This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Other Versions of this Article: AAC.00994-06v1 51/3/864    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Willemsen, I. Articles by Kluytmans, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Willemsen, I. Articles by Kluytmans, J.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, March 2007, p. 864-867, Vol. 51, No. 3
0066-4804/07/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/AAC.00994-06
Copyright © 2007, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Appropriateness of Antimicrobial Therapy Measured by Repeated Prevalence Surveys

Laboratory for Microbiology and Infection Control, Amphia Hospital, P.O. Box 90158 4800 RK, Breda, The Netherlands,¹ Department of Pharmacy, Franciscus Hospital, Roosendaal, The Netherlands,² Department of Pharmacy, Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands³

Received 9 August 2006/ Returned for modification 5 September 2006/ Accepted 26 December 2006

Prudent use of antibiotics is mandatory to control antibiotic resistance. The objective of this study was to determine if prevalence surveys are useful tools to determine the appropriateness of antimicrobial therapy (AMT) and determinants of inappropriate AMT. The study was performed in a 1,350-bed teaching hospital including all medical specialities. Six consecutive 1-day prevalence surveys of in-patients were performed twice yearly from 2001 to 2004. Data on the demographics, infections, and AMT were gathered. The appropriateness of AMT was assessed according to a standardized algorithm based on the local AMT prescription guidelines. On average, 684 patients were included in each survey (total, 4,105). The use of AMT as determined in the prevalence survey corresponded to the annual data from the pharmacy department. Nine hundred thirty-eight (22.9%) of the patients received AMT, and in 351 (37.4%) of these patients AMT was inappropriate. Only 25 (0.6%) patients did not receive AMT, although it was indicated. After multivariate analysis, the use of quinolones was the only statistically significant variable associated with inappropriate use. Prevalence surveys proved to be useful tools to judge the appropriateness of AMT and to identify determinants of inappropriate use. This study shows that in a setting with a low use of AMT, there are few patients who inadvertently do not receive AMT. On the other hand, a substantial number of the patients are treated inappropriate.

Published ahead of print on 8 January 2007.