P02 Assessment of the appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing in an acute UK hospital using a national audit tool: a single-centre retrospective cohort study

Abstract Background Defining the gold standard for appropriate antibiotic prescribing is challenging due to the subjective nature of evaluating quality in prescribing. In 2017 the UK Government Scientific Advisory Committee on Antimicrobial Prescribing, Resistance and Healthcare Associated Infection...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:JAC-antimicrobial resistance 2022-05, Vol.4 (Supplement_2)
Hauptverfasser: Powell, Neil, Bamford, Kathleen
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract Background Defining the gold standard for appropriate antibiotic prescribing is challenging due to the subjective nature of evaluating quality in prescribing. In 2017 the UK Government Scientific Advisory Committee on Antimicrobial Prescribing, Resistance and Healthcare Associated Infection (APRHAI) used the Delphi process to define appropriate antibiotic prescribing, and developed an audit tool that supports patient-level assessment of antibiotic appropriateness in NHS hospitals. Objectives To quantify excess antibiotic use in a 750-bed acute hospital in the south-west of England (bottom 20th centile on PHE Fingertips for total antibiotic prescribing), and to determine where in the prescribing process the opportunity to safely reduce antibiotic use is: (A) initiation, (B) the pre-72 h review, or (C) course length optimization. Methods The EPMA system was used to identify patients discharged from medical specialties in August 2020 who had received at least one dose of antibiotic. Patients were grouped by discharging medical specialty, as follows: acute medicine, elder care, renal, endocrine, gastroenterology, respiratory and cardiology. Medical notes for 25% of discharges from each specialty were requested and audited against the APRHAI audit tool. A junior doctor completed the audit form for each patient with the case then discussed by two infection specialists until consensus was reached. Excess days of antibiotic therapy (DOTs) were calculated for each of the three timepoints (A–C). Results In total, 184 of 647 (28%) patients discharged from medical specialties were audited: 85 female, 99 male, median age 69 years (IQR 60–82), total DOTs 1658 of which 403 (24%) were excess. Excess DOTs by timepoint: A (initiation) 112 (28%), B (pre-72 h review) 184 (46%), C (course length) 107 (27%). Ninety-four of 187 (50%) of patients recorded zero excess DOTs. Conclusions We did not identify any excess DOTs in half of all patients initiated on antibiotics. However, in the other half we identified a significant proportion of excess DOTs with most excess DOTs at the pre-72 h review.
ISSN:2632-1823
2632-1823
DOI:10.1093/jacamr/dlac053.002