中国合理使用抗生素:向外科医生介绍澳大利亚指南的经验教训。

Yan Zhang, Ken Harvey
{"title":"中国合理使用抗生素:向外科医生介绍澳大利亚指南的经验教训。","authors":"Yan Zhang,&nbsp;Ken Harvey","doi":"10.1186/1743-8462-3-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>World-wide concern about increasing antibiotic resistance has focused attention on strategies to improve antibiotic use. This research adapted Australian best-practice guidelines on the prophylactic use of antibiotics in surgery to a Beijing teaching hospital and then used them as a quality assessment and improvement tool, supplemented by educational interventions. Qualitative data about factors influencing antibiotic use was also obtained.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Australian and international guideline materials were amalgamated with the help of Chinese experts. Antibiotics prescribed for surgical prophylaxis in 60 consecutive patients undergoing clean or clean-contaminated surgery (120 total) were then compared with guideline recommendations in three phases; a pre-intervention period from June to August, 2002, an intervention period from June to August 2003 and post-intervention period from September to November 2003. During the intervention phase, feedback about prescriptions not in accord with the guideline was discussed with around 25 prescribers every two weeks. In addition, local factors influencing antibiotic use were explored with 13 junior surgeons and 8 high level informants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>While agreement was reached on the principles of antibiotic surgical prophylaxis there was no consensus on detail. Of 180 patients undergoing clean surgery throughout all phases of the study, antibiotic prophylaxis was administered to 78% compared to 98% of the 180 patients undergoing clean-contaminated surgery. Second and third generation cephalosporin antibiotics predominated in both low-risk clean and clean-contaminated operations. The timing of prophylaxis was correct in virtually all patients. The duration of prophylaxis was less than 24 hours in 96% of patients undergoing clean surgery compared to only 62% of patients undergoing clean-contaminated surgery. The intervention produced no improvement in the duration of prophylaxis nor the overuse and inappropriate choice of unnecessary broad-spectrum and expensive drugs. Interviews and focus groups revealed that an important explanation for the latter problem was Chinese government policy which expected hospitals to support themselves largely through the sale of drugs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Improving antibiotic use in China will require hospital funding reform, more authoritative best-practice guidelines, and hospital authorities embracing quality improvement.</p>","PeriodicalId":87170,"journal":{"name":"Australia and New Zealand health policy","volume":"3 ","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1743-8462-3-5","citationCount":"45","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rational antibiotic use in China: lessons learnt through introducing surgeons to Australian guidelines.\",\"authors\":\"Yan Zhang,&nbsp;Ken Harvey\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/1743-8462-3-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>World-wide concern about increasing antibiotic resistance has focused attention on strategies to improve antibiotic use. This research adapted Australian best-practice guidelines on the prophylactic use of antibiotics in surgery to a Beijing teaching hospital and then used them as a quality assessment and improvement tool, supplemented by educational interventions. Qualitative data about factors influencing antibiotic use was also obtained.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Australian and international guideline materials were amalgamated with the help of Chinese experts. Antibiotics prescribed for surgical prophylaxis in 60 consecutive patients undergoing clean or clean-contaminated surgery (120 total) were then compared with guideline recommendations in three phases; a pre-intervention period from June to August, 2002, an intervention period from June to August 2003 and post-intervention period from September to November 2003. During the intervention phase, feedback about prescriptions not in accord with the guideline was discussed with around 25 prescribers every two weeks. In addition, local factors influencing antibiotic use were explored with 13 junior surgeons and 8 high level informants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>While agreement was reached on the principles of antibiotic surgical prophylaxis there was no consensus on detail. Of 180 patients undergoing clean surgery throughout all phases of the study, antibiotic prophylaxis was administered to 78% compared to 98% of the 180 patients undergoing clean-contaminated surgery. Second and third generation cephalosporin antibiotics predominated in both low-risk clean and clean-contaminated operations. The timing of prophylaxis was correct in virtually all patients. The duration of prophylaxis was less than 24 hours in 96% of patients undergoing clean surgery compared to only 62% of patients undergoing clean-contaminated surgery. The intervention produced no improvement in the duration of prophylaxis nor the overuse and inappropriate choice of unnecessary broad-spectrum and expensive drugs. Interviews and focus groups revealed that an important explanation for the latter problem was Chinese government policy which expected hospitals to support themselves largely through the sale of drugs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Improving antibiotic use in China will require hospital funding reform, more authoritative best-practice guidelines, and hospital authorities embracing quality improvement.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":87170,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australia and New Zealand health policy\",\"volume\":\"3 \",\"pages\":\"5\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-05-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1743-8462-3-5\",\"citationCount\":\"45\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australia and New Zealand health policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-8462-3-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australia and New Zealand health policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-8462-3-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 45

