handled point of the prescription (26.3%). Tract urinary infection, conjunctivitis and otitis media were the pathologies with the lowest adecuacy (44.4%; 50.0% and 52.2%) and presented the highest discrepancy between the Guide and the center protocols (κ = 0.308; κ = 0.000; κ = 0.586).

CONCLUSIONS

The adequacy of the management of infectious processes to the reference Guide in our pediatric ED was high, but it was below 50% when antimicrobial treatment was required. The degree of adequacy to the local protocols of the center was greater than to the regional Guide. This reveals a discrepancy between the 2 documents that should be analyzed and corrected according to the available scientific evidence.