Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T07:17:20.239Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Hospital and Patient Factors that Influence the effective Administration of Surgical Antimicrobial Prophylaxis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Bruce R. R. Turnbull ,
Dick E. Zoutman  and
Mui Lam
Bruce R. R. Turnbull*
Affiliation:
Department of Community Health & Epidemiology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Dick E. Zoutman
Affiliation:
Department of Community Health & Epidemiology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada Department of Pathology & Molecular Medicine, Queen's University, School of Medicine, Kingston, Ontario, Canada Department of Medical Microbiology, Infection Control Service, Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Mui Lam
Affiliation:
Department of Community Health & Epidemiology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
*
Riverside Center 3-120, 275 Grove Street, Auburndale, MA 02466. bruce.turnbull@i3magnifi.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To analyze and model the patient and healthcare system factors that may interfere with the appropriate administration of surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis.

Design:

Between 1994 and 1998, surgical-site surveillance data were collected prospectively for a cohort of eligible surgical patients. For all cases, and each individual procedure (cardiothoracic, colonic, gynecologic, orthopedic, or vascular), forward stepwise multiple logistic regression was applied to relate key hospital and patient factors to an effective first prophylactic dose (ie, appropriate administration time, dose, route, and drug).

Setting:

A 450-bed, tertiary-care teaching hospital in Canada.

Patients:

A total of 4,835 patients admitted for surgical procedures who required antimicrobial prophylaxis.

Results:

Factors positive for an effective first prophylactic dose for all cases were when an order was written (OR, 19.7; CI95, 9.1–42.7; P < .001) and given in the operating room (OR, 13.9; Cl95, 7.5–25.6; P < .001). Factors negative for an effective first prophylactic dose were beta-lactam allergy (OR, 0.49; CI95, 0.4–0.61; P < .001) and same-day surgery (OR, 0.57; CI95, 0.4–0.82; P < .001).

Conclusions:

With few exceptions, the four factors included in the procedure models showed that when a preoperative order was written or the antibiotic was given in the operating room, a patient was more likely to receive an effective first prophylactic dose. Conversely, when a patient had a beta-lactam allergy or the surgery was performed on the day the patient was admitted, the administration of an effective first prophylactic dose was less likely.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 26 , Issue 5 , May 2005 , pp. 478 - 485
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Collier, PE, Rudolph, M, Ruckert, D, Osella, T, Collier, NA, Ferrero, M. Are preoperative antibiotics administered preoperatively? Am J Med Qual 1998;13:94–97.Google Scholar
2.Leape, LL, Bates, DW, Cullen, DJ, et al. Systems analysis of adverse drug events: ADE Prevention Study Group. JAMA 1995;274:35–43.Google Scholar
3.Leape, LL, Lawthers, AG, Brennan, TA, Johnson, WG. Preventing medical injury. QRB Quality Review Bulletin 1993;19:144–149.Google Scholar
4.Leape, LL, Brennan, TA, Laird, N, et al. The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients: results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II. N Engl J Med 1991;324:377–384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Mangram, AJ, Horan, TC, Pearson, ML, Silver, LC, Jarvis, WR. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Am J Infect Control 1999;27:97–132.Google Scholar
6.Classen, DC, Evans, RS, Pestotnik, SL, Horn, SD, Menlove, RL, Burke, JP. The timing of prophylactic administration of antibiotics and the risk of surgical-wound infection. N Engl J Med 1992;326:281–286.Google Scholar
7.Garibaldi, RA, Cushing, D, Lerer, T. Risk factors for postoperative infection. Am J Med 1991;91:158S–163S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Lizan-Garcia, M, Garcia-Caballero, J, Asensio-Vegas, A. Risk factors for surgical-wound infection in general surgery: a prospective study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997;18:310–315.Google Scholar
9.Richet, HM, Chidiac, C, Prat, A, et al. Analysis of risk factors for surgical wound infections following vascular surgery. Am J Med 1991;91:170S–172S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Hosmer, DW, Lemeshow, S. Applied Logistic Regression. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1989:82–170.Google Scholar
11.Silver, A, Eichorn, A, Krai, J, et al. Timeliness and use of antibiotic prophylaxis in selected inpatient surgical procedures: the Antibiotic Prophylaxis Study Group. Am J Surg 1996;17:548–552.Google Scholar
12.Page, CP, Bohnen, JM, Fletcher, JR, McManus, AT, Solomkin, JS, Wittmann, DH. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgical wounds: guidelines for clinical care. Arch Surg 1993;128:79–88.Google Scholar
13.Zoutman, D, Chau, L, Watterson, J, Mackenzie, T, Djurfeldt, M. A Canadian survey of prophylactic antibiotic use among hip-fracture patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:752–755.Google Scholar
14.Kucers, A, Hoy, JF, Grayson, ML, Crowe, SM. The Use of Antibiotics: A Clinical Review of Antibacterial, Antifungal, and Antiviral Drugs, ed. 5. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1997:283–289.Google Scholar
15.Zoutman, DE, Ford, BD, Bryce, E, et al. The state of infection surveillance and control in Canadian acute care hospitals. Am J Infect Control 2003;31:266–273.Google Scholar
16.Grol, R, Dalhuijsen, J, Thomas, S, Veld, C, Rutten, G, Mokkink, H. Attributes of clinical guidelines that influence use of guidelines in general practice: observational study. BMJ 1998;317:858–861.Google Scholar
17.Lomas, J, Anderson, GM, Domnick-Pierre, K, et al. Do practice guidelines guide practice? The effect of a consensus statement on the practice of physicians. N Engl J Med 1989;321:1306–1311.Google Scholar
18.Grimshaw, JM, Russell, IT. Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations. Lancet 1993;342:1317–1322.Google Scholar
19.Everitt, DE, Soumerai, SB, Avorn, J, Klapholz, H, Wessels, M. Changing surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis practices through education targeted at senior department leaders. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1990;11:578–583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Meyer, TJ, Van Kooten, D, Marsh, S, Prochazka, AV. Reduction of polypharmacy by feedback to clinicians. J Gen Intern Med 1991;6:133–136.Google Scholar