4.2 Article

Pediatric Antibiotic Stewardship for Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Pre-Post Intervention Study

期刊

CLINICAL PEDIATRICS
卷 61, 期 11, 页码 795-801

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/00099228221102827

关键词

children; community-acquired pneumonia; pediatric antibiotic stewardship; pediatric community health care centers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of an antibiotic stewardship program (ASP) on antibiotic prescription in children with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). The results showed that a one-day seminar for primary care pediatricians on the diagnosis and treatment of CAP according to national guidelines led to a significant decrease in the use of azithromycin, especially in younger children, and an increase in the use of amoxicillin. Implementation of the ASP helped reduce the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics and macrolides and improve adherence to safe treatment guidelines for CAP.
We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of an antibiotic stewardship program (ASP) on antibiotic prescription in children with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Antibiotic purchasing data were collected for children aged 3 months to 18 years diagnosed with CAP from November 2016 to April 2017 (pre-intervention period) and from November 2017 to April 2018 (post-intervention period). The intervention was a 1-day seminar for primary care pediatricians on the diagnosis and treatment of CAP in children according to national guidelines. There was a substantial decrease in the use of azithromycin after the intervention. In younger children, there was a 42% decrease, alongside an increased use of amoxicillin (P < .001). In older children, there was a smaller, non-statistically significant decrease in the use of azithromycin (P = .45). Our data demonstrate that the implementation of an ASP was associated with a reduction in the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics and macrolides and increased guideline adherence for the safe treatment of CAP.

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