Factors predictive of inappropriateness in requests for parenteral antimicrobials for therapeutic purposes: A study in a small teaching hospital in Brazil
- 22 February 2011
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis Ltd in Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases
- Vol. 43 (6-7), 528-535
- https://doi.org/10.3109/00365548.2011.565795
Abstract
Background: The identification of patterns of inappropriate antimicrobial prescriptions in hospitals contributes to the improvement of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP). Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study to identify predictors of inappropriateness in requests for parenteral antimicrobials (RPAs) in a teaching hospital with 285 beds. We reviewed 25% of RPAs for therapeutic purposes from y 2005. Appropriateness was evaluated according to current guidelines for antimicrobial therapy. We assessed predictors of inappropriateness through univariate and multivariate models. RPAs classified as ‘appropriate’ or ‘probably appropriate’ were selected as controls. Case groups comprised inappropriate RPAs, either in general or for specific errors. Results: Nine hundred and sixty-three RPAs were evaluated, 34.6% of which were considered inappropriate. In the multivariate analysis, general predictors of inappropriateness were: prescription on weekends/holidays (odds ratio (OR) 1.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20–2.28, p = 0.002), patient in the intensive care unit (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.11–2.23, p = 0.01), peritoneal infection (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.27–3.65, p = 0.004), urinary tract infection (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.25–2.87, p = 0.01), combination therapy with 2 or more antimicrobials (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.15–2.57, p = 0.008) and prescriptions including penicillins (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.39–3.25, p = 0.001) or 1st generation cephalosporins (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.01–3.00, p = 0.048). Previous consultation with an infectious diseases (ID) specialist had a protective effect against inappropriate prescription (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.24–0.50, p < 0.001). Factors independently associated with specific prescription errors varied. However, consultation with an ID specialist was protective against both unnecessary antimicrobial use (OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01–0.26, p = 0.001) and requests for agents with an insufficient antimicrobial spectrum (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03–0.30, p = 0.01). Conclusions: Our results demonstrate the importance of previous consultation with an ID specialist in assuring the quality of prescriptions. Also, they highlight prescription patterns that should be approached by ASP policies.Keywords
This publication has 39 references indexed in Scilit:
- Antimicrobial use: risk driver of multidrug resistant microorganisms in healthcare settingsCurrent Opinion in Infectious Diseases, 2009
- Clinical and economic impact of an antibiotics stewardship programme in a regional hospital in Hong KongQuality and Safety in Health Care, 2008
- Modelling patterns of agreement for nominal scalesStatistics in Medicine, 2007
- Appropriateness of Antimicrobial Therapy Measured by Repeated Prevalence SurveysAntimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 2007
- Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America Guidelines for Developing an Institutional Program to Enhance Antimicrobial StewardshipClinical Infectious Diseases, 2007
- Diagnosis and Treatment of Diabetic Foot InfectionsClinical Infectious Diseases, 2004
- QT Prolongation with Antimicrobial AgentsDrugs, 2004
- Quality of antimicrobial drug prescription in hospitalClinical Microbiology & Infection, 2001
- Practice Guidelines for the Management of Infectious DiarrheaClinical Infectious Diseases, 2001