RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the use of sedation drugs for the management of acute agitation in Hong Kong's Accident and Emergency Departments (AEDs) and how it compares with Australasian practice. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine drug preferences, clinicians' perceived confidence in management, barriers/gaps in training and perceived usefulness of existing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in Hong Kong. METHOD: A validated questionnaire was used, with case vignettes typical of patients presenting to AEDs with acute agitation. The questionnaire was distributed by hand to all trainees and fellows of the Hong Kong College of Emergency Medicine (HKCEM). Two reminders were sent. RESULTS: Of 483 HKCEM members, 280 (58.0% [95% CI 53.5-62.3]) responded. For monotherapy, 46.8% (95% CI 41.0-52.6) of respondents chose haloperidol to manage the undifferentiated patient, followed by midazolam (33.9%, 95% CI 28.6-39.7) and diazepam (13.9%, 95% CI 10.4-18.5). Most respondents (83.6%, 95% CI 78.8-87.5) would not administer combination therapy. Respondents were confident in managing agitation overall. The lack of local/institutional CPGs (55.7%, 95% CI 49.9-61.4) was perceived as an important barrier. Institutional guidelines were considered the most useful CPGs (66.4%, 95% CI 60.7-71.7). Most respondents (72.9%, 95% CI 67.4-77.7) perceived a HKCEM endorsed CPG would be useful. CONCLUSION: Haloperidol and benzodiazepines are frequently used as monotherapy for the management of acute agitation in Hong Kong's AEDs. Management in Hong Kong differs from Australasian practice in that combination therapy is less common and clinicians' choice of sedation drugs are less variable overall. Results suggest that future work on CPG development and training regarding the safe use of combination therapy would be well received.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Studies exploring the appropriateness of therapeutic antibiotic use among surgical patients are limited, particularly in developing countries. Therefore, the aim of our study was to determine the appropriateness of antibiotics prescribed in a surgical setting in Malaysia. METHODOLOGY: A prospective observational study was conducted in two surgical wards at a tertiary hospital in Malaysia from November 2012-July 2013. Data was collected using a case report form. The appropriateness of antibiotic therapy was based on compliance with either the Malaysian National Antibiotic Guidelines 2008 or International Clinical Practice Guidelines and determined by an expert panel (consisting of two infectious disease consultants and a pharmacist). RESULTS: Over the study period, a total of 593 antibiotic courses were prescribed for 129 patients (4.6±3.4 antibiotics/patient). Only 34 (26.4%) patients received appropriate antibiotic therapy, whilst 95 (73.6%) patients received at least one course of inappropriate antibiotic therapy. The prevalence of inappropriate antibiotic use was 214 (66.3%) and 55 (42.0%) for prophylactic and therapeutic purposes, respectively. The most common causes of inappropriate prophylactic antibiotics were inappropriate timing 20 (36.4%) and inappropriate duration of prophylaxis 19 (34.5%). In cases of inappropriate timing, 9 (45%) were administered too late while 6 (30%) were too early. In contrast, inappropriate choice of antibiotics (42.1%) and inappropriate indication (40.7%) were the most common reasons encountered for inappropriate therapeutic antibiotics. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests considerable inappropriate use of both prophylactic and therapeutic antibiotics in the surgical wards; highlighting an urgent need for antibiotic stewardship initiatives in this setting.