Diseño de un panel de indicadores para programas de optimización del uso de antimicrobianos en los Servicios de Urgencias / Design of a panel of indicators for antibiotic stewardship programs in the Emergency Department

Objetivo: desarrollar un panel de indicadores para monitorizar la actividad de los programas de optimización del uso de antimicrobianos en los servicios de urgencias. Métodos: un grupo multidisciplinar formado por expertos en el manejo de la infección en urgencias y en la implantación de programas de optimización de uso de antimicrobianos (PROA) evaluó una propuesta de indicadores utilizando una metodología Delphi modificada. En una primera ronda, cada uno de los expertos clasificó la relevancia de cada indicador propuesto en 2 dimensiones (repercusión asistencial y facilidad de implantación) y 2 atributos (nivel de priorización y periodicidad de medida). La segunda ronda se realizó a partir del cuestionario modificado de acuerdo con las sugerencias planteadas y nuevos indicadores sugeridos por los participantes. Los expertos efectuaron modificaciones en el orden de priorización y calificaron los nuevos indicadores propuestos de la misma manera que en la primera ronda. Resultados: se propusieron un total de 61 potenciales indicadores divididos en 4 grupos: indicadores de consumo, microbiológicos, de proceso y de resultado. Tras el análisis de las puntuaciones y los comentarios realizados en la primera ronda, 31 indicadores fueron clasificados como de alta prioridad, 25 de prioridad intermedia y 5 de baja prioridad. Además se generaron 19 nuevos indicadores. Tras la segunda ronda, se mantuvieron los 61 indicadores inicialmente propuestos y adicionalmente se incorporaron 18 nuevos: 11 como de alta prioridad, 3 como de intermedia y 4 como de baja prioridad. Conclusiones: los expertos consensuaron un panel de indicadores PROA adaptado a los servicios de urgencias priorizados por nivel de relevancia como un elemento de ayuda para el desarrollo de estos programas, que contribuirá a monitorizar la adecuación del uso de antimicrobianos en estas unidades.(AU)

Objective: To develop a panel of indicators to monitor antimicrobial stewardship programs activity in the emergency department. Methods: A multidisciplinary group consisting of experts in the management of infection in emergency departments and the implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) evaluated a proposal of indicators using a modified Delphi methodology. In the first round, each expert classified the relevance of each proposed indicators in two dimensions (healthcare impact and ease of implementation) and two attributes (prioritization level and frequency). The second round was conducted based on the modified questionnaire according to the suggestions raised and new indicators suggested. Experts modified the prioritization order and rated the new indicators in the same manner as in the first round. Results: 61 potential indicators divided into four groups were proposed: consumption indicators, microbiological indicators, process indicators, and outcome indicators. After analyzing the scores and comments from the first round, 31 indicators were classified as high priority, 25 as intermediate priority, and 5 as low priority. Moreover, 18 new indicators were generated. Following the second round, all 61 initially proposed indicators were retained, and 18 new indicators were incorporated: 11 classified as high priority, 3 as intermediate priority, and 4 as low priority. Conclusions: The experts agreed on a panel of ASP indicators adapted to the emergency services prioritized by level of relevance. This is as a helpful tool for the development of these programs and will contribute to monitoring the appropriateness of the use of antimicrobials in these units.(AU)

Design of a panel of indicators for antibiotic stewardship programs in the Emergency Department / Diseño de un panel de indicadores para programas de optimización del uso de antimicrobianos en los Servicios de Urgencias

Objetivo: desarrollar un panel de indicadores para monitorizar la actividad de los programas de optimización del uso de antimicrobianos en los servicios de urgencias. Métodos: un grupo multidisciplinar formado por expertos en el manejo de la infección en urgencias y en la implantación de programas de optimización de uso de antimicrobianos (PROA) evaluó una propuesta de indicadores utilizando una metodología Delphi modificada. En una primera ronda, cada uno de los expertos clasificó la relevancia de cada indicador propuesto en 2 dimensiones (repercusión asistencial y facilidad de implantación) y 2 atributos (nivel de priorización y periodicidad de medida). La segunda ronda se realizó a partir del cuestionario modificado de acuerdo con las sugerencias planteadas y nuevos indicadores sugeridos por los participantes. Los expertos efectuaron modificaciones en el orden de priorización y calificaron los nuevos indicadores propuestos de la misma manera que en la primera ronda. Resultados: se propusieron un total de 61 potenciales indicadores divididos en 4 grupos: indicadores de consumo, microbiológicos, de proceso y de resultado. Tras el análisis de las puntuaciones y los comentarios realizados en la primera ronda, 31 indicadores fueron clasificados como de alta prioridad, 25 de prioridad intermedia y 5 de baja prioridad. Además se generaron 19 nuevos indicadores. Tras la segunda ronda, se mantuvieron los 61 indicadores inicialmente propuestos y adicionalmente se incorporaron 18 nuevos: 11 como de alta prioridad, 3 como de intermedia y 4 como de baja prioridad. Conclusiones: los expertos consensuaron un panel de indicadores PROA adaptado a los servicios de urgencias priorizados por nivel de relevancia como un elemento de ayuda para el desarrollo de estos programas, que contribuirá a monitorizar la adecuación del uso de antimicrobianos en estas unidades.(AU)

