Antimicrobial Point Prevalence Survey in four Emergency Departments at Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust

IF 1.5 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY International Journal of Pharmacy Practice Pub Date : 2023-11-30 DOI:10.1093/ijpp/riad074.026
F. M. Garraghan
{"title":"Antimicrobial Point Prevalence Survey in four Emergency Departments at Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust","authors":"F. M. Garraghan","doi":"10.1093/ijpp/riad074.026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Antimicrobial Point Prevalence Surveys (PPS) are a recognised tool to facilitate monitoring of compliance to an organisation’s antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programme.1 Most PPS tools used within secondary care focus on prescribing of antimicrobials for in-patients. At Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT) PPS are carried out by clinical pharmacists across all inpatient ward areas. Antimicrobials are one of the most prescribed medicines in the emergency department2 (ED) yet, the current MFT PPS tool does not facilitate undertaking PPS in EDs. A new validated outpatient PPS tool3 from the Global Point Prevalence Survey (GPPS) was released earlier this year. To pilot the GPPS outpatient tool in the EDs at MFT to determine the level of compliance with the MFT antimicrobial guidelines within the EDs, estimate the total burden of antimicrobial use and describe types of infections and prescribed antimicrobials within the EDs. Following the GPPS outpatient protocol3 the four emergency departments (3 general EDs, and 1 paediatric ED) at MFT were assessed in a ten-day period during May 2023. Each ED was assessed continuously for a 4-hour timeslot on a weekday morning by an AMS pharmacist who retrieved the data from the EPIC electronic patient record system remotely. All patients who were allocated a room/bedspace on ED within the timeslot were audited, including patients who were not prescribed antimicrobials. Guideline compliance was checked with the MFT antimicrobial guidelines. The online GPPS data collection tool was used, generating a data download into an Excel spreadsheet for analysis. This study was a service evaluation and so did not require ethical approval. 180 patients were audited from 4 EDs yielding a total of 41 prescriptions for antimicrobials. 28/180 patients were prescribed one or more antimicrobial, with an overall antimicrobial prescribing rate of 15.5%. Prescribing was higher in the paediatric ED with a rate of 25%. 92.7% (38/41) of antimicrobials were prescribed intravenously (IV). Choice of antimicrobial was compliant in 38/41 (92.7%). Dose was compliant in 40/41 (97.6%). Duration of treatment was compliant in 39/41 (95.1%). Sepsis accounted for 48.8% of indications. 2/41 prescriptions were based on the C Reactive Protein (CRP) biomarker. Whilst the study was only conducted over a short time period, the findings suggested that overall compliance with the MFT antimicrobial guidelines was very good. The prescribing rate of 15.5% was low in comparison to the recent MFT inpatient PPS which showed a prescribing rate of 30%. There is a high rate of diagnosis of sepsis and prescribing of IV antimicrobials in comparison to orals which may be anticipated in the emergency setting. The GPPS outpatient audit tool provided an opportunity to do a baseline assessment within the EDs across MFT, providing data on prevalence of antimicrobial prescribing and compliance to the MFT guidelines. The GPPS audit tool did not have the utility to review the accuracy of clinical diagnosis of severe infection/sepsis within the ED, or the appropriateness of IV antimicrobial prescribing. Further research should be undertaken to provide assurance on the clinical diagnosis of severe infection and the appropriateness of IV antimicrobial prescribing with the EDs. 1. Public Health England. Start Smart then Focus. Antimicrobial Stewardship toolkit for English Hospitals. 