Utilization of Antibiotics for the Treatment of Urinary Tract Infections in End-of-Life Patients.

Abigail Thomas, Lacey Davis, Allie Dolan, Rebecca Prewett
{"title":"Utilization of Antibiotics for the Treatment of Urinary Tract Infections in End-of-Life Patients.","authors":"Abigail Thomas, Lacey Davis, Allie Dolan, Rebecca Prewett","doi":"10.1177/10499091241273949","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The use of antibiotics for end-of-life patients is controversial; currently there is limited guidance on the use of antibiotics in hospice patients. The threat of antibiotic resistance, risk of adverse events, variable efficacy, and time to benefit in hospice patients makes their use divisive. Patients' potential care needs are estimated using the palliative performance scale (PPS) with lower scores indicating more care is required. The purpose of this project is to examine the utilization of antibiotics for urinary tract infections (UTIs) in hospice patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This multi-center retrospective observational cohort study evaluated the prescribing of antibiotics in symptomatic vs asymptomatic hospice patients being treated for UTIs and assessed antibiotic initiation based on PPS of ≥30% or <30%. Patients included in this study were adults initiated on oral antibiotics for UTI. Exclusion criteria included antibiotics initiated prior to admission, prophylactic antibiotics, non-oral antibiotics, or if the patient revoked election of hospice.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 56 patients were prescribed antibiotics for UTIs during the 1-year study period. Half of the antibiotics were prescribed appropriately based on documented symptoms when starting the antibiotics. There was not a statistically significant difference between appropriate utilization based on PPS ≥30% or <30% using the Mann-Whitney U test (<i>P</i> = 0.255).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The prescribing of antibiotics in end-of-life patients is not always appropriate regardless of the PPS. This may indicate that antibiotics are initiated in asymptomatic hospice patients, and the utilization of unnecessary medications presents the risk of adverse effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":94222,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of hospice & palliative care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American journal of hospice & palliative care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10499091241273949","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The use of antibiotics for end-of-life patients is controversial; currently there is limited guidance on the use of antibiotics in hospice patients. The threat of antibiotic resistance, risk of adverse events, variable efficacy, and time to benefit in hospice patients makes their use divisive. Patients' potential care needs are estimated using the palliative performance scale (PPS) with lower scores indicating more care is required. The purpose of this project is to examine the utilization of antibiotics for urinary tract infections (UTIs) in hospice patients.

Methods: This multi-center retrospective observational cohort study evaluated the prescribing of antibiotics in symptomatic vs asymptomatic hospice patients being treated for UTIs and assessed antibiotic initiation based on PPS of ≥30% or <30%. Patients included in this study were adults initiated on oral antibiotics for UTI. Exclusion criteria included antibiotics initiated prior to admission, prophylactic antibiotics, non-oral antibiotics, or if the patient revoked election of hospice.

Results: A total of 56 patients were prescribed antibiotics for UTIs during the 1-year study period. Half of the antibiotics were prescribed appropriately based on documented symptoms when starting the antibiotics. There was not a statistically significant difference between appropriate utilization based on PPS ≥30% or <30% using the Mann-Whitney U test (P = 0.255).

Conclusion: The prescribing of antibiotics in end-of-life patients is not always appropriate regardless of the PPS. This may indicate that antibiotics are initiated in asymptomatic hospice patients, and the utilization of unnecessary medications presents the risk of adverse effects.

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
使用抗生素治疗临终患者的尿路感染。
目的:对临终患者使用抗生素存在争议;目前对临终关怀患者使用抗生素的指导有限。抗生素耐药性的威胁、不良事件的风险、疗效的不确定性以及安宁疗护患者获益的时间等因素使得抗生素的使用存在分歧。患者的潜在护理需求是通过姑息治疗绩效量表(PPS)来估算的,得分越低表示需要的护理越多。本项目旨在研究安宁疗护患者尿路感染(UTI)抗生素的使用情况:这项多中心回顾性观察队列研究评估了有症状与无症状安宁疗护患者因UTI接受治疗时的抗生素处方情况,并根据PPS≥30%或结果评估了抗生素的使用情况:在为期一年的研究期间,共有 56 名患者因尿毒症被处方抗生素。半数抗生素的处方是根据开始使用抗生素时记录的症状合理开具的。根据 PPS ≥30% 或 P = 0.255,合理使用抗生素之间的差异无统计学意义:结论:无论 PPS 如何,临终患者的抗生素处方并不总是适当的。这可能表明,无症状的临终关怀患者开始使用抗生素,而使用不必要的药物会带来不良反应的风险。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Symptoms and Prognoses of Patients With Breast Cancer and Malignant Wounds in Palliative Care Units: The Multicenter, Prospective, Observational EASED Study. Development and Validation of the Home Hospice Care Needs Questionnaire for the Dying Old Adult (HHCNQ-DE) in Mainland China. Long-Term Impact of the End-of-Life Care Nursing Education Consortium on Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice (KAP) of Indian Nurses Working in Non-Palliative Care Settings: A KAP-GAP Analysis. The Perspective of Cancer Patients in Palliative Care on Unmet Needs: A Qualitative Synthesis Using Meta-Ethnography. Caring for Patients Requiring Venous Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Can Upstream Palliative Care Make a Difference?
×
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