Objective: To develop a panel of indicators to monitor antimicrobial stewardship programs activity in the emergency department. Methods: A multidisciplinary group consisting of experts in the management of infection in emergency departments and the implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) evaluated a proposal of indicators using a modified Delphi methodology. In the first round, each expert classified the relevance of each proposed indicators in two dimensions (healthcare impact and ease of implementation) and two attributes (prioritization level and frequency). The second round was conducted based on the modified questionnaire according to the suggestions raised and new indicators suggested. Experts modified the prioritization order and rated the new indicators in the same manner as in the first round. Results: 61 potential indicators divided into four groups were proposed: consumption indicators, microbiological indicators, process indicators, and outcome indicators. After analyzing the scores and comments from the first round, 31 indicators were classified as high priority, 25 as intermediate priority, and 5 as low priority. Moreover, 18 new indicators were generated. Following the second round, all 61 initially proposed indicators were retained, and 18 new indicators were incorporated: 11 classified as high priority, 3 as intermediate priority, and 4 as low priority. Conclusions: The experts agreed on a panel of ASP indicators adapted to the emergency services prioritized by level of relevance. This is as a helpful tool for the development of these programs and will contribute to monitoring the appropriateness of the use of antimicrobials in these units.(AU)

Programas de optimización del uso de antimicrobianos en los servicios de urgencias españoles: Estudio PROA-URG / Antibiotic stewardship programs in the Spanish emergency services: PROA-URG Study

Introducción: Los programas de optimización de antimicrobianos (PROA) son herramientas clave en la adecuación de estos fármacos. La información disponible sobre la aplicación e indicadores para monitorizar estos programas en urgencias es limitada. El objetivo del estudio es conocer el grado de implantación de programas PROA en los servicios de urgencias, así como el uso de antimicrobianos en estas unidades. Material y métodos. Estudio multicéntrico retrospectivo. Se envió una invitación a todos los participantes del grupo de trabajo de farmacéuticos de urgencias REDFASTER-SEFH. Se utilizó un cuestionario de 21 ítems, contestado por un equipo formado por especialistas en los servicios de farmacia hospitalaria, urgencias, enfermedades infecciosas y microbiología. Resultados. 18 hospitales completaron la encuesta. Catorce (77,8%) disponían de un responsable PROA en la unidad. El valor de DDD por 1000 ingresos osciló entre 36,5 y 400,5 (mediana 100,4 [RIQ:57,2-157,3]). El grupo de carbapenémicos y macrólidos presentó una amplia variabilidad. Únicamente seis (33,3%) hospitales disponían de informe anual de resistencias específico para urocultivos y hemocultivos en urgencias. El porcentaje de multirresistentes en urocultivos fue del 12,5% y en hemocultivos del 12,2%. El porcentaje de adecuación en bacteremia de acuerdo con el resultado del hemocultivo fue del 81,0% (RIQ:74,6-85,0%), y en infección urinaria del 78,0% (RIQ:71,5-88,0%). Conclusiones. Pese a la existencia de responsables PROA, actividades formativas y guías de tratamiento en urgencias, la información sobre el uso de antimicrobianos y el perfil de resistencias en estas unidades es limitado. Futuras actividades han de ir encaminadas a mejorar la información sobre los resultados PROA propios para estas unidades. (AU)

Introduction: Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) have become a key tool in the adaptation of these drugs to the health system. The information available on the application and indicators used in these programs in emergency departments is scarce. The objective of this study is to know theextent of ASP implementation in the emergency departments, as well as the use of antimicrobials in these units. Material and methods. Multicenter retrospective study. An invitation was sent to all participants of the REDFASTER-SEFH emergency pharmacist working group. A questionnaire was used consisting of 21 items, answered by a team made up of a pharmacist, emergency room specialist, infectious disease specialist and microbiologist. Results. Eighteen hospitals completed the survey. Fourteen (77.8%) had an ASP manager. The DDD value per 1000 admissions ranged between 36.5 and 400.5 (median: 100.4 [IQR:57.2-157.3]). Both carbapenem and macrolide group presented wide variability in use. Six (33.3%) hospitals had an annual report on the specific resistance profile for urine and blood cultures. The percentage of multi-drug resistant strains in urine cultures was 12.5% and in blood cultures 12.2%. The percentage of adequacy in the bacteremia treatment was 81.0% (IQR:74.6-85.0%), while in urinary tract infections was 78.0% (IQR:71.5-88.0). Conclusions: Despite the existence of ASP members in emergency services, as well as the training activity and local guidelines is common. knowledge of the use of antimicrobials and resistances is limited. Future activities must be aimed at improving information about the ASP results in these units. (AU)

Healthcare risk stratification model for emergency departments based on drugs, income and comorbidities: the DICER-score.

