Improved antimicrobial interventions have benefits

Citation
J. Barenfanger et al., Improved antimicrobial interventions have benefits, J CLIN MICR, 39(8), 2001, pp. 2823-2828
Citations number
11
Language
INGLESE
art.tipo
Article
Categorie Soggetti
Clinical Immunolgy & Infectious Disease",Microbiology
Journal title
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
ISSN journal
0095-1137 → ACNP
Volume
39
Issue
8
Year of publication
2001
Pages
2823 - 2828
Database
ISI
SICI code
0095-1137(200108)39:8<2823:IAIHB>2.0.ZU;2-I
Abstract
Studies have shown benefits to patients from improved interventions involvi ng antimicrobial therapy. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate prospectively the impact of improved interventions by (i) the use of TheraT rac 2, a computer software program which electronically links susceptibilit y testing results immediately to the pharmacy and alerts pharmacists of pot ential interventions, and (ii) the education of pharmacists involving micro biologic topics. The study group had the new intervention program. The cont rol group had interventions performed the way that they had previously been done by manually reviewing hard copies of susceptibility testing data. In a 5-month period, all inpatients whose last names began with A to K were th e study group; inpatients whose last names began with L to Z were controls. Three analyses were done; one analysis (analysis A) involved only patients with interventions, one analysis (analysis B) involved all patients for wh om antimicrobial testing was done and who were matched for diagnosis-relate d groups (DRGs), regardless of whether an intervention occurred, and one an alysis (analysis C) involved these DRG-matched patients by using severity-a djusted data. In analysis A, the study group had a 4.8% decreased rate of m ortality, an average of a 16.5-day decreased length of stay per patient, an d $20,886 decreased variable direct costs per patient. None of these differ ences was statistically significant. In analysis B, the study patients had a 1.2% higher mortality rate (P = 0.741), an average of a 2.7-day decreased length of stay per patient (P = 0.035), and $2,626 decreased variable dire ct costs per patient (P = 0.008). In analysis C, the study patients had a 1 .4% lower mortality rate, a 1.2-day decreased length of stay per patient, a nd $1,466 decreased variable direct costs per patient. In conclusion, the i nstitution of this program caused substantial cost savings.