{"title":"对澳大利亚一家三级医院引入开刀复位内固定手术抗菌药预防处方地方指南的评估","authors":"Sarah Hassan BPharm (Hons), PhD, Vincent Chan BSc (Hons), BPharm, MPH, PhD, GradCertAcadPrac, AACPA, Julie E. Stevens BSc, BPharm (Hons), PhD, Ieva Stupans BPharm (Hons), PhD, Juliette Gentle MBBS, FRACS (Orth)","doi":"10.1002/jppr.1886","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Guidelines advocate for the use of single-dose prophylaxis in open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) procedures. The presence of local (institutional) guidelines may assist in the uptake of evidence-based recommendations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>To determine the impact of local guideline introduction on prescribing practice for ORIF procedures at a metropolitan hospital in relation to our previous audit investigating adherence to national guidelines, which found that only 20.4% of ORIF patients received single-dose prophylaxis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>Antibiotic prescribing was audited for patients undergoing ORIF of closed fractures from July–December 2021 at a metropolitan, tertiary hospital following guideline introduction in April 2021. Data on perioperative prescribing regimens were collected, with results compared to recommendations in local guidelines. Descriptive statistics, chi-squared test, and Fisher's exact test were used to report categorical variables. Ethics approval was granted by Northern Health Office of Research, Ethics, and Governance (Reference no: NLR 72459) and registered with the RMIT University College Human Ethics Advisory Network (Reference no: RM 24642).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Data were collected for 165 patients. Almost all patients (93.5%) received cefazolin preoperatively as per guidelines. Only 22.6% of patients received single-dose prophylaxis as per local guideline recommendations, with overall adherence to guidelines only 16.4%.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Little change was observed in the proportion of patients who received single-dose prophylaxis as compared to our previous audit. There is a need to understand why guidelines are not adhered to despite the availability of national and local guidelines. An evaluation of local barriers may assist with informing future implementation strategies.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16795,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research","volume":"54 1","pages":"33-40"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jppr.1886","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of local guideline introduction on surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis prescribing for open reduction internal fixations at an Australian tertiary hospital\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Hassan BPharm (Hons), PhD, Vincent Chan BSc (Hons), BPharm, MPH, PhD, GradCertAcadPrac, AACPA, Julie E. Stevens BSc, BPharm (Hons), PhD, Ieva Stupans BPharm (Hons), PhD, Juliette Gentle MBBS, FRACS (Orth)\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jppr.1886\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Guidelines advocate for the use of single-dose prophylaxis in open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) procedures. The presence of local (institutional) guidelines may assist in the uptake of evidence-based recommendations.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aim</h3>\\n \\n <p>To determine the impact of local guideline introduction on prescribing practice for ORIF procedures at a metropolitan hospital in relation to our previous audit investigating adherence to national guidelines, which found that only 20.4% of ORIF patients received single-dose prophylaxis.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Method</h3>\\n \\n <p>Antibiotic prescribing was audited for patients undergoing ORIF of closed fractures from July–December 2021 at a metropolitan, tertiary hospital following guideline introduction in April 2021. Data on perioperative prescribing regimens were collected, with results compared to recommendations in local guidelines. Descriptive statistics, chi-squared test, and Fisher's exact test were used to report categorical variables. Ethics approval was granted by Northern Health Office of Research, Ethics, and Governance (Reference no: NLR 72459) and registered with the RMIT University College Human Ethics Advisory Network (Reference no: RM 24642).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Data were collected for 165 patients. Almost all patients (93.5%) received cefazolin preoperatively as per guidelines. Only 22.6% of patients received single-dose prophylaxis as per local guideline recommendations, with overall adherence to guidelines only 16.4%.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Little change was observed in the proportion of patients who received single-dose prophylaxis as compared to our previous audit. There is a need to understand why guidelines are not adhered to despite the availability of national and local guidelines. An evaluation of local barriers may assist with informing future implementation strategies.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16795,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research\",\"volume\":\"54 1\",\"pages\":\"33-40\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jppr.1886\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jppr.1886\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jppr.1886","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluation of local guideline introduction on surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis prescribing for open reduction internal fixations at an Australian tertiary hospital
Background
Guidelines advocate for the use of single-dose prophylaxis in open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) procedures. The presence of local (institutional) guidelines may assist in the uptake of evidence-based recommendations.
Aim
To determine the impact of local guideline introduction on prescribing practice for ORIF procedures at a metropolitan hospital in relation to our previous audit investigating adherence to national guidelines, which found that only 20.4% of ORIF patients received single-dose prophylaxis.
Method
Antibiotic prescribing was audited for patients undergoing ORIF of closed fractures from July–December 2021 at a metropolitan, tertiary hospital following guideline introduction in April 2021. Data on perioperative prescribing regimens were collected, with results compared to recommendations in local guidelines. Descriptive statistics, chi-squared test, and Fisher's exact test were used to report categorical variables. Ethics approval was granted by Northern Health Office of Research, Ethics, and Governance (Reference no: NLR 72459) and registered with the RMIT University College Human Ethics Advisory Network (Reference no: RM 24642).
Results
Data were collected for 165 patients. Almost all patients (93.5%) received cefazolin preoperatively as per guidelines. Only 22.6% of patients received single-dose prophylaxis as per local guideline recommendations, with overall adherence to guidelines only 16.4%.
Conclusion
Little change was observed in the proportion of patients who received single-dose prophylaxis as compared to our previous audit. There is a need to understand why guidelines are not adhered to despite the availability of national and local guidelines. An evaluation of local barriers may assist with informing future implementation strategies.
期刊介绍:
The purpose of this document is to describe the structure, function and operations of the Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research, the official journal of the Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia (SHPA). It is owned, published by and copyrighted to SHPA. However, the Journal is to some extent unique within SHPA in that it ‘…has complete editorial freedom in terms of content and is not under the direction of the Society or its Council in such matters…’. This statement, originally based on a Role Statement for the Editor-in-Chief 1993, is also based on the definition of ‘editorial independence’ from the World Association of Medical Editors and adopted by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.