Critical evaluation of antimicrobial use - A Turkish university hospital example

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorHosoglu, Salih
dc.contributor.authorParlak, Zafer
dc.contributor.authorGeyik, Mehmet Faruk
dc.contributor.authorPalanci, Yilmaz
dc.date.accessioned2024-04-24T17:20:59Z
dc.date.available2024-04-24T17:20:59Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.departmentDicle Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Antimicrobials are being used unnecessarily for different reasons. The aims of this study were: assessment of the quality of antimicrobial use and determination of the factors related to correct use. Method: Antimicrobial practice at Dicle University Hospital (DUH) was evaluated with a point prevalence approach. Using a standardized data collection form, the patients' data (clinic, epidemiology, laboratory and antimicrobial use) was collected. Possible influential factors on antimicrobial use were examined. Results: In the surveillance study 1,350 inpatients were evaluated; 461 (34.1%) of them were using antimicrobials for treatment and 187 (13.9%) for prophylaxis. Antimicrobial indication was found in 355 of 461 patients (77.0%), and the number of antimicrobials was 1.8 per patient in the treatment group. The most common reason for antimicrobial use was community-acquired infection (57.9%). Pneumonia (20.4%), skin and soft tissue infections (9.11%) and urinary tract infections (7.9%) were the most common infectious diseases. Positive culture results were available for 39 patients (8.5.0%) when antimicrobial treatment started. All steps of antimicrobial use were found appropriate in 243 patients (52.7%). In multivariate analyses, clinical manifestation of infection at the beginning (p<0.001), presence of leukocyte counting (p<0.001) and prescription by an infectious disease specialist were found significantly positive factors for wholly appropriate antimicrobial use. Hospitalization with a diagnosis other than infection was found a significantly negative factor for appropriate antimicrobial use (p=0.001). Conclusion: The quality of antimicrobial use could be improved with better clinical and laboratory diagnosis and consultation with infectious diseases specialistsen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.3855/jidc.2921
dc.identifier.endpage879en_US
dc.identifier.issn1972-2680
dc.identifier.issue11en_US
dc.identifier.pmid24240047
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84887570007
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2
dc.identifier.startpage873en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.3855/jidc.2921
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11468/19326
dc.identifier.volume7en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000328083900015
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ4
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherJ Infection Developing Countriesen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Infection in Developing Countries
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectAntimicrobial Useen_US
dc.subjectQuality Evaluationen_US
dc.subjectRelatedfactorsen_US
dc.titleCritical evaluation of antimicrobial use - A Turkish university hospital exampleen_US
dc.titleCritical evaluation of antimicrobial use - A Turkish university hospital example
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu