Clinician compliance to intrapartum antibiotics prophylaxis for minimising neonatal group B streptococcal infection risk.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Shailender Mehta, Roseline Charity Oraekeyi, Nicole Catalano
{"title":"Clinician compliance to intrapartum antibiotics prophylaxis for minimising neonatal group B streptococcal infection risk.","authors":"Shailender Mehta, Roseline Charity Oraekeyi, Nicole Catalano","doi":"10.1111/ajo.13907","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) administration to group B streptococcal (GBS) positive pregnant women and other pregnant women with risk factors may reduce the rate of neonatal early-onset GBS infection (EOGBSI).</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>Our aims were estimating the current indications for IAP among women presenting in labour, evaluating compliance to the current local IAP guidelines and to provide recommendations for improving clinician compliance.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We retrospectively analysed IAP data at our tertiary perinatal centre over a 16-month period. Our cohort included women, positive for GBS (± risk factors for EOGBSI), and a comparable number of randomly selected women with risk factors and GBS status negative or unknown.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 424 mother-baby pairs were included in this study. Forty-seven percent of the study cohort had IAP indication (n = 202/424). Of these, 72% (n = 145/202) received some form of IAP and 61% (n = 123/202) received 'adequate' IAP. IAP was adequately administered in 67% (n = 99/148) of women positive for GBS, 27% (n = 9/33) of women with unknown GBS status and 71% (n = 15/21) of women negative for GBS with IAP indication. Most frequent reason (30%, n = 125/424) for 'inadequate' IAP was less than four hours from birth for women positive for GBS despite spending more than 60 min in the hospital before birthing.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A substantial number of IAP were administered less than four hours before birth and were therefore 'inadequate' according to the current recommendations. These high rates could be reduced if those administered at least two hours prior to birth were redefined as 'adequate'.</p>","PeriodicalId":55429,"journal":{"name":"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.13907","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) administration to group B streptococcal (GBS) positive pregnant women and other pregnant women with risk factors may reduce the rate of neonatal early-onset GBS infection (EOGBSI).

Aims: Our aims were estimating the current indications for IAP among women presenting in labour, evaluating compliance to the current local IAP guidelines and to provide recommendations for improving clinician compliance.

Materials and methods: We retrospectively analysed IAP data at our tertiary perinatal centre over a 16-month period. Our cohort included women, positive for GBS (± risk factors for EOGBSI), and a comparable number of randomly selected women with risk factors and GBS status negative or unknown.

Results: A total of 424 mother-baby pairs were included in this study. Forty-seven percent of the study cohort had IAP indication (n = 202/424). Of these, 72% (n = 145/202) received some form of IAP and 61% (n = 123/202) received 'adequate' IAP. IAP was adequately administered in 67% (n = 99/148) of women positive for GBS, 27% (n = 9/33) of women with unknown GBS status and 71% (n = 15/21) of women negative for GBS with IAP indication. Most frequent reason (30%, n = 125/424) for 'inadequate' IAP was less than four hours from birth for women positive for GBS despite spending more than 60 min in the hospital before birthing.

Conclusions: A substantial number of IAP were administered less than four hours before birth and were therefore 'inadequate' according to the current recommendations. These high rates could be reduced if those administered at least two hours prior to birth were redefined as 'adequate'.

临床医生产前使用抗生素预防的依从性,以降低新生儿乙型链球菌感染风险。
背景:目的:我们的目标是估算目前产妇的产前抗生素预防(IAP)适应症,评估当地现行IAP指南的合规性,并为提高临床医生的合规性提供建议:我们回顾性分析了我们三级围产中心 16 个月内的 IAP 数据。我们的队列包括 GBS 阳性(± EOGBSI 风险因素)的产妇,以及随机抽取的具有风险因素且 GBS 状态为阴性或未知的同等数量的产妇:本研究共纳入 424 对母婴。47%的研究对象有 IAP 适应症(n = 202/424)。其中,72%(n = 145/202)接受了某种形式的 IAP,61%(n = 123/202)接受了 "充分 "的 IAP。67%(n = 99/148)的 GBS 阳性妇女、27%(n = 9/33)的 GBS 状态不明妇女和 71%(n = 15/21)的 GBS 阴性妇女在 IAP 适应症下得到了充分的 IAP 治疗。IAP "不足 "的最常见原因(30%,n = 125/424)是 GBS 阳性的产妇在分娩前在医院待了 60 分钟以上,但距离分娩时间不足 4 小时:结论:根据目前的建议,相当多的 IAP 在分娩前不到四小时进行,因此属于 "不适当"。如果将产前至少两小时进行的 IAP 重新定义为 "适当",则可降低上述高比率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
11.80%
发文量
165
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (ANZJOG) is an editorially independent publication owned by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG) and the RANZCOG Research foundation. ANZJOG aims to provide a medium for the publication of original contributions to clinical practice and/or research in all fields of obstetrics and gynaecology and related disciplines. Articles are peer reviewed by clinicians or researchers expert in the field of the submitted work. From time to time the journal will also publish printed abstracts from the RANZCOG Annual Scientific Meeting and meetings of relevant special interest groups, where the accepted abstracts have undergone the journals peer review acceptance process.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信