Appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing in the Emergency Department

Background Antibiotics are some of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the Emergency Department (ED) and yet data describing the overall appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing in the ED is scarce. Objectives To describe the appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing in the ED. Methods A retrospective, observational study of current practice. All patients who presented to the ED during the study period and were prescribed at least one antibiotic were included. Specialists from Infectious Disease, Microbiology and Emergency Medicine and a Senior Pharmacist assessed antibiotic appropriateness against evidence-based guidelines. Results A total of 1019 (13.6%) of patient presentations involved the prescription of at least one antibiotic. Of these, 640 (62.8%) antibiotic prescriptions were assessed as appropriate, 333 (32.7%) were assessed as inappropriate and 46 (4.5%) were deemed to be not assessable. Adults were more likely to receive an inappropriate antibiotic prescription than children (36.9% versus 22.9%; difference 14.1%, 95% CI 7.2%–21.0%). Patients who met quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) criteria were more likely to be prescribed inappropriate antibiotics (56.7% versus 36.1%; difference 20.5%, 95% CI, 2.4%–38.7%). There was no difference in the incidence of appropriate antibiotic prescribing based on patient gender, disposition (admitted/discharged), reason for antibiotic administration (treatment/prophylaxis) or time of shift (day/night). Conclusions Inappropriate administration of antibiotics can lead to unnecessary adverse events, treatment failure and antimicrobial resistance. With over one in three antibiotic prescriptions in the ED being assessed as inappropriate, there is a pressing need to develop initiatives to improve antibiotic prescribing to prevent antibiotic-associated patient and community harms.No Full Tex

Seasonal variation in health care-associated bloodstream infection: Increase in the incidence of gram-negative bacteremia in nonhospitalized patients during summer

Objective: Recent research has suggested that episodes of gram-negative (GN) bloodstream infection (BSI) are more common in the population during summer months. Our objective was to determine if the same phenomenon could be observed in patients with health care-associated (HCA) BSI, and if so, whether a summer peak was less apparent in patients accommodated in a climate-controlled hospital environment. Methods: Data from episodes of HCA BSI spanning an 11-year period were analyzed. To test for seasonal variation in HCA BSI among hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients, and between GN and gram-positive organisms, the χ2 goodness-of-fit test was used. Results: There were 440 episodes of HCA GN BSI of which 259 (59%) occurred in inpatients and 181 (41%) occurred in noninpatients. A significant increase in the frequency of HCA GN BSI was observed in nonhospitalized patients during the summer months (P = .03) but not in climate-controlled hospitalized patients. The most common source of infection in these patents was an intravascular device (38%). Conclusions: We found an increased incidence of GN HCA BSI during summer that was not apparent in our inpatient cohort. The cause is unknown. It might be prudent to advise patients at risk of BSI (eg, those receiving intravascular infusions) to minimize exposure to high environmental temperature and to educate on possible behavioral factors that may increase risk

COVID-19 in Australia: our national response to the first cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the early biocontainment phase

BACKGROUND: On 31 December 2019, the World Health Organization recognised clusters of pneumonia-like cases due to a novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). COVID-19 became a pandemic 71?days later. AIM: To report the clinical and epidemiological features, laboratory data and outcomes of the first group of 11 returned travellers with COVID-19 in Australia. METHODS: This is a retrospective, multi-centre case series. All patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection were admitted to tertiary referral hospitals in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and South Australia. RESULTS: The median age of our patient cohort was 42?years (IQR, 24-53?years) with six men and five women. Eight patients (72.7%) had returned from Wuhan, one from Shenzhen, one from Japan, and one from Europe. Possible human-to-human transmission from close family contacts in gatherings overseas occurred in two cases. Symptoms on admission were fever, cough and sore throat (n = 9, 81.8%). Co-morbidities included hypertension (n = 3, 27.3%) and hypercholesterolaemia (n = 2, 18.2%). No patients developed severe acute respiratory distress nor required intensive care unit admission or mechanical ventilation. After a median hospital stay of 14.5?days (IQR, 6.75-21), all patients were discharged. CONCLUSIONS: This is a historical record of the first COVID-19 cases in Australia during the early biocontainment phase of the national response. These findings were invaluable for establishing early inpatient and outpatient COVID-19 models of care and informing the management of COVID-19 overtime as the outbreak evolved. Future research should extend this Australian case series to examine global epidemiological variation of this novel infection. This article is protected by copyright