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)

[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.

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.