A point prevalence survey of health associated infections and antimicrobial use in a public health institution in Trinidad

Objective: The point prevalence survey is a validated tool for measuring the quality of prescribing in the hospital setting. The objectives were to estimate the prevalence of hospital acquired infections, to assess the antimicrobial agent prescribed and determine if prescribers followed existing evidence-based antimicrobial policies subsequent to diagnosis of infection in patients. Design and Methodology: Day-of-survey records of patients in the intensive care unit and medical/surgical wards were examined at the institution, retrospectively. The extracted clinical data were recorded on the standardized data collection instruments (hospital, ward and patient forms) and analysed. Results: Of the 130 patients surveyed, 30 had an infection which occurred within 48 hours of admission. The most commonly reported infection type was urinary tract infections, evident in 9 (30.0%) patients, caused by Escherichia coli in 7 patients and Klebsiella pneumonia in 2 patients. Out of the 30 patients, 10 (33.3%) were awaiting laboratory reports at the time of the survey. Resistance was noted for Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli, both of which were seen in 2 patients and Enterococcus spp. in 1 patient. The antimicrobial agent selected to treat these microorganisms should have been queried. Conclusions: Results of this survey imply that public health surveillance and prevention activities should be implemented to address appropriate treatment of hospital acquired infections. Recommendations to minimize the risk of resistance include: improving the availability of alcohol-based hand rub, the provision of single room and isolation capacity, antimicrobial guidelines for treatment of infection, judicious prescribing and proper surveillance of prescribed antimicrobials.

Evaluative research on pharmacist managed diabetes care: focus on self-monitoring of blood glucose

Diabetes, especially Type 2 Diabetes (90%) is an ongoing problem for many nations. The world-wide prevalence of diabetes estimated by World Health Organization was approximately 175 million in 2000 and is predicted to be at least 366 million by 2030 among adults ≥ 20 years of age. The WHO estimate for Trinidad and Tobago in 2000 was 60,000 and is projected to increase to 125,000 if current trends prevail. Recent data (unpublished) from the Ministry of Health indicate that the Chronic Disease Assistance Programme, since its inception in 2003 to 2009, has provided medicines for approximately 226,435 diabetic patients. The National Insurance Property Development Company procures and manages the distribution of medicines for Chronic Disease Assistance Programme on behalf of the Ministry of Health. The total cost of diabetes treatment amounted to 285 million USD, representing approximately 38% of the total patient population receiving treatment through the progamme in this period. Objective: The primary objective was to demonstrate that pharmacists can assist patients to achieve at least a 1% decrease in HbA1c. Methods: A randomized controlled Pharmacist Evaluative Research Study compared the efficacy of pharmacist managed care (the intervention), and routine standard management (control) of poorly controlled (abnormal glycosylated haemoglobin, blood pressure, blood glucose and lipid panel) adult diabetic patients. Participants in the intervention group met with the pharmacist at their respective primary care sites on a regular basis for an assessment of adherence to medications, barriers to adherence and education. Control group participants consisted of patients receiving routine care by their primary physician but, with no direct intervention by the pharmacist except for the filling of prescriptions. Results: Seventy-five (75) patients were initially recruited, of these forty-eight (48) [20 interventions and 28 control] met the inclusion criteria. It was only possible to analyse the result from twenty (20) patients: 14 (70%) intervention and 6 (21.4%) control because of incomplete collected data. A minimum decrease of at least 1% HbA1c was obtained by eight (57%) intervention participants compared to two (33%) in the control group; while HbA1c remained unchanged for two participants each in the intervention and control groups (14% and 33%, respectively). The patient cohort was too small, therefore better methods for recruitment needed to be explored. The failure of patients to document key measurements (SMGB, BP), as requested by the pharmacist, was responsible for the exclusion of these patients in the statistical analysis. All of these factors reinforced the importance of preventing patients from absconding in order to reduce the high attrition rate. Conclusion: The data supports the hypothesis that the use of pharmacists as adjunctive healthcare practitioners achieves better patient outcomes than the non-use of pharmacists.