Objectives. The implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) has become a usual practice in hospital settings. However, the method for monitoring antimicrobial use in accident and ...emergency departments (ED) is not yet adequately defined. Thus, the objective of this review is to describe antimicrobial use indicators used by ASPs implemented in ED. Material and methods. A systematic review was performed based on studies found in the following academic research databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus (Period: January 2000 to December 2019). Controlled clinical trials, before-and-after studies, interrupted time series, and repeated measures studies assessing the impact of ASPs on antimicrobial use in ED were included; studies published in languages other than English or Spanish were excluded from this review. Results. Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. In total, 15 (62.5%) studies described the ASP team members who collaborated with the ED staff. Most (21; 80.8%) studies used the percentage of patients with an antibiotic prescription as an indicator. Four (15.4%) studies included defined daily dose data. The antibiotic treatment duration was reported in four (15.4%) studies. Only two studies assessed the impact of the ASP using microbiological indicators, both of which used the incidence of infection with Clostridioides difficile as the indicator. Conclusions. The reports of experiences in implementing ASPs in ED show heterogeneous antimicrobial use indicators, which makes it difficult to compare results. Therefore, antimicrobial use indicators for ASPs must be standardised between hospital units.
To draft a list of actions and quality indicators for pharmacist care in hospital emergency departments, based on consensus among a panel of experts regarding which actions to prioritize in this ...setting.
A panel of experts from the Spanish Society of Hospital Pharmacy (SEFH) and the Spanish Society of Emergency Medicine (SEMES) evaluated a preliminary list of potential actions and quality of care indicators. The experts used a questionnaire to assess the proposals on the basis of available evidence. In the first round, each expert individually assessed the importance of each proposed action based on 4 dimensions: evidence base, impact on clinical response and patient safety, ease of implementation, and priority. In the second round the experts attended a virtual meeting to reach consensus on a revised list of proposals; suggestions and comments that had been made anonymously in the first round were included. The group then prioritized each action as basic, intermediate, or advanced.
The experts evaluated a total of 26 potential actions and associated quality indicators. No items were eliminated in the analysis of scores and comments from the first round. After the second round, 25 actions survived. Nine were considered basic, 10 intermediate, and 6 advanced.
The expert panel's list of pharmacist actions and care quality indicators provides a basis for developing a pharmacist care program in Spanish emergency departments on 3 levels of priority. The list can serve as a guide to pharmacists, managers, physicians, and nurses involved in the effort to improve drug therapy in this hospital setting.
PDF
