评估停止处方事先授权对抗生素处方的影响。

Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE Pub Date : 2024-09-25 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1017/ash.2024.92
Teagan Zeggil, Tony Nickonchuk, Elissa Rennert-May, Irina Rajakumar
{"title":"评估停止处方事先授权对抗生素处方的影响。","authors":"Teagan Zeggil, Tony Nickonchuk, Elissa Rennert-May, Irina Rajakumar","doi":"10.1017/ash.2024.92","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare prescribing patterns of restricted antimicrobials before and after the removal of prior authorization and to develop a prospective audit and feedback program to mitigate the potential inappropriate prescribing of these antimicrobials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An interrupted time-series analysis assessing the trends in antibiotic use was conducted between May 2020 and February 2023 in large urban hospitals, where all ASP activities were discontinued in May 2022 and a pilot prospective audit and feedback (PAF) program was initiated in January 2023.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The collective change in restricted antibiotic utilization after the removal of prior authorization was trending towards increased utilization but was not statistically significant. With the PAF program, 9.8% of patients were identified by the antimicrobial stewardship pharmacists as requiring intervention. Within these patients, 19 different recommendations were made, with the most common being to narrow the therapeutic spectrum (47.4%). Stewardship interventions suggestions were accepted (full and partial) 69.2% of the time.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although there were some small statistically significant changes detected for a few antibiotics, there were no situations where those changes remained significant after appropriate controls were added to the analyses. As such, the intervention may not have had any statistically significant impact on DDDs of the studied antibiotics.</p>","PeriodicalId":72246,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11427963/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the impact of discontinuation of formulary prior authorization on antibiotic prescribing.\",\"authors\":\"Teagan Zeggil, Tony Nickonchuk, Elissa Rennert-May, Irina Rajakumar\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/ash.2024.92\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare prescribing patterns of restricted antimicrobials before and after the removal of prior authorization and to develop a prospective audit and feedback program to mitigate the potential inappropriate prescribing of these antimicrobials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An interrupted time-series analysis assessing the trends in antibiotic use was conducted between May 2020 and February 2023 in large urban hospitals, where all ASP activities were discontinued in May 2022 and a pilot prospective audit and feedback (PAF) program was initiated in January 2023.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The collective change in restricted antibiotic utilization after the removal of prior authorization was trending towards increased utilization but was not statistically significant. With the PAF program, 9.8% of patients were identified by the antimicrobial stewardship pharmacists as requiring intervention. Within these patients, 19 different recommendations were made, with the most common being to narrow the therapeutic spectrum (47.4%). Stewardship interventions suggestions were accepted (full and partial) 69.2% of the time.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although there were some small statistically significant changes detected for a few antibiotics, there were no situations where those changes remained significant after appropriate controls were added to the analyses. As such, the intervention may not have had any statistically significant impact on DDDs of the studied antibiotics.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72246,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11427963/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2024.92\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2024.92","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的比较取消预先授权前后限制性抗菌药物的处方模式,并制定前瞻性审计和反馈计划,以减少这些抗菌药物的潜在不当处方:2020年5月至2023年2月期间,对大型城市医院的抗生素使用趋势进行了间断时间序列分析评估:结果:取消预先授权后,受限抗生素使用量的总体变化呈上升趋势,但无统计学意义。通过 PAF 计划,9.8% 的患者被抗菌药物管理药剂师确定为需要干预。在这些患者中,共提出了 19 项不同的建议,其中最常见的是缩小治疗范围(47.4%)。接受抗菌药物管理干预建议(全部或部分)的比例为 69.2%:虽然在统计上发现了一些抗生素发生了微小的显著变化,但在分析中加入适当的对照后,这些变化并不显著。因此,干预措施可能不会对所研究抗生素的 DDDs 产生任何有统计学意义的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Assessing the impact of discontinuation of formulary prior authorization on antibiotic prescribing.

Objective: To compare prescribing patterns of restricted antimicrobials before and after the removal of prior authorization and to develop a prospective audit and feedback program to mitigate the potential inappropriate prescribing of these antimicrobials.

Methods: An interrupted time-series analysis assessing the trends in antibiotic use was conducted between May 2020 and February 2023 in large urban hospitals, where all ASP activities were discontinued in May 2022 and a pilot prospective audit and feedback (PAF) program was initiated in January 2023.

Results: The collective change in restricted antibiotic utilization after the removal of prior authorization was trending towards increased utilization but was not statistically significant. With the PAF program, 9.8% of patients were identified by the antimicrobial stewardship pharmacists as requiring intervention. Within these patients, 19 different recommendations were made, with the most common being to narrow the therapeutic spectrum (47.4%). Stewardship interventions suggestions were accepted (full and partial) 69.2% of the time.

Conclusions: Although there were some small statistically significant changes detected for a few antibiotics, there were no situations where those changes remained significant after appropriate controls were added to the analyses. As such, the intervention may not have had any statistically significant impact on DDDs of the studied antibiotics.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Effect of automated identification of antimicrobial stewardship opportunities for suspected urinary tract infections. Impacts of risk-stratified inpatient penicillin allergy label delabeling on subsequent antimicrobial spectrum index and costs. Successful adaptation of an initiative to reduce unnecessary antibiotics for acute respiratory infections across two Veteran Affairs ambulatory healthcare systems. Trends in antibiotic utilization for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with and without signs of sepsis. Assessing a safety climate tool adapted to address respiratory illnesses in Canadian hospitals.
×
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