4.2 Article

Managing adult patients with infectious diseases in emergency departments: international ID-IRI study

Journal

JOURNAL OF CHEMOTHERAPY
Volume 33, Issue 5, Pages 302-318

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/1120009X.2020.1863696

Keywords

Emergency; infection; sepsis; treatment; antibiotic; elderly

Ask authors/readers for more resources

By conducting a multinational survey on antimicrobial treatment in emergency departments, this study found variations in the use of antibiotics and hospitalization decisions across different countries, with the possibility of irrational antibiotic use and inappropriate admissions for some patients. Therefore, a better organizational scheme is required to optimize antimicrobial treatment in emergency departments.
We aimed to explore factors for optimizing antimicrobial treatment in emergency departments. A single-day point prevalence survey was conducted on January 18, 2020, in 53 referral/tertiary hospitals in 22 countries. 1957 (17%) of 11557 patients presenting to EDs had infections. The mean qSOFA score was 0.37 +/- 0.74. Sepsis (qSOFA >= 2) was recorded in 218 (11.1%) patients. The mean qSOFA score was significantly higher in low-middle (1.48 +/- 0.963) compared to upper-middle (0.17 +/- 0.482) and high-income (0.36 +/- 0.714) countries ( P < 0.001). Eight (3.7%) patients with sepsis were treated as outpatients. The most common diagnoses were upper-respiratory (n = 877, 43.3%), lower-respiratory (n = 316, 16.1%), and lower-urinary (n = 201, 10.3%) infections. 1085 (55.4%) patients received antibiotics. The most-commonly used antibiotics were beta-lactam (BL) and BL inhibitors (n = 307, 15.7%), third-generation cephalosporins (n = 251, 12.8%), and quinolones (n = 204, 10.5%). Irrational antibiotic use and inappropriate hospitalization decisions seemed possible. Patients were more septic in countries with limited resources. Hence, a better organizational scheme is required.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available