Trends in Antibiotic Use in a Large Children's Hospital in London (United Kingdom): 5 Years of Point Prevalence Surveys

Background: Antibiotics are commonly prescribed in paediatrics. As their excessive use contributes to adverse drug events, increased healthcare costs, and antimicrobial resistance, antimicrobial stewardship initiatives are essential to optimising medical care. These single-centre point prevalence surveys aimed to provide insights into antibiotic prescribing trends and identify targets for paediatric AMS activities. Methods: 14 point prevalence surveys were conducted from March 2016-April 2021, collecting data on antibiotic prescriptions, indication, adherence to guidelines, and route of administration. The UK adapted the World Health Organisation's AWaRe classification-guided antibiotic categorization. Results: 32.5% of all inpatients were on at least one antimicrobial; this remained stable during all surveys (range: 20-44%, p = 0.448). Of all prescriptions, 67.2% had an end- or review-date, and the majority was for agents in the Watch category (46.8-70.5%). Amoxicillin and clavulanate were the most frequently prescribed antibiotics (20.8%), followed by gentamicin (15.3%). Approximately 28.8% of all prescriptions were for prophylactic indications, while 7.6% of the prescriptions were not adherent to the hospital guidelines. Conclusions: This study highlights the importance of ongoing monitoring and robust AMS initiatives to ensure prudent antibiotic prescribing in paediatric healthcare. It underscores the need for tailored guidelines, educational efforts, and targeted interventions to enhance the quality of antibiotic usage, ultimately benefiting both individual patients and public health.

Antibiotic utilisation in primary and revision total hip replacement patients: A registry linkage cohort study of 106 253 patients using the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

PURPOSE

Infection is a major complication following joint replacement (JR) surgery. However, little data exist regarding antibiotic utilisation following primary JR and how use changes with subsequent revision surgery. This study aimed to examine variation in antibiotic utilisation rates before and after hip replacement surgery in those revised for infection, revised for other reasons and those without revision.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort analysis used linked data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry and Australian Government Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Patients were included if undergoing total hip replacement (THR) for osteoarthritis in private hospitals between 2002 and 2017. Three groups were examined: primary THR with no subsequent revision (n = 102 577), primary THR with a subsequent revision for reasons other than periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 3156) and primary THR with a subsequent revision for PJI (n = 520). Monthly antibiotic utilisation rates and prevalence rate ratios (PRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated in the 2 years pre- and post-THR.

RESULTS

Prior to primary THR antibiotic utilisation was 9%-10%. After primary THR, antibiotic utilisation rates were higher among patients revised for PJI (PRR 1.69, 95% CI 1.60-1.79) compared to non-revised patients, while the utilisation rate was lower in patients revised for reasons other than infection (PRR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-0.98). For those revised for infection, antibiotic utilisation post-revision surgery was two times higher than those revised for other reasons (PRR 2.16, 95% CI 2.08-2.23). Utilisation of injectable antibiotics including, vancomycin, flucloxacillin and cephazolin was higher in those revised for PJI patients 0-2 weeks following surgery but not in those revised for other reasons compared to the non-revised group.

CONCLUSIONS

Ongoing antibiotic utilisation after primary surgery may be an early signal of problems with the THR and should be a prompt for primary care physicians to refer patients to specialists for further appropriate investigations and management.

Process evaluation of a point-of-care cluster randomised trial using a computer-delivered intervention to reduce antibiotic prescribing in primary care

BACKGROUND

The study aimed to conduct a process evaluation for a cluster randomised trial of a computer-delivered, point-of-care intervention to reduce antibiotic prescribing in primary care. The study aimed to evaluate both the intervention and implementation of the trial.

METHODS

The intervention comprised a set of electronic educational and decision support tools that were remotely installed and activated during consultations with patients with acute respiratory infections over a 12 month intervention period. A mixed method evaluation was conducted with 103 general practitioners (GPs) who participated in the trial. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 20 GPs who had been in the intervention group of the trial and 4 members of the implementation staff. Questionnaires, consisting of both intervention evaluation and theory-based measures, were self-administered to 83 GPs (56 control group and 27 intervention group).

RESULTS

Interviews suggested that a key factor influencing GPs' use of the intervention appeared to be their awareness of the implementation of the system into their practice. GPs who were aware of the implementation of the intervention reported feeling confident in using it if they chose to and understood the purpose of the intervention screens. However, GPs who were unaware that the intervention would be appearing often reported feeling confused when they saw the messages appear on the screen and not fully understanding what they were for or how they could be used. Intervention evaluation questionnaires indicated that GPs were satisfied with the usability of the prompts, and theory-based measures revealed that intervention group GPs reported higher levels of self-efficacy in managing RTI patients according to recommended guidelines compared to GPs in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Remote installation of a computer-delivered intervention for use at the point-of-care was feasible and acceptable. Additional measures to promote awareness of the intervention may be required to promote health care professionals' utilisation of the intervention and these might sometimes compromise the pragmatic intention of a trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN47558792 (registered on 17 March 2010).