BACKGROUND: During the last decade, the progressive increase in age and associated chronic comorbidities and polypharmacy. However, assessments of the risk of emergency department (ED) revisiting published to date often neglect patients' pharmacotherapy plans, thus overseeing the Drug-related problems (DRP) risks associated with the therapy burden. The aim of this study is to develop a predictive model for ED revisit, hospital admission, and mortality based on patient's characteristics and pharmacotherapy. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study including adult patients visited in the ED (triage 1, 2, or 3) of multiple hospitals in Catalonia (Spain) during 2019. The primary endpoint was a composite of ED visits, hospital admission, or mortality 30 days after ED discharge. The study population was randomly split into a model development (60%) and validation (40%) datasets. The model included age, sex, income level, comorbidity burden, measured with the Adjusted Morbidity Groups (GMA), and number of medications. Forty-four medication groups, associated with medication-related health problems, were assessed using ATC codes. To assess the performance of the different variables, logistic regression was used to build multivariate models for ED revisits. The models were created using a "stepwise-forward" approach based on the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC). Area under the curve of the receiving operating characteristics (AUCROC) curve for the primary endpoint was calculated. RESULTS: 851.649 patients were included; 134.560 (15.8%) revisited the ED within 30 days from discharge, 15.2% were hospitalized and 9.1% died within 30 days from discharge. Four factors (sex, age, GMA, and income level) and 30 ATC groups were identified as risk factors and combined into a final score. The model showed an AUCROC values of 0.720 (95%CI:0.718-0.721) in the development cohort and 0.719 (95%CI.0.717-0.721) in the validation cohort. Three risk categories were generated, with the following scores and estimated risks: low risk: 18.3%; intermediate risk: 40.0%; and high risk: 62.6%. CONCLUSION: The DICER score allows identifying patients at high risk for ED revisit within 30 days based on sociodemographic, clinical, and pharmacotherapeutic characteristics, being a valuable tool to prioritize interventions on discharge.

Short-term prognosis of polypharmacy in elderly patients treated in emergency departments: results from the EDEN project.

Background: Polypharmacy is a growing phenomenon among elderly individuals. However, there is little information about the frequency of polypharmacy among the elderly population treated in emergency departments (EDs) and its prognostic effect. This study aims to determine the prevalence and short-term prognostic effect of polypharmacy in elderly patients treated in EDs. Methods: A retrospective analysis of the Emergency Department Elderly in Needs (EDEN) project's cohort was performed. This registry included all elderly patients who attended 52 Spanish EDs for any condition. Mild and severe polypharmacy was defined as the use of 5-9 drugs and ⩾10 drugs, respectively. The assessed outcomes were ED revisits, hospital readmissions, and mortality 30 days after discharge. Crude and adjusted logistic regression analyses, including the patient's comorbidities, were performed. Results: A total of 25,557 patients were evaluated [mean age: 78 (IQR: 71-84) years]; 10,534 (41.2%) and 5678 (22.2%) patients presented with mild and severe polypharmacy, respectively. In the adjusted analysis, mild polypharmacy and severe polypharmacy were associated with an increase in ED revisits [odds ratio (OR) 1.13 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.04-1.23) and 1.38 (95% CI: 1.24-1.51)] and hospital readmissions [OR 1.18 (95% CI: 1.04-1.35) and 1.36 (95% CI: 1.16-1.60)], respectively, compared to non-polypharmacy. Mild and severe polypharmacy were not associated with increased 30-day mortality [OR 1.05 (95% CI: 0.89-2.26) and OR 0.89 (95% CI: 0.72-1.12)], respectively. Conclusion: Polypharmacy was common among the elderly treated in EDs and associated with increased risks of ED revisits and hospital readmissions ⩽30 days but not with an increased risk of 30-day mortality. Patients with polypharmacy had a higher risk of ED revisits and hospital readmissions ⩽30 days after discharge.

Short-term prognosis of polypharmacy in elderly patients treated in emergency departments: results from the EDEN project Management elderly patients with polypharmacy is becoming a major challenge to the emergency services. The progressive aging of the population is producing a progressive increase in the number of patients treated with multiple comorbidities and chronic medications. It's well known that polypharmacy is associated with an increase in hospital admissions and health care system costs. However, the impact of polypharmacy over the risk of new visits to the emergency rooms is not well defined. Understanding the impact of polypharmacy on the frequency of new visits to the emergency room and on patient mortality is the first step to establish prevention measures for new visits, proposing improvements in chronic treatment at discharge. This study aimed to determine the prevalence and effect on short-term prognosis of polypharmacy in elderly patients treated in Emergency departments. The authors used a retrospective multipurpose registry in 52 hospitals in Spain. This study includes 25,557 patients with a mean age of 78 years. On admission, the median number of drugs was 6 (IQR: 3­9), with 10,534 (41.2%) patients taking 5­9 drugs and 5,678 (22.2%) taking ⩾10 drugs. In these patients comorbidities were associated with an increase in the number of drugs. In the patients with severe polypharmacy (⩾10 drugs), diuretics were the most frequently drugs prescribed, followed by antihypertensives and statins. The results obtained indicate that polypharmacy is a frequent phenomenon among the elderly population treated in Emergency departments, being antihypertensives the most frequently used drugs in this population. Those patients who takes ⩾10 drugs have a higher risk of new visits to the emergency room and hospital readmissions in short term period.

