Premium
Antibiotic utilization prevalence: prospective comparison between two medical departments in a tertiary care university hospital
Author(s) -
Gendel Inna,
Azzam Zaher S.,
Braun Eyal,
Levy Yshai,
Krivoy Norberto
Publication year - 2004
Publication title -
pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.023
H-Index - 96
eISSN - 1099-1557
pISSN - 1053-8569
DOI - 10.1002/pds.976
Subject(s) - medicine , tertiary care , antibiotics , emergency medicine , university hospital , prospective cohort study , family medicine , microbiology and biotechnology , biology
Purpose The aim of this study was to analyze prospectively antibiotic utilization, comparing two in‐patient Internal Medicine units. Methods Data on individual antibiotic utilization pattern and antibiotic costs were collected prospectively from hospitalized patient charts over a 12‐month period, using the prescription‐point prevalence method twice a month, for a total of 24 encounters for each admission unit. Results The antibiotic volume/patient (number of prescriptions), using the prescription‐point prevalence methodology, was 330 and 557 in Internal Medicine B and D, respectively, resulting in 1.29 and 1.25 antibiotic courses/patient for each of the two units, respectively ( p = 0.91). Thirty‐five percent and 39% of the patients received at least one anti‐microbial prescription. The total defined daily dose (DDD) and drug utilization 90% (DU90%) index for the units were 432.7 DDD, DU90% 389.7 and 727.8 DDD, DU90% 660.4, respectively ( p = 0.01). The drug cost 90% index (DC90%) placed piperacillin–tazobactam in the first place in both units, while amoxycillin–clavulanic acid was in first place when the DU90% index was applied. Conclusions A significant statistical difference was found in the anti‐microbial cost analyzes of DDD, DU90% and DC90% indexes of the two units, using the prescription‐point prevalence methodology. The intervention of a clinical pharmacology specialist in one of the units was effective in reducing the costs registered in that unit. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.