4.5 Article

Prospective audit and feedback on antibiotic prescription in an adult hematology-oncology unit in Singapore

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10096-011-1351-6

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National University Cancer Institute, Singapore (NCIS)
  2. Pfizer
  3. AstraZeneca
  4. Janssen Cilag
  5. Merck, Sharpe Dohme

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We evaluated the impact of a prospective audit and feedback antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) on antibiotic prescription and resistance trends in a hematology-oncology unit in a university hospital (National University Cancer Institute, Singapore [NCIS]). A prospective interrupted time-series study comprising 11-month preintervention (PIP) and intervention evaluation phases (IEP) flanking a one-month implementation phase was carried out. Outcome measures included defined daily dose per 100 (DDD/100) inpatient-days of ASP-audited and all antibiotics (encompassing audited and non-audited antibiotics), and the incidence-density of antibiotic-resistant microorganisms at the NCIS. Internal and external controls were DDD/100 inpatient-days of paracetamol at the NCIS and DDD/100 inpatient-days of antibiotics prescribed in the rest of the hospital. There were 580 ASP recommendations from 1,276 audits, with a mean monthly compliance of 86.9%. Significant reversal of prescription trends towards reduced prescription of audited (coefficient=-2.621; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -4.923, -0.319; p=0.026) and all evaluated antibiotics (coefficient=-4.069; 95% CI: -8.075, -0.063; p=0.046) was observed. No changes were seen for both internal and external controls, except for the reversal of prescription trends for cephalosporins hospital-wide. Antimicrobial resistance did not change over the time period of the study. Adverse outcomes-the majority unavoidable-occurred following 5.5% of accepted ASP recommendations. Safe and effective ASPs can be implemented in the complex setting of hematology-oncology inpatients.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available