Real World Patterns of Antimicrobial Use and Microbiology Investigations in Patients with Sepsis outside the Critical Care Unit: Secondary Analysis of Three Nation-Wide Point Prevalence Studies

Abstract

Recent description of the microbiology of sepsis on the wards or information on the real-life antibiotic choices used in sepsis is lacking. There is growing concern of the indiscriminate use of antibiotics and omission of microbiological investigations in the management of septic patients. We performed a secondary analysis of three annual 24-h point-prevalence studies on the general wards across all Welsh acute hospitals in years 2016–2018. Data were collected on patient demographics, as well as radiological, laboratory and microbiological data within 48-h of the study. We screened 19,453 patients over the three 24 h study periods and recruited 1252 patients who fulfilled the entry criteria. 775 (64.9%) patients were treated with intravenous antibiotics. Only in 33.65% (421/1252) of all recruited patients did healthcare providers obtain blood cultures; in 25.64% (321/1252) urine cultures; in 8.63% (108/1252) sputum cultures; in 6.79% (85/1252) wound cultures; in 15.25% (191/1252) other cultures. Out of the recruited patients, 59.1% (740/1252) fulfilled SEPSIS-3 criteria. Patients with SEPSIS-3 criteria were significantly more likely to receive antibiotics than the non-septic cohort (p < 0.0001). In a multivariable regression analysis increase in SOFA score, increased number of SIRS criteria and the use of the official sepsis screening tool were associated with antibiotic administration, however obtaining microbiology cultures was not. Our study shows that antibiotics prescription practice is not accompanied by microbiological investigations. A significant proportion of sepsis patients are still at risk of not receiving appropriate antibiotics treatment and microbiological investigations; this may be improved by a more thorough implementation of sepsis screening tools.

Prevalence and Outcomes of Acute Hypoxaemic Respiratory Failure in Wales: The PANDORA-WALES Study

“…As the study sample was relatively small, we were only able to perform an univariate analysis to avoid potential overfitting of the model associated with a multivariate analysis. Nevertheless, our study has also proved that large-scale collaboration is possible in our hospitals and paved the way for other national studies [36,37]. As our study was concentrating on clinical variables, we did not collect detailed biomarker profiles for our patients and computer tomography was only performed in a quarter of the patients.…”

Longitudinal Point Prevalence Survey of Antimicrobial Consumption in Russian Hospitals: Results of the Global-PPS Project

“…In subsequent years, the proportion of patients receiving AMDs for medical prophylaxis significantly decreased (from 27.7% in 2015 to 3.1% in 2018), while the proportion of patients receiving these drugs for therapeutic purposes and surgical prophylaxis significantly increased (from 54.9% to 71.4% and from 17.4% to 25.5% respectively). Such changes may be the result of the introduction of local programs in hospitals aimed to optimize antimicrobial therapy for certain diseases, as was shown in the study of Kopczynska, et al [22]. However, the information available is not sufficient to clearly link this trend with any particular interventions in the hospitals involved in the project.…”

Clinical Risk Prediction Scores in Coronavirus Disease 2019: Beware of Low Validity and Clinical Utility

“…Notwithstanding the urgency, we must not forget past lessons learnt during developing risk scores for diseases and conditions encompassing a wide range of clinical risk. We have shown in sepsis that conflicting definitions with ill-calibrated tools lead to the overprovision of medical therapy, with potential for associated harm ( 5 ).…”