INTRODUCTION: The excessive and inappropriate use of carbapenems is responsible for the development of resistance. The scientific community has been requiring caution and using these agents in specific cases only. OBJECTIVES: The authors had for aim to evaluate the appropriate use of carbapenems in a French university hospital. DESIGN: A retrospective survey was made over two months as a clinical audit to assess professional practices. The evaluation criteria for this audit were: the appropriateness of the indication, the possibility of alternative therapeutic strategies, the choice of an antibiotic combination, duration of treatment and dosage. RESULTS: During the audit period, 103 carbapenem prescriptions were included. Ninety-nine cases were analyzed. Among the carbapenem prescriptions, 28.3% (28/99) did not meet the criterion "appropriateness of the indication". Carbapenems were mostly prescribed empirically (60/99 [60%]) and most often for lung infections or nosocomial urinary tract infections. Finally, 66.7% (66/99) of all prescriptions were considered inappropriate for at least one criterion. The rate of inappropriateness ranged around 30% for each criterion. CONCLUSIONS: This study allowed us to assess professional practices for carbapenem prescriptions. The overall rate of inappropriateness was quite important. Carbapenems were not always used appropriately. These findings highlight the need of new regional guidelines and regular updating of local best practices recommendations. Finally, a stricter validation of carbapenem prescriptions will be implemented at the hospital pharmacy level.
INTRODUCTION: The excessive and inappropriate use of carbapenems is responsible for the development of resistance. The scientific community has been requiring caution and using these agents in specific cases only. OBJECTIVES: The authors had for aim to evaluate the appropriate use of carbapenems in a French university hospital. DESIGN: A retrospective survey was made over two months as a clinical audit to assess professional practices. The evaluation criteria for this audit were: the appropriateness of the indication, the possibility of alternative therapeutic strategies, the choice of an antibiotic combination, duration of treatment and dosage. RESULTS: During the audit period, 103 carbapenem prescriptions were included. Ninety-nine cases were analyzed. Among the carbapenem prescriptions, 28.3% (28/99) did not meet the criterion "appropriateness of the indication". Carbapenems were mostly prescribed empirically (60/99 [60%]) and most often for lung infections or nosocomial urinary tract infections. Finally, 66.7% (66/99) of all prescriptions were considered inappropriate for at least one criterion. The rate of inappropriateness ranged around 30% for each criterion. CONCLUSIONS: This study allowed us to assess professional practices for carbapenem prescriptions. The overall rate of inappropriateness was quite important. Carbapenems were not always used appropriately. These findings highlight the need of new regional guidelines and regular updating of local best practices recommendations. Finally, a stricter validation of carbapenem prescriptions will be implemented at the hospital pharmacy level.