Clinical and Ecological Impact of an Educational Program to Optimize Antibiotic Treatments in Nursing Homes (PROA-SENIOR): A Cluster, Randomized, Controlled Trial and Interrupted Time-Series Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) are recommended in nursing homes (NHs), although data are limited. We aimed to determine the clinical and ecological impact of an ASP for NHs. METHODS: We performed a cluster, randomized, controlled trial and a before-after study with interrupted time-series analyses in 14 NHs for 30 consecutive months from July 2018 to December 2020 in Andalusia, Spain. Seven facilities implemented an ASP with a bundle of 5 educational measures (general ASP) and 7 added 1-to-1 educational interviews (experimental ASP). The primary outcome was the overall use of antimicrobials, calculated monthly as defined daily doses (DDD) per 1000 resident days (DRD). RESULTS: The total mean antimicrobial consumption decreased by 31.2% (-16.72 DRD; P = .045) with respect to the preintervention period; the overall use of quinolones and amoxicillin-clavulanic acid dropped by 52.2% (P = .001) and 42.5% (P = .006), respectively; and the overall prevalence of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) decreased from 24.7% to 17.4% (P = .012). During the intervention period, 12.5 educational interviews per doctor were performed in the experimental ASP group; no differences were found in the total mean antimicrobial use between groups (-14.62 DRD; P = .25). Two unexpected coronavirus disease 2019 waves affected the centers increasing the overall mean use of antimicrobials by 40% (51.56 DRD; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that an ASP for NHs appears to be associated with a decrease in total consumption of antimicrobials and prevalence of MDROs. This trial did not find benefits associated with educational interviews, probably due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT03543605.

Concordance Among 10 Different Anticholinergic Burden Scales in At-Risk Older Populations.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the concordance among 10 anticholinergic scales for the measurement of anticholinergic drug exposure in at-risk elderly complex chronic patients in primary care. METHODS: An 8-month cross-sectional, multicenter study was carried out in a cohort of complex chronic patients older than 65 years in treatment with at least 1 drug with anticholinergic activity. Demographic, pharmacological, and clinical data were collected. Anticholinergic burden and risk were detected using the 10 scales included on the anticholinergic burden calculator (http://www.anticholinergicscales.es/). We used κ statistics to evaluated the concordance 2 to 2 (according to risk: high, medium, low or without risk) among the included scales. RESULTS: Four hundred seventy-three patients were recruited (60.3% female, median age of 84 years [interquartile range = 10]). Eighty was the total number of anticholinergic drugs with any scale (1197 prescriptions), with a median of 2 drugs with anticholinergic activity per patient (interquartile range = 2). The κ statistics comparing all the 10 scales ranged from -0.175 (Drug Burden Index versus Chew Scale) to 0.708 (Anticholinergic Activity Scale [AAS] versus Chew Scale). The best concordance was obtained between AAS and Chew Scale (κ = 0.708), followed by Clinician-Rated Anticholinergic Scale and Duran Scale (κ = 0.632) and AAS and Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden Scale (κ = 0.618), being considered substantial strengths of concordance. CONCLUSIONS: The agreement among the 10 scales in elderly patients with complex chronic conditions was highly variable. Great care should be taken when assessing anticholinergic drug exposure using existing scales because of the wide variability among them. The only scales that showed agreement were the AAS-Chew, Clinician-Rated Anticholinergic Scale-Duran, and AAS-Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden Scale pairs. In the rest of the cases, the scales are not interchangeable.

Medication reconciliation at admission to surgical departments.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: We aim to determine the prevalence of reconciliation errors (REs) at admission to surgery departments, report their potential clinical impact and analyse possible risk factors. METHODS: Prospective observational study was conducted for 8 months in a regional public hospital in Spain. The study included patients consecutively hospitalized in the Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology or Department of Angiology and Vascular Surgery from May through December 2010. At 24-48 hours after hospital admission, the pre-admission pharmacological treatment of patients was compared with the medication received in hospital to identify REs, which were classified by type and potential severity. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted with the presence of RE as dependent variable. RESULTS: The study included 176 patients, 60.8% of whom were aged >65 years and consumed a mean of 5.55 (±4.33) drugs. 55.1% had ≥1 RE, with a mean of 3.21 REs per patient [95% confidence interval (CI; 2.72-3.70)]. The most frequent RE was drug omission (84.1%). No clinical risk was posed by 50.5% of the REs. Multivariate analysis evidenced fourfold higher risk of an RE in patients admitted for elective versus emergency surgery and a 1.35-fold higher risk in patients receiving a larger number of drugs. CONCLUSIONS: There was a high prevalence of REs among patients admitted to the surgical departments, most frequently the omission of a drug. The risk of an RE was higher in patients admitted for elective versus emergency surgery, as well as with the receipt of a larger number of drugs before admission.

Enteroparasitosis en población escolar de Valencia / No disponible

No disponible