OBJECTIVE: To identify inexpensive and simple quality parameters for the surveillance of antibiotic use in hospital settings. METHODS: A modified point-prevalence study was conducted in three university hospitals in Huddinge, Sweden, Riga, Latvia, and Vilnius, Lithuania. Each ward was visited once during May in the year 2002. All patients receiving antibiotics were identified and their medical records were reviewed by the authors according to the same protocol. Only data from corresponding departments were evaluated and compared. RESULTS: The prevalence of antibiotic use was 35%, 25% and 24% in Huddinge, Riga and Vilnius, respectively. Almost 2/3 of antibiotics were prescribed for treatment and 1/3 for either surgical or medical prophylaxis. Parenteral administration was significantly more common in Riga and Vilnius than in Huddinge. The most commonly prescribed antibiotics were cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones. Prescription of antibiotics for different diagnoses showed large variation between and within hospitals. The first or second generation cephalosporins were prescribed in most cases of surgical prophylaxis. The duration of surgical prophylaxis exceeded one day in 57%, 63% and 87% of cases in Huddinge, Riga and Vilnius, respectively. All antibiotics in Huddinge, and all except five in Riga were supplied by the hospital pharmacy. Antibiotics bought by patients and donated made up 41% of prescribed antibiotics in Vilnius. CONCLUSION: This point-prevalence survey using a simple and inexpensive method for benchmarking demonstrated quantitative and qualitative differences in the use of antibiotics between three university hospitals in the Baltic region, differences that now calls for explanations to their rationality. We suggest that the choice of an antibiotic, rates of intravenously administered treatment and duration of surgical prophylaxis are examples of suitable indicators of rational antibiotic use within a hospital but that comparison of such rates between hospitals is less meaningful.
OBJECTIVE: To identify inexpensive and simple quality parameters for the surveillance of antibiotic use in hospital settings. METHODS: A modified point-prevalence study was conducted in three university hospitals in Huddinge, Sweden, Riga, Latvia, and Vilnius, Lithuania. Each ward was visited once during May in the year 2002. All patients receiving antibiotics were identified and their medical records were reviewed by the authors according to the same protocol. Only data from corresponding departments were evaluated and compared. RESULTS: The prevalence of antibiotic use was 35%, 25% and 24% in Huddinge, Riga and Vilnius, respectively. Almost 2/3 of antibiotics were prescribed for treatment and 1/3 for either surgical or medical prophylaxis. Parenteral administration was significantly more common in Riga and Vilnius than in Huddinge. The most commonly prescribed antibiotics were cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones. Prescription of antibiotics for different diagnoses showed large variation between and within hospitals. The first or second generation cephalosporins were prescribed in most cases of surgical prophylaxis. The duration of surgical prophylaxis exceeded one day in 57%, 63% and 87% of cases in Huddinge, Riga and Vilnius, respectively. All antibiotics in Huddinge, and all except five in Riga were supplied by the hospital pharmacy. Antibiotics bought by patients and donated made up 41% of prescribed antibiotics in Vilnius. CONCLUSION: This point-prevalence survey using a simple and inexpensive method for benchmarking demonstrated quantitative and qualitative differences in the use of antibiotics between three university hospitals in the Baltic region, differences that now calls for explanations to their rationality. We suggest that the choice of an antibiotic, rates of intravenously administered treatment and duration of surgical prophylaxis are examples of suitable indicators of rational antibiotic use within a hospital but that comparison of such rates between hospitals is less meaningful.
Authors: K de With; F Allerberger; S Amann; P Apfalter; H-R Brodt; T Eckmanns; M Fellhauer; H K Geiss; O Janata; R Krause; S Lemmen; E Meyer; H Mittermayer; U Porsche; E Presterl; S Reuter; B Sinha; R Strauß; A Wechsler-Fördös; C Wenisch; W V Kern Journal: Infection Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 3.553