4.2 Article

Treatment of urinary tract infections in Swiss primary care: quality and determinants of antibiotic prescribing

期刊

BMC FAMILY PRACTICE
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12875-020-01201-1

关键词

Urinary tract infection; Antibiotic prescribing quality; Primary care; Switzerland; Quality indicator

资金

  1. SwissLife
  2. Blumenau-Leonie Hartmann Foundation
  3. Innova Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Urinary tract infections are one of the most common reasons for prescribing antibiotics in primary care. Current guidelines recommend fosfomycin, nitrofurantoin, or trimethoprim - sulfamethoxazol as empiric first line antimicrobial agents in uncomplicated infections. However, there is evidence that the use of fluoroquinolones, which are no longer recommended, is still inappropriate high. We determined antibiotic prescription patterns, quality and factors affecting antibiotic prescriptions in urinary tract infections in primary care in Switzerland. Methods: From June 2017 to August 2018, we conducted a cross-sectional study in patients suffering from a urinary tract infection (UTI). Patient and general practitioners characteristics as well as antibiotic prescribing patterns were analysed. Results: Antibiotic prescribing patterns in 1.352 consecutively recruited patients, treated in 163 practices could be analysed. In 950 (84.7%) patients with an uncomplicated UTI the prescriptions were according to current guidelines and therefore rated as appropriate. Fluoroquinolones were prescribed in 13.8% and therefore rated as inappropriate. In multivariable analysis, the age of the general practitioner was associated with increasing odds of prescribing a not guideline recommended antibiotic therapy. Conclusions: We found a high degree of guideline conform antibiotic prescriptions in patients with an uncomplicated urinary tract infection in primary care in Switzerland. However, there is still a substantial use of fluoroquinolones in empiric therapy.

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

4.2
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