摘要

背景:世界范围内对抗生素耐药性增加的关注已将注意力集中在改善抗生素使用的策略上。本研究将澳大利亚关于外科手术中预防性使用抗生素的最佳实践指南应用于北京一家教学医院,并将其作为质量评估和改进工具,辅以教育干预。还获得了影响抗生素使用因素的定性数据。方法:在中国专家的帮助下,对澳大利亚和国际指南资料进行整合。然后将60例连续接受清洁或清洁污染手术的患者(总共120例)的外科预防抗生素处方与指南建议分三个阶段进行比较;2002年6月至8月为干预前期,2003年6月至8月为干预期,2003年9月至11月为干预后期。在干预阶段,每两周与约25名开处方者讨论关于处方不符合指南的反馈。此外,我们还对13名初级外科医生和8名高级线人探讨了影响抗生素使用的当地因素。结果:虽然在抗生素手术预防原则上达成一致,但在细节上没有达成共识。在研究的所有阶段进行清洁手术的180名患者中,78%的患者使用了抗生素预防,而180名接受清洁污染手术的患者中有98%使用了抗生素预防。第二代和第三代头孢菌素类抗生素在低风险清洁手术和清洁污染手术中均占主导地位。几乎所有患者的预防时间都是正确的。96%接受清洁手术的患者预防持续时间少于24小时,而接受清洁污染手术的患者只有62%。干预措施没有改善预防持续时间,也没有改善过度使用和不当选择不必要的广谱和昂贵药物的情况。访谈和焦点小组显示,后一个问题的一个重要解释是中国政府的政策,该政策希望医院主要通过销售药品来支持自己。结论:改善中国的抗生素使用需要医院资金改革,更权威的最佳实践指南,以及医院当局接受质量改进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Rational antibiotic use in China: lessons learnt through introducing surgeons to Australian guidelines.

Background: World-wide concern about increasing antibiotic resistance has focused attention on strategies to improve antibiotic use. This research adapted Australian best-practice guidelines on the prophylactic use of antibiotics in surgery to a Beijing teaching hospital and then used them as a quality assessment and improvement tool, supplemented by educational interventions. Qualitative data about factors influencing antibiotic use was also obtained.

Methods: Australian and international guideline materials were amalgamated with the help of Chinese experts. Antibiotics prescribed for surgical prophylaxis in 60 consecutive patients undergoing clean or clean-contaminated surgery (120 total) were then compared with guideline recommendations in three phases; a pre-intervention period from June to August, 2002, an intervention period from June to August 2003 and post-intervention period from September to November 2003. During the intervention phase, feedback about prescriptions not in accord with the guideline was discussed with around 25 prescribers every two weeks. In addition, local factors influencing antibiotic use were explored with 13 junior surgeons and 8 high level informants.

Results: While agreement was reached on the principles of antibiotic surgical prophylaxis there was no consensus on detail. Of 180 patients undergoing clean surgery throughout all phases of the study, antibiotic prophylaxis was administered to 78% compared to 98% of the 180 patients undergoing clean-contaminated surgery. Second and third generation cephalosporin antibiotics predominated in both low-risk clean and clean-contaminated operations. The timing of prophylaxis was correct in virtually all patients. The duration of prophylaxis was less than 24 hours in 96% of patients undergoing clean surgery compared to only 62% of patients undergoing clean-contaminated surgery. The intervention produced no improvement in the duration of prophylaxis nor the overuse and inappropriate choice of unnecessary broad-spectrum and expensive drugs. Interviews and focus groups revealed that an important explanation for the latter problem was Chinese government policy which expected hospitals to support themselves largely through the sale of drugs.

Conclusion: Improving antibiotic use in China will require hospital funding reform, more authoritative best-practice guidelines, and hospital authorities embracing quality improvement.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信