Critical evaluation of antimicrobial use - A Turkish university hospital example

Autores: Hosoglu Salih , Parlak Zafer, Geyik Mehmet Faruk, Palanci Yilmaz

Resumen

Introduction: Antimicrobials are being used unnecessarily for different reasons. The aims of this study were: assessment of the quality of antimicrobial use and determination of the factors related to correct use. Method: Antimicrobial practice at Dicle University Hospital (DUH) was evaluated with a point prevalence approach. Using a standardized data collection form, the patients’ data (clinic, epidemiology, laboratory and antimicrobial use) was collected. Possible influential factors on antimicrobial use were examined. Results: In the surveillance study 1,350 inpatients were evaluated; 461 (34.1%) of them were using antimicrobials for treatment and 187 (13.9%) for prophylaxis. Antimicrobial indication was found in 355 of 461 patients (77.0%), and the number of antimicrobials was 1.8 per patient in the treatment group. The most common reason for antimicrobial use was community-acquired infection (57.9%). Pneumonia (20.4%), skin and soft tissue infections (9.11%) and urinary tract infections (7.9%) were the most common infectious diseases. Positive culture results were available for 39 patients (8.5.0%) when antimicrobial treatment started. All steps of antimicrobial use were found appropriate in 243 patients (52.7%). In multivariate analyses, clinical manifestation of infection at the beginning (p<0.001), presence of leukocyte counting (p<0.001) and prescription by an infectious disease specialist were found significantly positive factors for wholly appropriate antimicrobial use. Hospitalization with a diagnosis other than infection was found a significantly negative factor for appropriate antimicrobial use (p=0.001). Conclusion: The quality of antimicrobial use could be improved with better clinical and laboratory diagnosis and consultation with infectious diseases specialists.

Palabras clave: Antimicrobial use; quality evaluation; relatedfactors.

2013-11-15   |   381 visitas   |   Evalua este artículo 0 valoraciones

Vol. 7 Núm.11. Noviembre 2013 Pags. 873-879 J Infect Developing Countries 2013; 7(11)