为抗菌药物管理建立产科特定指标和干预措施

Q3 Medicine
JAMMI Pub Date : 2023-09-18 DOI:10.3138/jammi-2022-0032
Jeffrey Man Hay Wong, Denise J Wooding, Sarah E Leung, Vanessa Paquette, Ashley Roberts, Chelsea Elwood
{"title":"为抗菌药物管理建立产科特定指标和干预措施","authors":"Jeffrey Man Hay Wong, Denise J Wooding, Sarah E Leung, Vanessa Paquette, Ashley Roberts, Chelsea Elwood","doi":"10.3138/jammi-2022-0032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: To describe baseline antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) metrics and apply AMS interventions in an inpatient obstetrical population. Methods: From October 2018 to October 2019, our tertiary-care obstetrical center reviewed components of our AMS program, which included: (1) antimicrobial consumption data, (2) point prevalence surveys (PPS), and (3) prospective audit and feedback. We reviewed institutional data for antimicrobial consumption from the pharmacy database. Detailed point prevalence surveys were conducted for all antimicrobial prescriptions on two predefined dates each month. Daily audits and feedback assessed the appropriateness of all non-protocolized antimicrobials. Results: Our average antimicrobial length of therapy (LOT) was 12 days per 100 patient-days, where erythromycin (2.33), amoxicillin (2.28), and ampicillin (1.81) were the greatest contributors. Point prevalence surveys revealed that 28.8% of obstetrical inpatients were on antimicrobials, of which 11.2% were inappropriate. Protocolized antimicrobials were 62% less likely ( p = 0.027) to be inappropriate. From 565 audited prescriptions, 110 (19.5%) resulted in feedback, where 90% of recommendations were accepted and implemented. The most common reasons for interventions include incorrect dosage, recommending a diagnostic test before continuing antimicrobials, and changing antimicrobials based on specific culture and sensitivity. Conclusions: Antimicrobial use in obstetrics is unique compared to general inpatients. We provide a baseline set of metrics for AMS at our obstetrical center intending to lay the groundwork for AMS programming in our discipline. Antimicrobial protocolization, as well as audit and feedback, are feasible interventions to improve antimicrobial prescribing patterns.","PeriodicalId":36782,"journal":{"name":"JAMMI","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Establishing obstetrics-specific metrics and interventions for antimicrobial stewardship\",\"authors\":\"Jeffrey Man Hay Wong, Denise J Wooding, Sarah E Leung, Vanessa Paquette, Ashley Roberts, Chelsea Elwood\",\"doi\":\"10.3138/jammi-2022-0032\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: To describe baseline antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) metrics and apply AMS interventions in an inpatient obstetrical population. Methods: From October 2018 to October 2019, our tertiary-care obstetrical center reviewed components of our AMS program, which included: (1) antimicrobial consumption data, (2) point prevalence surveys (PPS), and (3) prospective audit and feedback. We reviewed institutional data for antimicrobial consumption from the pharmacy database. Detailed point prevalence surveys were conducted for all antimicrobial prescriptions on two predefined dates each month. Daily audits and feedback assessed the appropriateness of all non-protocolized antimicrobials. Results: Our average antimicrobial length of therapy (LOT) was 12 days per 100 patient-days, where erythromycin (2.33), amoxicillin (2.28), and ampicillin (1.81) were the greatest contributors. Point prevalence surveys revealed that 28.8% of obstetrical inpatients were on antimicrobials, of which 11.2% were inappropriate. Protocolized antimicrobials were 62% less likely ( p = 0.027) to be inappropriate. From 565 audited prescriptions, 110 (19.5%) resulted in feedback, where 90% of recommendations were accepted and implemented. The most common reasons for interventions include incorrect dosage, recommending a diagnostic test before continuing antimicrobials, and changing antimicrobials based on specific culture and sensitivity. Conclusions: Antimicrobial use in obstetrics is unique compared to general inpatients. We provide a baseline set of metrics for AMS at our obstetrical center intending to lay the groundwork for AMS programming in our discipline. Antimicrobial protocolization, as well as audit and feedback, are feasible interventions to improve antimicrobial prescribing patterns.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAMMI\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAMMI\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3138/jammi-2022-0032\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMMI","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jammi-2022-0032","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:描述基线抗菌药物管理(AMS)指标和应用AMS干预在住院产科人群。方法:2018年10月至2019年10月,我们的三级保健产科中心回顾了我们的AMS项目的组成部分,包括:(1)抗菌药物消费数据,(2)点患病率调查(PPS),(3)前瞻性审计和反馈。我们回顾了药房数据库中抗菌药物使用的机构数据。在每个月预定义的两个日期对所有抗菌药物处方进行详细的点患病率调查。每日审计和反馈评估了所有非规程抗菌药物的适宜性。结果:我们的平均抗菌药物治疗时间(LOT)为12天/ 100患者日,其中红霉素(2.33)、阿莫西林(2.28)和氨苄西林(1.81)贡献最大。点状流行病学调查显示,28.8%的产科住院患者使用了抗菌药物,其中11.2%的患者使用不当。方案规定的抗菌素不适当的可能性降低62% (p = 0.027)。在565张审核处方中,110张(19.5%)产生了反馈,其中90%的建议被接受和实施。干预措施最常见的原因包括剂量不正确,在继续使用抗菌素之前建议进行诊断测试,以及根据特定培养和敏感性改变抗菌素。结论:与普通住院患者相比,产科的抗菌药物使用具有独特性。我们在我们的产科中心为AMS提供了一套基线指标,旨在为我们学科的AMS编程奠定基础。抗菌药物协议以及审计和反馈是改善抗菌药物处方模式的可行干预措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Establishing obstetrics-specific metrics and interventions for antimicrobial stewardship
Background: To describe baseline antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) metrics and apply AMS interventions in an inpatient obstetrical population. Methods: From October 2018 to October 2019, our tertiary-care obstetrical center reviewed components of our AMS program, which included: (1) antimicrobial consumption data, (2) point prevalence surveys (PPS), and (3) prospective audit and feedback. We reviewed institutional data for antimicrobial consumption from the pharmacy database. Detailed point prevalence surveys were conducted for all antimicrobial prescriptions on two predefined dates each month. Daily audits and feedback assessed the appropriateness of all non-protocolized antimicrobials. Results: Our average antimicrobial length of therapy (LOT) was 12 days per 100 patient-days, where erythromycin (2.33), amoxicillin (2.28), and ampicillin (1.81) were the greatest contributors. Point prevalence surveys revealed that 28.8% of obstetrical inpatients were on antimicrobials, of which 11.2% were inappropriate. Protocolized antimicrobials were 62% less likely ( p = 0.027) to be inappropriate. From 565 audited prescriptions, 110 (19.5%) resulted in feedback, where 90% of recommendations were accepted and implemented. The most common reasons for interventions include incorrect dosage, recommending a diagnostic test before continuing antimicrobials, and changing antimicrobials based on specific culture and sensitivity. Conclusions: Antimicrobial use in obstetrics is unique compared to general inpatients. We provide a baseline set of metrics for AMS at our obstetrical center intending to lay the groundwork for AMS programming in our discipline. Antimicrobial protocolization, as well as audit and feedback, are feasible interventions to improve antimicrobial prescribing patterns.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JAMMI
JAMMI Medicine-Infectious Diseases
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
48
×
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