Sex- and age-related patterns in the use of analgesics in older patients in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of acute pain in older patients is a common challenge faced in emergency departments (EDs). Despite many studies that have investigated chronic analgesic use in the elderly, data on patterns of acute use, especially in EDs, of analgesics according to patient characteristics is scarce. OBJECTIVE: To investigate sex- and age-related patterns of analgesic use in the Spanish EDs and determine differences in age-related patterns according to patient sex. DESIGN: A secondary analysis of the Emergency Department and Elderly Needs (EDEN) multipurpose cohort. SETTING: Fifty-two Spanish EDs (17% of Spanish EDs covering 25% of Spanish population). PARTICIPANTS: All patients' ≥65 years attending ED during 1 week (April 1-7, 2019). Patient characteristics recorded included age, sex, chronic treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opiates, comorbidity, dependence, dementia, depression, ability to walk and previous falls. Analgesics used in the ED were categorized in three groups: non-NSAID non-opioids (mainly paracetamol and metamizole, PM), NSAIDs, and opiates. OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency of analgesic use was quantified, and the relationship between sex and age and analgesic use (in general and for each analgesic group) was assessed by unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression and restricted cubic spline models. Interaction between sex and age was explored. MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 573 patients, and 6678 (27.2%) received analgesics in the ED: 5551 (22.6%) PM, 1661 (6.8%) NSAIDs and 937 (3.8%) opiates (1312 received combinations). Analgesics were more frequently used in women (adjusted OR = 1.076, 95%CI = 1.014-1.142), as well as with NSAID (1.205, 1.083-1.341). Analgesic use increased with age, increasing PM and decreasing NSAIDs use. Opiate use remained quite constant across age and sex. Interaction of sex with age was present for the use of analgesics in general ( P  = 0.006), for PM ( P  < 0.001) and for opiates ( P  = 0.033), with higher use of all these analgesics in women. CONCLUSION: Use of analgesics in older individuals in EDs is mildly augmented in women and increases with age, with PM use increasing and NSAIDs decreasing with age. Conversely, opiate use is quite constant according to sex and age. Age-related patterns differ according to sex, with age-related curves of women showing higher probabilities than those of men to receive any analgesic, PM or opiates.

[Translated article] Design of a panel of indicators for antibiotic stewardship programs in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a panel of indicators to monitor antimicrobial stewardship programs activity in the emergency department. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group consisting of experts in the management of infection in emergency departments and the implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) evaluated a proposal of indicators using a modified Delphi methodology. In the first round, each expert classified the relevance of each proposed indicators in two dimensions (healthcare impact and ease of implementation) and two attributes (prioritisation level and frequency). The second round was conducted based on the modified questionnaire according to the suggestions raised and new indicators suggested. Experts modified the prioritisation order and rated the new indicators in the same manner as in the first round. RESULTS: 61 potential indicators divided into four groups were proposed: consumption indicators, microbiological indicators, process indicators, and outcome indicators. After analysing the scores and comments from the first round, 31 indicators were classified as high priority, 25 as intermediate priority, and 5 as low priority. Moreover, 18 new indicators were generated. Following the second round, all 61 initially proposed indicators were retained, and 18 new indicators were incorporated: 11 classified as high priority, 3 as intermediate priority, and 4 as low priority. CONCLUSIONS: The experts agreed on a panel of ASP Indicators adapted to the emergency services prioritised by level of relevance. This is as a helpful tool for the development of these programs and will contribute to monitoring the appropriateness of the use of antimicrobials in these units.

The Interventions and Challenges of Antimicrobial Stewardship in the Emergency Department.

Over the last decades, we have witnessed a constant increase in infections caused by multi-drug-resistant strains in emergency departments. Despite the demonstrated effectiveness of antimicrobial stewardship programs in antibiotic consumption and minimizing multi-drug-resistant bacterium development, the characteristics of emergency departments pose a challenge to their implementation. The inclusion of rapid diagnostic tests, tracking microbiological results upon discharge, conducting audits with feedback, and implementing multimodal educational interventions have proven to be effective tools for optimizing antibiotic use in these units. Nevertheless, future multicenter studies are essential to determine the best way to proceed and measure outcomes in this scenario.

