AIM: The aim of this study was to introduce a protocol for the use of antimicrobials in surgical prophylaxis for the described procedures in Antrim Area Hospital. METHOD: Historical data of antimicrobial use were obtained from retrospective analysis of patients' charts, for those patients identified as having one of the following 'clean/contaminated' surgical procedures over the previous six months; cholecystectomy or abdominal hysterectomy. These data were analysed, and a protocol was introduced providing guidelines for the choice of antimicrobial agent, its administration time, route, dose, duration and frequency of treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The main outcome measure was the success of the uptake of the protocol following its implementation. RESULTS: There was a total of 285 patients identified, 105 prior to and 180 post implementation. Overall, 68% of patients received some form of prophylaxis in the first cycle, and 72% in the second. CONCLUSION: Although the introduction of the protocol led to slight improvements in compliance with standard prescribing procedures, with an increase in single-dose prophylaxis, and a reduction in prolonged prophylactic treatment, the improvements did not reach expectations. This paper attempts to identify the possible barriers to protocol implementation.
AIM: The aim of this study was to introduce a protocol for the use of antimicrobials in surgical prophylaxis for the described procedures in Antrim Area Hospital. METHOD: Historical data of antimicrobial use were obtained from retrospective analysis of patients' charts, for those patients identified as having one of the following 'clean/contaminated' surgical procedures over the previous six months; cholecystectomy or abdominal hysterectomy. These data were analysed, and a protocol was introduced providing guidelines for the choice of antimicrobial agent, its administration time, route, dose, duration and frequency of treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The main outcome measure was the success of the uptake of the protocol following its implementation. RESULTS: There was a total of 285 patients identified, 105 prior to and 180 post implementation. Overall, 68% of patients received some form of prophylaxis in the first cycle, and 72% in the second. CONCLUSION: Although the introduction of the protocol led to slight improvements in compliance with standard prescribing procedures, with an increase in single-dose prophylaxis, and a reduction in prolonged prophylactic treatment, the improvements did not reach expectations. This paper attempts to identify the possible barriers to protocol implementation.
Authors: A Sasse; R Mertens; J P Sion; O Ronveaux; M Bossens; P De Mol; H Goossens; S Lauwers; C Potvliege; H Van Landuyt; L Verbist; G Verschraegen Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 1998-02 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: I C Gyssens; I E Geerligs; J M Dony; J A van der Vliet; A van Kampen; P J van den Broek; Y A Hekster; J W van der Meer Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 1996-12 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: E P Dellinger; P A Gross; T L Barrett; P J Krause; W J Martone; J E McGowan; R L Sweet; R P Wenzel Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 1994-03 Impact factor: 3.254