2016. 2. Denny K, Appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing in the Emergency Department., JAC, 2019, vol 74 (2) P 515-520 3. Global Point Prevalence Survey, Outpatient module. https://www.global-pps.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Protocol-Global-PPS-outpatient-module_April2023-final.pdf","PeriodicalId":14284,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Pharmacy Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Pharmacy Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpp/riad074.026","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Antimicrobial Point Prevalence Surveys (PPS) are a recognised tool to facilitate monitoring of compliance to an organisation’s antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programme.1 Most PPS tools used within secondary care focus on prescribing of antimicrobials for in-patients. At Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT) PPS are carried out by clinical pharmacists across all inpatient ward areas. Antimicrobials are one of the most prescribed medicines in the emergency department2 (ED) yet, the current MFT PPS tool does not facilitate undertaking PPS in EDs. A new validated outpatient PPS tool3 from the Global Point Prevalence Survey (GPPS) was released earlier this year. To pilot the GPPS outpatient tool in the EDs at MFT to determine the level of compliance with the MFT antimicrobial guidelines within the EDs, estimate the total burden of antimicrobial use and describe types of infections and prescribed antimicrobials within the EDs. Following the GPPS outpatient protocol3 the four emergency departments (3 general EDs, and 1 paediatric ED) at MFT were assessed in a ten-day period during May 2023. Each ED was assessed continuously for a 4-hour timeslot on a weekday morning by an AMS pharmacist who retrieved the data from the EPIC electronic patient record system remotely. All patients who were allocated a room/bedspace on ED within the timeslot were audited, including patients who were not prescribed antimicrobials. Guideline compliance was checked with the MFT antimicrobial guidelines. The online GPPS data collection tool was used, generating a data download into an Excel spreadsheet for analysis. This study was a service evaluation and so did not require ethical approval. 180 patients were audited from 4 EDs yielding a total of 41 prescriptions for antimicrobials. 28/180 patients were prescribed one or more antimicrobial, with an overall antimicrobial prescribing rate of 15.5%. Prescribing was higher in the paediatric ED with a rate of 25%. 92.7% (38/41) of antimicrobials were prescribed intravenously (IV). Choice of antimicrobial was compliant in 38/41 (92.7%). Dose was compliant in 40/41 (97.6%). Duration of treatment was compliant in 39/41 (95.1%). Sepsis accounted for 48.8% of indications. 2/41 prescriptions were based on the C Reactive Protein (CRP) biomarker. Whilst the study was only conducted over a short time period, the findings suggested that overall compliance with the MFT antimicrobial guidelines was very good. The prescribing rate of 15.5% was low in comparison to the recent MFT inpatient PPS which showed a prescribing rate of 30%. There is a high rate of diagnosis of sepsis and prescribing of IV antimicrobials in comparison to orals which may be anticipated in the emergency setting. The GPPS outpatient audit tool provided an opportunity to do a baseline assessment within the EDs across MFT, providing data on prevalence of antimicrobial prescribing and compliance to the MFT guidelines. The GPPS audit tool did not have the utility to review the accuracy of clinical diagnosis of severe infection/sepsis within the ED, or the appropriateness of IV antimicrobial prescribing. Further research should be undertaken to provide assurance on the clinical diagnosis of severe infection and the appropriateness of IV antimicrobial prescribing with the EDs. 1. Public Health England. Start Smart then Focus. Antimicrobial Stewardship toolkit for English Hospitals. 2016. 2. Denny K, Appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing in the Emergency Department., JAC, 2019, vol 74 (2) P 515-520 3. Global Point Prevalence Survey, Outpatient module. https://www.global-pps.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Protocol-Global-PPS-outpatient-module_April2023-final.pdf