Programa de optimización de antibioterapia en infección urinaria por cepas multirresistentes en el servicio de urgencias / Antimicrobial stewardship program in urinary tract infections due to multi resistant strains in the emergency department

Introducción. Las infecciones urinarias (ITU) son un mo tivo frecuente de asistencia a los servicios de urgencias hospi talarias (SU), siendo cada vez más frecuente el aislamiento de cepas multirresistentes. El presente trabajo pretende evaluar el impacto de un programa multidisciplinar de optimización de antibioterapia en pacientes con ITU causada por bacterias mul tirresistentes atendidas desde el SU. Material y métodos. Estudio descriptivo de la puesta en marcha de un programa en el que participaron los servicios de urgencias, microbiología y farmacia. El tratamiento antibiótico de los pacientes que consultaron urgencias con urinocultivos positivos para bacterias multirresistentes fue revisado al alta por el equipo multidisciplinar. En aquellos pacientes con tra tamiento inapropiado se contactó con los médicos y/o farma céuticos del siguiente nivel asistencial o con los propios pa cientes en el caso de alta a domicilio. Se evaluó el impacto del programa sobre las nuevas consultas a urgencias a 30 días en comparación con los resultados obtenidos de la práctica habi tual en tres meses previos a la intervención. Resultados. Durante el año de implantación se revisaron 2.474 urinocultivos de pacientes con ITU, 537 (21,7%) causa das por bacterias multirresistentes. El tratamiento empírico al alta de urgencias fue inapropiado en 287 (53,4%) pacientes, realizando modificaciones del tratamiento en 232 de ellos. 73 pacientes (19,3%) reconsultaron el SU a los 30 días del alta, siendo este porcentaje inferior a los resultados obtenidos en los tres meses previos a la intervención (27,9%; p=0,031), sin encontrar diferencias significativas en el porcentaje de nuevas visitas asociadas a infecciones urinarias. Conclusión (AU)

Introduction. Urinary tract infections (UTI) are a fre quent reason for attendance at emergency department (ED). The present study evaluates the impact of a multidisciplinary program for the optimization of antibiotic therapy in patients with UTI caused by multi-drug resistant bacteria treated from the hospital ED. Material and methods. Descriptive study of the imple mentation of a program in which emergency, microbiology and pharmacy departments participated. Antibiotic treatment of the patients who consulted the ED with positive urine cul tures caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria was reviewed up on discharge. In those patients with inappropriate treatment, doctors and/or pharmacists of the next level of healthcare or patients in the case of home discharge were contacted. The impact of the program was evaluated based on new visits to the ED at 30 days after discharge, compared with the results obtained from the usual practice three months prior the in tervention. Results. During the first year, 2,474 urine cultures of pa tients with UTI were reviewed, 533 (21.7%) were caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria. Empirical treatment was inap propriate in 287 (53.4%), making treatment modifications in 243 of them. 73 (19.3%) patients returned to the ED 30 days after discharge, being lower than the results obtained in the three months prior intervention (27.9%; p=0.031), without significant differences in new visits associated with UTI. Conclusion. The implementation of a multidisciplinary program focused on multidrug resistant UTI at discharge form ED correct antibiotic therapy in a large number of patients, be ing a potentially tool to reduce the number of new ED visits (AU)

Design of a panel of indicators for antibiotic stewardship programs in the Emergency Department. / Diseño de un panel de indicadores para programas de optimización del uso de antimicrobianos en los Servicios de Urgencias.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a panel of indicators to monitor antimicrobial stewardship programs activity in the emergency department. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group consisting of experts in the management of infection in emergency departments and the implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) evaluated a proposal of indicators using a modified Delphi methodology. In the first round, each expert classified the relevance of each proposed indicators in two dimensions (healthcare impact and ease of implementation) and two attributes (prioritization level and frequency). The second round was conducted based on the modified questionnaire according to the suggestions raised and new indicators suggested. Experts modified the prioritization order and rated the new indicators in the same manner as in the first round. RESULTS: 61 potential indicators divided into four groups were proposed: consumption indicators, microbiological indicators, process indicators, and outcome indicators. After analyzing the scores and comments from the first round, 31 indicators were classified as high priority, 25 as intermediate priority, and 5 as low priority. Moreover, 18 new indicators were generated. Following the second round, all 61 initially proposed indicators were retained, and 18 new indicators were incorporated: 11 classified as high priority, 3 as intermediate priority, and 4 as low priority. CONCLUSIONS: The experts agreed on a panel of ASP indicators adapted to the emergency services prioritized by level of relevance. This is as a helpful tool for the development of these programs and will contribute to monitoring the appropriateness of the use of antimicrobials in these units.

PREDICTION OF MULTIDRUG-RESISTANT BACTERIA IN URINARY TRACT INFECTIONS IN THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT.

BACKGROUND: Urinary tract infections (UTI) due to multidrug-resistant bacteria are a frequent reason for visiting the emergency department (ED). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the applicability of a predictive model of infection by multidrug-resistant microorganisms in UTIs treated in an ED. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study. Adult patients admitted to an ED with a diagnosis of UTI and positive urine culture were included. The main objective was to evaluate the area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic (AUC-ROC), the scale proposed by González-del-Castillo, considering infection by a resistant pathogen as the dependent variable and the scale score of the predictive model used as the independent variable. RESULTS: The study included 414 patients with UTIs, 125 (30.2%) of which were caused by multidrug-resistant microorganisms. A total of 38.4% of patients were treated with antibiotics during the previous 3 months and a multidrug-resistant pathogen was isolated from 10.4% of the total during the previous 6 months. The AUC-ROC of the scale for predicting UTIs due to multidrug-resistant microorganisms was 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.76-0.83), the optimal cut-off point being 9 points, with a sensitivity of 76.8% and a specificity of 71.6%. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the predictive model evaluated is a useful tool in real clinical practice to improve the success of empirical treatment of patients presenting to the ED with a diagnosis of UTI and positive urine culture pending identification.

