Dataset Information

Serial point-prevalence surveys to estimate antibiotic use in a small animal veterinary teaching hospital, November 2018 to October 2019.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is no standardized methodology to measure antibiotic drug use (AU) in small animal veterinary hospitals.

Objectives

To estimate AU prevalence in a small animal veterinary teaching hospital and characterize usage by indication and evidence of infection. To establish an AU measurement methodology for veterinary settings.

Animals

Electronic medical records of cats and dogs seen by primary care, urgent care, emergency and critical care, internal medicine, and surgery services during November 2018 to October 2019.

Methods

On 1 day each month, data (signalment, visit reason, diagnostics, and antibiotic details, including indication) were collected for all animals seen on study services.

Results

Of 168 inpatient dogs and 452 outpatient dogs, 98 (58.3%) and 107 (23.7%,) were receiving at least 1 antibiotic on the day of data collection, respectively. For cats 15/49 (30.6%) inpatients and 29/187 (15.5%) outpatients were receiving at least 1 antibiotic. Common drug classes prescribed for dogs were potentiated penicillins (28.7%), first-generation cephalosporins (22.1%), and nitroimidazoles (14.7%), and for cats, common drug classes administered were potentiated penicillins (26.9%), fluoroquinolones (13.5%), and penicillins (11.5%). Common indications for antibiotics included skin, respiratory, gastrointestinal, perioperative, aural, and urinary conditions.

Conclusions and clinical importance

Serial point-prevalence surveys (PPS) can estimate AU in a large specialty hospital setting and identify targets for antimicrobial stewardship. The methodology developed during this study can be adapted for use in private practice, including large animal practice. Mirroring methods used in human healthcare, the data collection tool can also be used to describe AU nationally through completion of national PPS.

SUBMITTER: Hsieh ES

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8783336 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction:The use of a surgical safety checklist is recommended by the World Health Organization and is associated with advantages: improved communication and reduced complications and mortality. Adapting checklists to the environment in which they are used improves their efficiency, but their implementation can be challenging. The aim of this study was to develop and implement a perianesthetic safety checklist for a small animal hospital. Materials and methods:A panel of eight anesthesia diplomates and seven residents and doctoral students were gathered. The Delphi method was used to generate a checklist. The checklist was presented individually to each user by the primary investigator and introduced into the clinical routine over a 5-week period. An interdisciplinary meeting was then held, and the checklist was modified further. Six months after introduction, the use of the checklist was directly observed during 69 anesthetic cases and a survey was sent to the users. A second implementation was organized after formally presenting the checklist to the staff, designating the anesthesia clinical lead as the person responsible for printing and controlling use of the checklist. A second evaluation was performed 3?months later (64 anesthetic cases). Results:Using the Delphi process led to the creation of a checklist consisting of three parts: "sign in" (before induction of anesthesia), "time out" (before the beginning of the procedure), "sign out" (at the end of the procedure). At the first assessment, the checklist was printed and used in 32% of cases and not printed in 41% of cases. Response rate of the survey was fair (19/32 surveys): 14/19 users thought the checklist contributed to improving communication; 15/19 reported improved safety and better management of the animals; 9/19 users avoided mistakes (77% would have omitted the administration of antimicrobial prophylaxis); 10/19 thought it was time consuming. At the second assessment, the checklist was used in 45% of cases (printed but not used in 55%). The use of the sign-out section of the checklist was significantly improved. Conclusion and clinical relevance:This study illustrates an innovative use of the Delphi method to create a safety checklist. Challenges associated with implementation are reported.