Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T09:46:21.771Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost Reduction With Successful Implementation of an Antibiotic Prophylaxis Program in a Private Hospital in Ribeirão Preto, Brazil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Silvia N. Szente Fonseca ,
Sônia R. Melon Kunzle ,
Sheila A. Barbosa Silva ,
Jorge G. Schmidt Jr  and
Roberto R. Mele
Silvia N. Szente Fonseca*
Affiliation:
Hospital Infection Control Department of Hospital Sâo Francisco, Ribeirâo Preto, Brazil
Sônia R. Melon Kunzle
Affiliation:
Hospital Infection Control Department of Hospital Sâo Francisco, Ribeirâo Preto, Brazil
Sheila A. Barbosa Silva
Affiliation:
Hospital Infection Control Department of Hospital Sâo Francisco, Ribeirâo Preto, Brazil
Jorge G. Schmidt Jr
Affiliation:
Hospital Infection Control Department of Hospital Sâo Francisco, Ribeirâo Preto, Brazil
Roberto R. Mele
Affiliation:
Hospital Infection Control Department of Hospital Sâo Francisco, Ribeirâo Preto, Brazil
*
Hospital Sâo Francisco, Rua Bernardino de Campos, 912, CEP 14015-130 Ribeirâo Preto, SP, Brazil
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To describe the implementation and results of a perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) program.

Design:

A protocol for correct use of PAP was implemented in December 1994. For selected months we measured the PAP protocol compliance of a random sample of clean and clean-contaminated procedures and calculated the cost of incorrect use of PAP.

Setting:

A 180-bed general hospital in Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.

Results:

The cost of unnecessary PAP in the obstetric and gynecologic, cardiothoracic, and orthopedic services dropped from $4,224.54 ($23.47/procedure) in November 1994 to $1,147.24 ($6.17/procedure, January 1995), $544.42 ($3.58/procedure, May 1995), $99.06 ($0.50/procedure, August 1995), and $30 ($0.12/procedure, March 1996). In November 1994, only 13.6% of all surgical procedures were done with correct use of PAP, compared to 59% in January 1995, 73% in August 1995, 78% in March 1996, 92% in November 1996, and 98% in May 1997.

Conclusions:

Incorrect PAP use wastes resources, which is a particular problem in developing countries. Our program is simple and can be implemented without the use of computers and now is being adopted in other hospitals in our region. We credit the success of our program to the commitment of all participants and to the strong support of the hospital directors.

Type
The International Perspective
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , January 1999 , pp. 77 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Burke, JF. The effective period of preventive antibiotic action in experimental incisions and dermal lesions. Surgery 1961;50:161–168.Google Scholar
2. Maki, DG, Shuna, AA. A study of antimicrobial misuse in a university hospital. Am J Med Sci 1978;275:271–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Shapiro, MS, Townsend, TR, Rosner, B, Kass, EH. Use of antimicrobial drugs in general hospitals. Patterns of prophylaxis. N Engl J Med 1979;301:351–355.Google Scholar
4. Moss, F, McSwiggan, DA, McNicol, MW, Miller, DL. Survey of antibiotic prescribing in a district general hospital, I: pattern of use. Lancet 1981;2(8242):349–352.Google Scholar
5. Classen, DC, Evans, RS, Pestotnik, SL, Horn, SD, Menlove, RL, Burke, OP. The timing of prophylactic administration of antibiotics and the risk of surgical-wound infection. N Engl J Med 1992;326:281–286.Google Scholar
6. American Society of Hospital Pharmacists. Commission on Therapeutics. ASHP therapeutic guidelines on antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Clinical Pharmacy 1992;11:483–513.Google Scholar
7. Trilla, A, Mensa, J. Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis. In: Wenzel, RP, ed. Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Infections. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1993:665–682.Google Scholar
8. Meakins, LJ. Prophylactic antibiotics. In: Meakins, JL, ed. Surgical Infections. Diagnosis and Treatment. New York, NY: Scientific American, Inc; 1994:139–149.Google Scholar
9. Dellinger, PE, Gross, PA, Barret, TL, Krause, PJ, Marrone, WJ, McGowan, JE, et al. Quality standard for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgical procedures. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994;15:182–188.Google Scholar
10. Martin, C, the French Study Group on Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Surgery; the French Society of Anesthesia and Intensive Care. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery: general concepts and clinical guidelines. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994;15:463–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Ferraz, EM, Ferraz, AAB, Menezes, PPB, Pagnossin, G, Mathias, CA, Santos, MA Jr, et al. The use of antibiotics in general surgery: evaluation of 4,036 surgical procedures in 10 years (in Spanish). Revista Brasileira de Cirurgia 1994;84:253–258.Google Scholar
12. Page, CP, Bohnen, JMA, Fletcher, RJ, McManus, AT, Solomkin, JS, Wittmann, DH. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgical wounds. Guidelines for clinical care. Arch Surg 1993;128:79–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Surgical prophylaxis. The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics (in Spanish) 1994 III:52–56.Google Scholar
14. Finch, RG, Hawkev, , eds. Prophylaxis at the margins. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993;31(suppl B):1–78.Google Scholar
15. Paluzzi, RG. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery. Med Clin North Am 1993;77:427–441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Hemsell, DL. Prophylactic antibiotics in gynecological and obstetric surgery. Rev Infect Dis 1991;13(suppl 10):S821–S841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Mayhall, CG. Surgical infections including burns. In: Wenzel, RP, ed. Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Infections. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1993:614–664.Google Scholar
18. Horan, TC, Gaynes, RP, Martone, WJ, Jarvis, WR, Emori, GT. CDC definitions of nosocomial surgical site infections, 1992. A modification of CDC definitions of surgical wound infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992;13:606–608.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Motulusky, H. Confidence interval of the difference or ratio of two proportions: prospective studies. Motulsky, H, ed. Intuitive Biostatistics. 1st ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc; 1995:70–89.Google Scholar
20. Jones, SR, Barks, J, Bratton, T, Mcree, E, Pannel, J, Yanchick, VA, et al. The effect of an educational program upon hospital antibiotic use. Am J Med Sci 1977;273:79–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Lizan-Garcia, M, Garcia-Caballero, J, Asensio-Vegas, A. Risk factors for surgical-wound infection in general surgery: a prospective study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997;18:310–315.Google Scholar
22. Durbin, WA Jr, Lapidas, B, Goldmann, DA. Improved antibiotic usage following introduction of a novel prescription system. JAMA 1981;246:1796–1800.Google Scholar