Pharmacist care in hospital emergency departments: a consensus paper from the Spanish hospital pharmacy and emergency medicine associations. / Atención farmacéutica en los servicios de urgencias: documento de posicionamiento de la Sociedad Española de Farmacia Hospitalaria (SEFH) y la Sociedad Española de Medicina de Urgencias y Emergencias (SEMES).

OBJECTIVES: To draft a list of actions and quality indicators for pharmacist care in hospital emergency departments, based on consensus among a panel of experts regarding which actions to prioritize in this setting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A panel of experts from the Spanish Society of Hospital Pharmacy (SEFH) and the Spanish Society of Emergency Medicine (SEMES) evaluated a preliminary list of potential actions and quality of care indicators. The experts used a questionnaire to assess the proposals on the basis of available evidence. In the first round, each expert individually assessed the importance of each proposed action based on 4 dimensions: evidence base, impact on clinical response and patient safety, ease of implementation, and priority. In the second round the experts attended a virtual meeting to reach consensus on a revised list of proposals; suggestions and comments that had been made anonymously in the first round were included. The group then prioritized each action as basic, intermediate, or advanced. RESULTS: The experts evaluated a total of 26 potential actions and associated quality indicators. No items were eliminated in the analysis of scores and comments from the first round. After the second round, 25 actions survived. Nine were considered basic, 10 intermediate, and 6 advanced. CONCLUSION: The expert panel's list of pharmacist actions and care quality indicators provides a basis for developing a pharmacist care program in Spanish emergency departments on 3 levels of priority. The list can serve as a guide to pharmacists, managers, physicians, and nurses involved in the effort to improve drug therapy in this hospital setting.

OBJETIVO: Desarrollar un conjunto de actividades e indicadores de atención farmacéutica en los servicios de urgencias hospitalarios mediante un consenso colectivo de un panel de expertos que permita priorizar las actividades a realizar por los farmacéuticos en estas unidades. METODO: Un comité formado por miembros de la Sociedad Española de Farmacia Hospitalaria (SEFH) y de la Sociedad Española de Medicina de Urgencias y Emergencias (SEMES) evaluó una propuesta inicial de actividades e indicadores potenciales, basados en la evidencia científica disponible, en formato de cuestionario. En una primera ronda, cada uno de los expertos del panel clasificó de forma individual la relevancia de cada una de las actividades propuestas en cuatro dimensiones: evidencia científica, impacto en la respuesta clínica y seguridad para el paciente, facilidad de implementación y grado de prioridad. La segunda ronda se realizó mediante una reunión grupal de forma virtual, a partir del cuestionario modificado de acuerdo con las sugerencias planteadas, así como los comentarios vertidos por los participantes del panel de forma anónima. En esta ronda, cada actividad fue clasificada por consenso como básica, intermedia o avanzada en función del grado de prioridad de implantación considerado por el grupo de expertos. RESULTADOS: Se propusieron un total de 26 potenciales actividades a los expertos, con indicadores asociados. Tras el análisis de las puntuaciones y los comentarios realizados en la primera ronda, no se eliminó ninguna de las actividades propuestas. Tras la segunda ronda, se mantuvieron 25 actividades, de las cuales se puntuaron 9 como actividades básicas, 10 actividades como intermedias y 6 actividades como avanzadas. CONCLUSIONES: El desarrollo del conjunto de actividades e indicadores de atención farmacéutica en urgencias, priorizados por grado de relevancia para la unidad, es la base para el desarrollo de esta cartera de servicios en los hospitales españoles, y sirve como guía tanto para farmacéuticos como para gestores, médicos y enfermeros de la unidad a fin de mejorar la farmacoterapia los pacientes atendidos en los servicios de urgencias.

Atención farmacéutica en los servicios de urgencias: documento de posicionamiento de la Sociedad Española de Farmacia Hospitalaria (SEFH) y la Sociedad Española de Medicina de Urgencias y Emergencias (SEMES) / Pharmacist care in hospital emergency departments: a consensus paper from the Spanish hospital pharmacy and emergency medicine associations

Objetivo: Desarrollar un conjunto de actividades e indicadores de atención farmacéutica en los servicios de urgencias hospitalarias mediante un consenso colectivo de un panel de expertos que permita priorizar las actividades a realizar por los farmacéuticos en estas unidades. Método: Un comité formado por miembros de la Sociedad Española de Farmacia Hospitalaria (SEFH) y de la Sociedad Española de Medicina de Urgencias y Emergencias (SEMES) evaluó una propuesta inicial de actividades e indicadores potenciales, basados en la evidencia científica disponible, en formato de cuestionario. En una primera ronda, cada uno de los expertos del panel clasificó de forma individual la relevancia de cada una de las actividades propuestas en cuatro dimensiones: evidencia científica, impacto en la respuesta clínica y seguridad para el paciente, facilidad de implementación y grado de prioridad. La segunda ronda se realizó mediante una reunión grupal de forma virtual, a partir del cuestionario modificado de acuerdo con las sugerencias planteadas, así como los comentarios vertidos por los participantes del panel de forma anónima. En esta ronda, cada actividad fue clasificada por consenso como básica, intermedia o avanzada en función del grado de prioridad de implantación considerado por el grupo de expertos. Resultados: Se propusieron un total de 26 potenciales actividades a los expertos, con indicadores asociados. Tras el análisis de las puntuaciones y los comentarios realizados en la primera ronda, no se eliminó ninguna de las actividades propuestas. Tras la segunda ronda, se mantuvieron 25 actividades, de las cuales se puntuaron 9 como actividades básicas, 10 actividades como intermedias y 6 actividades como avanzadas. (AU)

