RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The evolution of resistant pathogens is a worldwide health crisis and adherence to European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on antibiotic prophylaxis may be an important way to improve antibiotic stewardship and reduce patient harm and costs. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains and health care costs during a period of adherence to EAU guidelines in a tertiary referral urologic institution. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A protocol for adherence to EAU guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis for all urologic procedures was introduced in January 2011. Data for 3529 urologic procedures performed between January 2011 and December 2013 after protocol introduction were compared with data for 2619 procedures performed between January 2008 and December 2010 before protocol implementation. The prevalence of bacterial resistance and health care costs were compared between the two periods. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The outcome measures were the proportion of resistant uropathogens and costs related to antibiotic consumption and symptomatic postoperative infection. We used χ2 and Fisher's exact tests to test the significance of differences. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The proportion of patients with symptomatic postoperative infection did not differ (180/3529 [5.1%] vs. 117/2619 [4.5%]; p=0.27). A total of 342 isolates from all patients with symptomatic postoperative infections were analysed. The rate of resistance of Escherichia coli to piperacillin/tazobactam (9.1% vs. 5.4%; p=0.03), gentamicin (18.3% vs. 11.2%; p=0.02), and ciprofloxacin (32.3% vs. 19.1%; p=0.03) decreased significantly after protocol introduction. The defined daily dose (DDD) use of ciprofloxacin fell from 4.2 to 0.2 DDD per 100 patient-days after implementation (p<0.001). Antibiotic drug costs (76,980 vs. 36,700) and costs related to postoperative infections (45,870 vs. 29,560) decreased following introduction of the protocol (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to EAU guidelines on antibiotic prophylaxis reduced antibiotic usage without increasing post-operative infection rate and lowered the prevalence of resistant uropathogens. PATIENT SUMMARY: We analysed the impact of adherence to European Association of Urology guidelines on antibiotic prophylaxis for all surgical urologic procedures on the prevalence of infections and resistant bacterial strains and on costs. We found that adherence to the guidelines reduced the rate of bacterial resistance, in particular against piperacillin/tazobactam, gentamicin, and ciprofloxacin, and reduced costs without increasing the risk of postoperative infection after urologic procedures. We recommend adherence to the guidelines as an important part of antibiotic stewardship programmes.
Assuntos
Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Antibioticoprofilaxia/normas , Farmacorresistência Bacteriana , Fidelidade a Diretrizes , Urologia/normas , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Antibacterianos/economia , Ciprofloxacina/uso terapêutico , Escherichia coli/efeitos dos fármacos , Europa (Continente) , Feminino , Gentamicinas/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Klebsiella/efeitos dos fármacos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Ácido Penicilânico/análogos & derivados , Ácido Penicilânico/uso terapêutico , Piperacilina/uso terapêutico , Combinação Piperacilina e Tazobactam , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Combinação Trimetoprima e Sulfametoxazol/uso terapêutico , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Urológicos/efeitos adversos , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Urológicos/normasRESUMO
AIMS: With the aim to identify the instruments validated for Italian nursing practice, a systematic review of the literature was undertaken. RESULTS: A total of 101 instruments emerged. The majority (89; 88.1%) were developed in other countries; the remaining (14; 13.9%) were developed and validated in the Italian context. The instruments were developed to measure patient's problems (63/101; 62.4%), outcomes (27/101; 26.7%), risks (4/101; 4%) and others issues (7/101; 6.9%). The majority of participants involved in the validation processes were younger adults (49; 48.5%), older adults (40; 39.5%), children (4; 4%), adolescents (3; 3%), and children/adolescents (1; 1%). The instruments were structured primarily in the form of questionnaires (61; 60.4%), as a grid for direct observation (27; 26.7%) or in other forms (12; 11.9%). Among the 101 instruments emerged, there were 1 to 7 validation measures documented with on average 3.2 (95% CI 2.86-3.54) for each instrument. CONCLUSIONS: Developing validation studies giving priority to those instruments widely adopted in the clinical nursing practice is recommended.