Search

The effects on the quantity and quality of antimicrobial drug use of removing an antimicrobial restriction policy are reported. Monthly totals for the number of courses of antimicrobial therapy and expenditures based on grams used were obtained from pharmacy records on adult inpatients for a portion (July-December 1987) of the restriction policy term and for the six months (July-December 1988) immediately after the policy ended. Data were obtained for nine restricted drugs and for three that were never restricted. Retrospective drug-use reviews were conducted for ceftazidime and imipenem-cilastatin. For the restricted agents, the total number of courses of therapy increased by 158% after the restriction policy was removed, and total expenditures increased by 103%. There were no significant changes in the number of courses of therapy or cost for the unrestricted antimicrobials. In the postrestriction period, ceftazidime and imipenem-cilastatin were used more often in patients who were less critically ill. Inappropriate use of imipenem-cilastatin occurred significantly more often after the restrictions were removed. Other factors potentially affecting the use of antimicrobials, such as patient age and the incidence of nosocomial infections, did not differ substantially between the two periods. The removal of an antimicrobial restriction policy resulted in increased use of and higher expenditures for previously restricted agents, as well as an increase in the inappropriate use of at least one agent.

The appropriateness of serum digoxin concentration (SDC) orders was evaluated with respect to indication for use, sampling time, and action taken by physicians when the reported SDC was out of the normal therapeutic range; the effect of the two data-collection methods used (retrospective and concurrent audits) on the results was studied. Criteria for the appropriate use of SDCs were approved by the medical staff through the pharmacy and therapeutics committee. Patients on adult medicine services were entered into the study as daily SDC determinations were reported by the clinical laboratory. Most of the SDCs were evaluated using approved criteria by primary pharmacist clinicians who were concurrently monitoring drug therapy and participating with the treatment team. A retrospective audit of the same patients was conducted, using only chart review. A total of 134 SDCs involving 78 patients were evaluated. Concurrent-audit results indicated that 18.7% of the SDCs were ordered without an appropriate indication, 16.4% were sampled incorrectly with respect to proper timing, and 8.2% did not result in dosage adjustments when indicated. With respect to appropriate sampling time and overall use of SDCs, significantly more SDCs met the standards under concurrent audit than under retrospective audit. The retrospective chart review method of auditing may not detect as much pertinent information as is desirable.