Objective: To draft a list of actions and quality indicators for pharmacist care in hospital emergency departments, based on consensus among a panel of experts regarding which actions to prioritize in this setting. Material and methods: A panel of experts from the Spanish Society of Hospital Pharmacy (SEFH) and the Spanish Society of Emergency Medicine (SEMES) evaluated a preliminary list of potential actions and quality of care indicators. The experts used a questionnaire to assess the proposals on the basis of available evidence. In the first round, each expert individually assessed the importance of each proposed action based on 4 dimensions: evidence base, impact on clinical response and patient safety, ease of implementation, and priority. In the second round the experts attended a virtual meeting to reach consensus on a revised list of proposals; suggestions and comments that had been made anonymously in the first round were included. The group then prioritized each action as basic, intermediate, or advanced. Results: The experts evaluated a total of 26 potential actions and associated quality indicators. No items were eliminated in the analysis of scores and comments from the first round. After the second round, 25 actions survived. Nine were considered basic, 10 intermediate, and 6 advanced. (AU)

Drug-related problems as reason for emergency department visit: 3 years of the FARM-URG registry.

OBJECTIVES: Drug-related problems (DRPs) are a well-known cause of emergency department (ED) visits. The objective of the FARM-URG project was to assess the prevalence of DRPs using an annual cross-sectional registry. Herein we report results of the first 3 years, indicating the prevalence of DRPs, drugs involved, and patient characteristics. METHODS: A point-prevalence multicenter study was conducted across EDs of hospitals in Spain. A specified day and hour was assigned to collect data from all adult patients attending the ED due to DRPs during three consecutive years. Medical records were retrospectively reviewed, with data recorded in REDCap. KEY FINDINGS: Overall, 4752 patients were evaluated at 32 centres, of which 366 (7.7%) visited the ED due to DRPs, with a prevalence ranging from 0 to 16.7%. Antithrombotic drugs accounted for the highest number of DRPs, responsible for 96 (26.8%) episodes. Falls (n = 29; 8.0%) were the most frequent DRPs, followed by haemorrhage (n = 26; 7.12%). Furthermore, 198 (54.2%) reported DRPs were unrelated to medication errors, 80 (21.2%) were overdose errors, and 40 (11.0%) were attributed to poor treatment adherence. Of 366 DRPs-related visits, 54 (14.8%) were due to inappropriately prescribed drugs according to the STOPP-START criteria. Overall, 86 (23.5%) patients revisited the ED within 30 days of discharge, with 34 (9.4%) returning to the ED for new DRPs. CONCLUSIONS: DRPs are frequently responsible for ED visits and are associated with a considerable percentage of post-discharge visits. The goal of the FARM-URG project is to periodically gather data to design and implement preventive measures.

Utilidad de los diagnósticos alertantes CIE-10 para identificar acontecimientos adversos por los medicamentos en los servicios de urgencias / Usefulness of ICD-10 diagnosis triggers to identify adverse drug events in emergency care

Objetivos: Evaluar la utilidad de una herramienta basada en los códigos diagnósticos CIE-10 para identificar a los pacientes que consultan a un servicio de urgencias por acontecimientos adversos por medicamentos (AAM). Métodos: Estudio observacional prospectivo, en el cual se incluyeron los pacientes que acudieron a un servicio de urgencias durante el periodo de mayo-agosto de 2022 con un diagnóstico codificado con alguno de los 27 diagnósticos CIE-10 establecidos como alertantes para el estudio. La confirmación de la presencia de AAM a partir de dichos diagnósticos se realizó analizando los fármacos prescritos previamente al ingreso, a través de un debate entre expertos y mediante una entrevista telefónica con los pacientes. Resultados: Se evaluaron 1.143 pacientes con diagnósticos alertantes, de los cuales 310 (27,1%) correspondieron a pacientes cuya consulta se atribuyó a un AAM. El 58,4% de los AAM se detectaron mediante 3 códigos diagnósticos: K59.0-Estreñimiento (n = 87; 28,1%), I16.9-Crisis hipertensiva (n = 72; 23,2%) e I95.1-Hipotensión ortostática (n = 22; 7,1%). Los códigos diagnósticos con mayor grado de asociación con AAM fueron: E16.2-Hipoglucemia no especificada (73,7%) y E11.65-Diabetes mellitus tipo 2 con hiperglucemia (71,4%), mientras que los diagnósticos D62-Anemia poshemorrágica aguda e I74.3-Embolia y trombosis de arterias de los miembros inferiores no identificaron ningún AAM. Conclusiones: Los códigos CIE-10 asociados a diagnósticos alertantes son una herramienta de utilidad para identificar a los pacientes que consultan los servicios de urgencias por AAM y podrían ser utilizados para abordar las intervenciones de prevención secundaria dirigidas a evitar nuevas consultas al sistema sanitario. (AU)

Objectives: To assess the usefulness of a tool based on ICD-10 diagnostic codes to identify patients who consult an emergency department for adverse drug events (ADE). Methods: Prospective observational study, in which patients discharged from an emergency department during May to August 2022 with a diagnosis coded with one of the 27 ICD-10 diagnoses considered as triggers were included. ADE confirmation was carried out by analyzing drugs prescribed prior to admission, and through a discussion among experts and a phone interview with patients after hospital discharge. Results: 1,143 patients with trigger diagnoses were evaluated, of which 310 (27.1%) corresponded to patients whose emergency visit was attributed to an ADE. A 58.4% of ADE consultations were found with three diagnostic codes: K59.0-Constipation (n = 87; 28.1%), I16.9-Hypertensive Crisis (n = 72; 23.2%) and I95.1-Orthostatic hypotension (n = 22; 7.1%). The diagnoses with the highest degree of association with consultations attributed to ADE were E16.2-Hypoglycemia, unspecified (73.7%) and E11.65-Type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia (71.4%), while diagnoses D62-Acute posthemorrhagic anemia and I74.3-Embolism and thrombosis of arteries of the lower limbs were not attributed to any case of ADE. Conclusions: The ICD-10 codes associated with trigger diagnoses are a useful tool to identify patients who consult the emergency services with ADE and could be used to apply secondary prevention programs to avoid new consultations to the health care system. (AU)

[Translated article] Usefulness of ICD-10 diagnostic triggers to identify adverse drug events in emergency care.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the usefulness of a tool based on ICD-10 diagnostic codes to identify patients who consult an emergency department for adverse drug events (ADE). METHODS: Prospective observational study, in which patients discharged from an emergency department during May to August 2022 with a diagnosis coded with one of the 27 ICD-10 diagnoses considered as triggers were included. ADE confirmation was carried out by analyzing drugs prescribed prior to admission, and through a discussion among experts and a phone interview with patients after hospital discharge. RESULTS: 1143 patients with trigger diagnoses were evaluated, of which 310 (27.1%) corresponded to patients whose emergency visit was attributed to an ADE. A 58.4% of ADE consultations were found with three diagnostic codes: K59.0-Constipation (n = 87; 28.1%), I16.9-Hypertensive Crisis (n = 72; 23.2%) and I95.1-Orthostatic hypotension (n = 22; 7.1%). The diagnoses with the highest degree of association with consultations attributed to ADE were E16.2-Hypoglycemia, unspecified (73.7%) and E11.65-Type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia (71.4%), while diagnoses D62-Acute posthemorrhagic anemia and I74.3-Embolism and thrombosis of arteries of the lower limbs were not attributed to any case of ADE. CONCLUSIONS: The ICD-10 codes associated with trigger diagnoses are a useful tool to identify patients who consult the emergency services with ADE and could be used to apply secondary prevention programs to avoid new consultations to the health care system.

Antimicrobial Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics in Critical Care: Adjusting the Dose in Extracorporeal Circulation and to Prevent the Genesis of Multiresistant Bacteria.

Critically ill patients suffering from severe infections are prone to pathophysiological pharmacokinetic changes that are frequently associated with inadequate antibiotic serum concentrations. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of the causative pathogens tend to be higher in intensive care units. Both pharmacokinetic changes and high antibiotic resistance likely jeopardize the efficacy of treatment. The use of extracorporeal circulation devices to support hemodynamic, respiratory, or renal failure enables pharmacokinetic changes and makes it even more difficult to achieve an adequate antibiotic dose. Besides a clinical response, antibiotic pharmacokinetic optimization is important to reduce the selection of strains resistant to common antibiotics. In this review, we summarize the present knowledge regarding pharmacokinetic changes in critically ill patients and we discuss the effects of extra-corporeal devices on antibiotic treatment together with potential solutions.

Drug-Related Problems in Elderly Patients Attended to by Emergency Services.

The progressive aging and comorbidities of the population have led to an increase in the number of patients with polypharmacy attended to in the emergency department. Drug-related problems (DRPs) have become a major cause of admission to these units, as well as a high rate of short-term readmissions. Anticoagulants, antibiotics, antidiabetics, and opioids have been shown to be the most common drugs involved in this issue. Inappropriate polypharmacy has been pointed out as one of the major causes of these emergency visits. Different ways of conducting chronic medication reviews at discharge, primary care coordination, and phone contact with patients at discharge have been shown to reduce new hospitalizations and new emergency room visits due to DRPs, and they are key elements for improving the quality of care provided by emergency services.