Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T07:20:12.917Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Compliance with Local Guidelines for Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Surgery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Montserrat Pons-Busom ,
Margarita Aguas-Compaired ,
Jordi Delás  and
Begoña Eguileor-Partearroyo
Montserrat Pons-Busom*
Affiliation:
Services of Hospital Pharmacy, Hospital del Sagrat Cor, Barcelona, Spain
Margarita Aguas-Compaired
Affiliation:
Services of Hospital Pharmacy, Hospital del Sagrat Cor, Barcelona, Spain
Jordi Delás
Affiliation:
Internal Medicine, Hospital del Sagrat Cor, Barcelona, Spain
Begoña Eguileor-Partearroyo
Affiliation:
Services of Hospital Pharmacy, Hospital del Sagrat Cor, Barcelona, Spain
*
Service of Hospital Pharmacy, Hospital del Sagrat Cor, Viladomat 288, E-08029 Barcelona, Spain
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives:

To describe the development and implementation of a local protocol for antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery and to assess compliance with these guidelines using a computer-based system.

Design:

One 5-week prospective period (phase 1) followed by three 1-week, cross-sectional assessments (phases 2, 3, and 4).

Setting:

Pharmacy of a 350-bed acute care teaching hospital in Barcelona, Spain.

Methods:

In phase 1, 395 forms for antibiotic prescribing delivered to the pharmacy were reviewed. Nonadherence was defined as the prescription of an antibiotic (or doses) different from what the protocol specified. In phases 2, 3, and 4, antibiotic prescribing forms for all elective procedures (630 patients) performed during 1-week periods were analyzed.

Results:

A total of 1,047 patients (mean age, 58.9 ± 17.3 years) were included. Cefazolin was administered in 41% of procedures. Overall compliance with antibiotic prescribing forms was 83.3%. There was a statistically significant increase in compliance with guidelines throughout the four phases of the study, from 80.3% in phase 1 to 87.8% in phase 4 (P < .042), as well as adherence to completing forms for surgical procedures, from 51% in phase 2 to 77.6% in phase 4 (P < .001). The main reason for non-adherence was that some procedures had not been included in the protocol in phase 2.

Conclusion:

Surgeons sensitized to the implementation of local antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines showed a high degree of compliance with them, using both the procedure established for antibiotic prescribing and the antimicrobials recommended for particular operations.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , April 2004 , pp. 308 - 312
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.De Boer, AS, Mintjes-de Groot, AJ, Severijnen, AJ, van den Berg, JMJ, van Pelt, W. Risk assessment for surgical-site infections in orthopedic patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:402–407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Osmon, DR. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in adults. Mayo Clin Proc 2000;75:98–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Cainzos, MA. Antibiotic prophylaxis. New Horizons 1998;6:S11–S19.Google ScholarPubMed
4.Anonymous. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for orthopaedic surgery. Drug Ther Bull 2001;39:43–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Martin, C, Viviand, X, Arnaud, S, Boisson, C. Regies de prescription d'une antibioprophylaxie chirurgicale preoperatoire. Presse Med 1998;27:416–426.Google Scholar
6.Polk, HC, Christmas, AB. Prophylactic antibiotics in surgery and surgical infections. Am Surg 2000;66:105–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Gyssens, IC. Preventing postoperative infections: current treatment recommendations. Drugs 1999;57:175–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Carlet, J. Principes généraux du choix d'un antibiotique por antibiopro-phylaxies en chirurgie. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim 1994;13:S10–S18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Piatt, R. Antibiotic prophylaxis in clean surgery: does it work? Should it be used if it does? New Horizons 1998;6:S53–S57.Google Scholar
10.Martin, C, Group of Experts from the Societé Française d'Anesthésie et de Réanimation. Recommandations pour la practique d l'antibiopro-phylaxie en chirurgie: actualisation 1999. Chirurgie 1999;124:441–447.Google Scholar
11.Frighetto, L, Marra, CA, Stiver, HG, Bryce, EA, Jewesson, PJ. Economic impact of standardized orders for antimicrobial prophylaxis program. Ann Pharmacother 2000;34:154–160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Mangram, AJ, Horan, TC, Pearson, ML, Silver, LC, Jarvis, WR. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:247–277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Gilbert, DN, Moellering, RC, Saude, ME. The Stanford Guide to Antimicrobial Therapy, ed. 31. Hyde Park, VT: Jeb C. Sanford; 2001:116–117.Google Scholar
14.Schriger, DL, Baraff, LJ, Rogers, WH, Cretin, S. Implementation of clinical guidelines using a computer charting system: effect on the initial care of health care workers exposed to body fluids. JAMA 1997;278:1585–1590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Vaisbrud, V, Raveh, D, Schlesinger, Y, Yinnon, A. Surveillance of antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgical procedures. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:610–613.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Lomas, J, Enkin, M, Anderson, GM, Hannah, WJ, Vayda, E, Singer, J. Opinion leaders vs audit and feedback to implement practice guidelines: delivery after previous cesarean section. JAMA 1991;265:2202–2207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Johnston, ME, Lanston, KB, Haynes, B, Mathieu, A. Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on clinician performance and patient outcome: a critical appraisal of research. Ann Intern Med 1994;120:135–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Mc Donald, CJ, Overhage, JM. Guidelines you can follow and can trust: an ideal and an example. JAMA 1994;271:872–873.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.ASHP therapeutic guidelines on antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1999;56:1839–1888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Codina, C, Trilla, A, Riera, N, et al.Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in Spanish hospitals: results of a questionnaire survey. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:436–439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Widdison, AL, Pope, NR, Brown, EM. Survey of guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. J Hosp Infect 1993;25:199–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Grimshaw, JM, Russel, IT. Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations. Lancet 1993;342:1317–1322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Gorbach, SL, Condon, RE, Conte, JE, Kaiser, AB, Ledger, WJ, Nichols, RL. General guidelines for the evaluation of new anti-infective drugs for prophylaxis of surgical infections: evaluation of new anti-infective drugs for surgical prophylaxis. Clin Infect Dis 1992;15(suppl 1):S313–S338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Berings, D, Blondeel, L, Habraken, H. The effect of industry-independent drug information on the prescribing of benzodiazepines in general practice. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1994;46:501–505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Ray, WA, Shaffner, W, Federspiel, CHF. Persistence of improvement in antibiotic prescribing in office practice. JAMA 1985;253:1774–1776.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Soumerai, SB, Avorn, J. Principles of educational outreach (‘academic detailing’) to improve clinical decision making. JAMA 1990;263:549–556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Mugford, M, Banfield, P, O'Hanlon, M. Effects of feedback of information on clinical practice: a review. BMJ 1991;303:398–402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Avorn, J, Soumerai, SB. Improving drug-therapy decisions through educational outreach: a randomized controlled trial of academically based “detailing.” N Engl J Med 1983;308:1457–1463.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Schaffner, W, Ray, WA, Federspiel, CF, Miller, WO. Improving antibiotic prescribing in office practice: a controlled trial of three educational methods. JAMA 1983;250:1728–1732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30.Gyssens, IC, Geerligs, IEJ, Dony, JMJ, et al.Optimizing antimicrobial drug use in surgery: an intervention study in a Dutch university hospital. J Antimicrob Chemother 1996;38:1001–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar