4.7 Article

Impact of a computer-generated alert system prompting review of antibiotic use in hospitals

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 63, 期 5, 页码 1058-1063

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkp062

关键词

antibiotic stewardship; prescription review; infectious disease physician

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to measure the impact on antibiotic use of a computer-generated alert prompting post-prescription review and direct counselling in hospital wards. A computer-generated alert on new prescriptions of 15 antibiotics was reviewed weekly by an infectious disease physician for 41 weeks. During the first 6 months of the study, criteria selected for potential intervention were: (i) a planned duration of treatment of >= 10 days; (ii) discordance between the spectrum of the prescribed antibiotic and available microbiological results; or (iii) prescriptions of broad-spectrum beta-lactams, fluoroquinolones, glycopeptides or linezolid. During the following 5 months, the alert was restricted to any prescription of the 15 antibiotics in the 9 wards where overall antibiotic use had not decreased in the past year. We analysed 2385 prescriptions, 932 (39%) of which generated an alert for potential intervention. Among the latter, 482 (51.7%) prescriptions prompted direct counselling, mainly for shortening the planned duration of therapy (18.9%), withdrawing antibiotics (16.2%) or streamlining therapy (15.5%). The attending physicians' compliance with the recommendations was 80%. The overall median (interquartile range) days of therapy prescribed by the attending physicians was reduced from an initial duration of 8 (7-14) to 7 (6-11) days (P < 0.0001), resulting in 26.5% less antibiotic days prescribed. The time required for the intervention was 6 h per week. This computer-prompted post-prescription review led physicians to modify one half of the antibiotic courses initially prescribed and was well accepted by the majority, although they had not requested counselling.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据