4.5 Article

Sustained reduction in inappropriate treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria in a long-term care facility through an educational intervention

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INFECTION CONTROL
卷 36, 期 7, 页码 476-480

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2007.11.007

关键词

-

资金

  1. Infection Control Department
  2. Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center
  3. Department of Veterans Affairs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In long-term care facilities, treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) is common. However, randomized, controlled trials suggest that such treatment offers no benefit and may promote antimicrobial resistance. Methods: For 3 months before and 30 months after instituting an educational intervention, we monitored the appropriateness of urine culture collection and antibiotic treatment based on published guidelines and examined the effect on total antimicrobial use. The intervention included education of nursing staff to discourage the collection of urine cultures in the absence of symptoms suggestive of urinary tract infection and of primary care practitioners to not treat ASB. Results: In preintervention period, 23 of 38 (61%) antibiotic regimens prescribed for urinary tract indications were for ASK In the 6 months after the intervention, inappropriate submission of urine cultures decreased from 2.6 to 0.9 per 1000 patient-days (P < 0001), overall rate of treatment of ASB was reduced from 1.7 to 0.6 per 1000 patient-days (P = .0017), and total antimicrobial days of therapy were reduced from 167.7 to 117.4 per 1000 patient-days (P < .001). These reductions were maintained for 30 months after beginning the intervention. Conclusion: Educational interventions requiring minimal resources can result in sustained reductions in inappropriate treatment of ASB in long-term care and decreased total antimicrobial use. Education of the nursing staff regarding appropriate criteria for requesting urine cultures should be a component of such interventions.

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

4.5
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