PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyze prospectively antibiotic utilization, comparing two in-patient Internal Medicine units. METHODS: Data on individual antibiotic utilization pattern and antibiotic costs were collected prospectively from hospitalized patient charts over a 12-month period, using the prescription-point prevalence method twice a month, for a total of 24 encounters for each admission unit. RESULTS: The antibiotic volume/patient (number of prescriptions), using the prescription-point prevalence methodology, was 330 and 557 in Internal Medicine B and D, respectively, resulting in 1.29 and 1.25 antibiotic courses/patient for each of the two units, respectively (p = 0.91). Thirty-five percent and 39% of the patients received at least one anti-microbial prescription. The total defined daily dose (DDD) and drug utilization 90% (DU90%) index for the units were 432.7 DDD, DU90% 389.7 and 727.8 DDD, DU90% 660.4, respectively (p = 0.01). The drug cost 90% index (DC90%) placed piperacillin-tazobactam in the first place in both units, while amoxycillin-clavulanic acid was in first place when the DU90% index was applied. CONCLUSIONS: A significant statistical difference was found in the anti-microbial cost analyzes of DDD, DU90% and DC90% indexes of the two units, using the prescription-point prevalence methodology. The intervention of a clinical pharmacology specialist in one of the units was effective in reducing the costs registered in that unit. 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyze prospectively antibiotic utilization, comparing two in-patient Internal Medicine units. METHODS: Data on individual antibiotic utilization pattern and antibiotic costs were collected prospectively from hospitalized patient charts over a 12-month period, using the prescription-point prevalence method twice a month, for a total of 24 encounters for each admission unit. RESULTS: The antibiotic volume/patient (number of prescriptions), using the prescription-point prevalence methodology, was 330 and 557 in Internal Medicine B and D, respectively, resulting in 1.29 and 1.25 antibiotic courses/patient for each of the two units, respectively (p = 0.91). Thirty-five percent and 39% of the patients received at least one anti-microbial prescription. The total defined daily dose (DDD) and drug utilization 90% (DU90%) index for the units were 432.7 DDD, DU90% 389.7 and 727.8 DDD, DU90% 660.4, respectively (p = 0.01). The drug cost 90% index (DC90%) placed piperacillin-tazobactam in the first place in both units, while amoxycillin-clavulanic acid was in first place when the DU90% index was applied. CONCLUSIONS: A significant statistical difference was found in the anti-microbial cost analyzes of DDD, DU90% and DC90% indexes of the two units, using the prescription-point prevalence methodology. The intervention of a clinical pharmacology specialist in one of the units was effective in reducing the costs registered in that unit. 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.