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
曼彻斯特大学 NHS 基金会信托基金会四家急诊室的抗菌点流行率调查
抗菌药物点流行率调查(PPS)是一种公认的工具,有助于监测机构抗菌药物管理(AMS)计划的合规性1 。在曼彻斯特大学 NHS 基金会信托基金会(Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust,MFT),PPS 由临床药剂师在所有住院病房区域执行。抗菌药物是急诊科2 (ED)处方量最大的药物之一,但目前曼彻斯特大学 NHS 基金会信托基金会的 PPS 工具并不便于在急诊科开展 PPS。今年早些时候,全球点流行率调查(GPPS)发布了一个新的经过验证的门诊病人 PPS 工具3。 在港澳總部急症室試用GPPS門診工具,以確定急症室遵守港澳總部抗菌藥物指引的情況、估計使用抗菌藥物的總負擔,以及描述急症室的感染類別和處方抗菌藥物。 根据 GPPS 门诊协议3 ,在 2023 年 5 月的 10 天内对对外贸易部的 4 个急诊科(3 个普通急诊科和 1 个儿科急诊科)进行了评估。每位急诊科药剂师均在工作日上午的 4 小时时段内对每个急诊科进行连续评估,并从 EPIC 电子病历系统中远程检索数据。所有在该时段内被分配到急诊室病房/床位的患者都接受了审核,包括未被处方抗菌药物的患者。根据MFT抗菌药物指南对指南合规性进行检查。使用在线 GPPS 数据收集工具,将数据下载到 Excel 电子表格中进行分析。本研究是一项服务评估,因此无需获得伦理批准。 对 4 家急诊室的 180 名患者进行了审核,共开出 41 张抗菌药物处方。28/180 名患者被开具了一种或多种抗菌药物处方,抗菌药物总处方率为 15.5%。儿科急诊室的处方率较高,达到 25%。 92.7%的抗菌药物(38/41)是静脉注射(IV)。38/41(92.7%)人的抗菌药选择符合规定。40/41(97.6%)人符合剂量要求。39/41(95.1%)例符合治疗时间要求。败血症占适应症的 48.8%。2/41 的处方基于 C 反应蛋白 (CRP) 生物标志物。 虽然这项研究只进行了很短的时间,但研究结果表明,对 MFT 抗菌药物指南的总体遵守情况非常好。15.5%的处方率与最近进行的胃肠病治疗部住院病人抗菌药物处方率(PPS)相比偏低,后者显示处方率为 30%。与口服抗菌药相比,败血症的诊断率和静脉注射抗菌药的处方率较高,这在急诊环境中是可以预见的。 GPPS 门诊病人审计工具提供了在整个 MFT 的急诊室内进行基线评估的机会,提供了有关抗菌药物处方流行率和 MFT 指南合规性的数据。GPPS 审计工具无法审查急诊室内严重感染/败血症临床诊断的准确性,也无法审查静脉注射抗菌药物处方的适当性。应开展进一步研究,以确保急诊室对严重感染的临床诊断和静脉注射抗菌药物处方的适当性。 1.英格兰公共卫生局。Start Smart then Focus.英国医院抗菌药物管理工具包》(Antimicrobial Stewardship toolkit for English Hospitals)。2016. 2.Denny K,Appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing in the Emergency Department.,JAC,2019,vol 74 (2) P 515-520 3.全球点流行率调查,门诊模块。https://www.global-pps.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Protocol-Global-PPS-outpatient-module_April2023-final.pdf
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Pharmacy Practice (IJPP) is a Medline-indexed, peer reviewed, international journal. It is one of the leading journals publishing health services research in the context of pharmacy, pharmaceutical care, medicines and medicines management. Regular sections in the journal include, editorials, literature reviews, original research, personal opinion and short communications. Topics covered include: medicines utilisation, medicine management, medicines distribution, supply and administration, pharmaceutical services, professional and patient/lay perspectives, public health (including, e.g. health promotion, needs assessment, health protection) evidence based practice, pharmacy education. Methods include both evaluative and exploratory work including, randomised controlled trials, surveys, epidemiological approaches, case studies, observational studies, and qualitative methods such as interviews and focus groups. Application of methods drawn from other disciplines e.g. psychology, health economics, morbidity are especially welcome as are developments of new methodologies.
期刊最新文献
Immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer patients from the perspective of pharmaceutical care: a scoping review. Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: a cross-sectional study of community pharmacists in the UK. Correction to: Lifeguard Pharmacy: the co-development of a new community pharmacy response service for people in danger from domestic abuse or suicidal ideation. Trends, prescribing patterns, and determinants of initial antiepileptic drug treatment in older epileptic patients. Pandemic preparedness of Egyptian community pharmacists and potential facilitators to the successful implementation of a community pharmacy coronavirus disease 2019 referral service: a cross-sectional survey.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1