Dataset Information

Effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on antimicrobial prevalence and prescribing in a tertiary hospital in Singapore.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The deployment of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) teams to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic can lead to a loss of developed frameworks, best practices and leadership resulting in adverse impact on antimicrobial prescribing and resistance. We aim to investigate effects of reduction in AMS resources during the COVID-19 pandemic on antimicrobial prescribing.

Methods

One of 5 full-time equivalent AMS pharmacists was deployed to support pandemic work and AMS rounds with infectious disease physicians were reduced from 5 to 2 times a week. A survey in acute inpatients was conducted using the Global Point Prevalence Survey methodology in July 2020 and compared with those in 2015 and 2017-2019.

Results

The prevalence of antimicrobial prescribing (55% in 2015 to 49% in 2019 and 47% in 2020, p = 0.02) and antibacterials (54% in 2015 to 45% in 2019 and 42% in 2020, p < 0.01) have been reducing despite the pandemic. Antimicrobial prescribing in infectious disease wards with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases was 29% in 2020. Overall, antimicrobial prescribing quality indicators continued to improve (e.g. reasons in notes, 91% in 2015 to 94% in 2019 and 97% in 2020, p < 0.01) or remained stable (compliance to guideline, 71% in 2015 to 62% in 2019 and 73% in 2020, p = 0.08).

Conclusion

During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was no increase in antimicrobial prescribing and no significant differences in antimicrobial prescribing quality indicators.

SUBMITTER: Ng TM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7856610 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is spreading globally at an accelerated rate, with a basic reproduction number (R0) of 2-2.5, indicating that 2-3 persons will be infected from an index patient. A serious public health emergency, it is particularly deadly in vulnerable populations and communities in which healthcare providers are insufficiently prepared to manage the infection. As of March 16, 2020, there are more than 180,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19 worldwide, with more than 7000 related deaths. The SARS-CoV-2 virus has been isolated from asymptomatic individuals, and affected patients continue to be infectious 2 weeks after cessation of symptoms. The substantial morbidity and socioeconomic impact have necessitated drastic measures across all continents, including nationwide lockdowns and border closures. Pregnant women and their fetuses represent a high-risk population during infectious disease outbreaks. To date, the outcomes of 55 pregnant women infected with COVID-19 and 46 neonates have been reported in the literature, with no definite evidence of vertical transmission. Physiological and mechanical changes in pregnancy increase susceptibility to infections in general, particularly when the cardiorespiratory system is affected, and encourage rapid progression to respiratory failure in the gravida. Furthermore, the pregnancy bias toward T-helper 2 (Th2) system dominance, which protects the fetus, leaves the mother vulnerable to viral infections, which are more effectively contained by the Th1 system. These unique challenges mandate an integrated approach to pregnancies affected by SARS-CoV-2. Here we present a review of COVID-19 in pregnancy, bringing together the various factors integral to the understanding of pathophysiology and susceptibility, diagnostic challenges with real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays, therapeutic controversies, intrauterine transmission, and maternal-fetal complications. We discuss the latest options in antiviral therapy and vaccine development, including the novel use of chloroquine in the management of COVID-19. Fetal surveillance, in view of the predisposition to growth restriction and special considerations during labor and delivery, is addressed. In addition, we focus on keeping frontline obstetric care providers safe while continuing to provide essential services. Our clinical service model is built around the principles of workplace segregation, responsible social distancing, containment of cross-infection to healthcare providers, judicious use of personal protective equipment, and telemedicine. Our aim is to share a framework that can be adopted by tertiary maternity units managing pregnant women in the flux of a pandemic while maintaining the safety of the patient and healthcare provider at its core.

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare patient management and outcome during the first and second waves of the coronavirus 2019 pandemic.DesignSingle-center prospective cohort study.SettingTertiary-care University Hospital.PatientsAll adult patients admitted in either the first (from March 15 to May 15, 2020) or second (from October 1 to November 30, 2020) wave of coronavirus disease 2019.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsPrimary outcome was 30-day mortality. During the second wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, 33 patients (4.8%) were transferred due to overcrowding and excluded from analysis. There were 341 (first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic) and 695 (second wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic) coronavirus disease 2019 patients admitted to the hospital, with median age first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic as 68 (57-80) and second wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic as 71 (60-80) (p = 0.15), and similar admission severity. For the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic versus second wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, 30-day mortality was 74/341 (22%) and 98/662 (15%) (p = 0.007). In the ward, 11/341 (3.2%) and 404/662 (61%) received dexamethasone (p < 0.001); 6/341 (2%) and 79/662 (12%) received high-flow nasal oxygen (p < 0.0001); 2/341 (0.6%) and 88/662 (13.3%) received remdesivir (p < 0.0001); 249/341 (73%) and 0/662 (0%) received hydroxychloroquine (p < 0.0001); and 87/341 (26%) and 128/662 (19%) (p = 0.024) patients were transferred to ICU. On ICU admission, median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment was 6 (3-7) and 4 (3-6) (p = 0.02). High-flow nasal oxygen was given to 16/87 (18%) and 102/128 (80%) (p < 0.001); 69/87 (79%) and 56/128 (44%) received mechanical ventilation (p < 0.001) with durations 17 days (10-26 d) and 10 days (5-17 d) (p = 0.01). Median ICU length of stay was 14 days (5-27 d) and 6 days (3-11 d) (p < 0.001). Finally, 16/87 (18%) and 8/128 (6%) received renal replacement therapy (p = 0.0055); and 64/87 (74%) and 51/128 (40%) needed vasopressor support (p < 0.001).ConclusionsThe main therapeutic changes between the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and the second wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic were use of steroids, unrestrictive use of high-flow nasal oxygen for hypoxemic patients, and transfer of patients to other geographic areas in the case of ICU overcrowding. These changes were associated with a decrease in 30-day mortality, ICU admission, and organ support.