Glycopeptide prescribing in an Australian tertiary paediatric hospital

Abstract

Objective: To assess the extent and appropriateness of glycopeptide use in a tertiary Australian Paediatric hospital.

Methodology: A retrospective analysis of prescriptions during a six-month period between July 1999 and January 2000. Medical records were examined and prescribing practices compared with the recommendations of the Hospital Infectious Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

Results: Fifty-one patients were identified who received a total of 98 glycopeptide prescriptions. The Haematology/ Oncology unit prescribed 71/98 (72.4%). 68/98 (69.4%) patients received vancomycin, 9/98 (9.2%) received teicoplanin and 21/98 (21.4%) a combination of both. 81/98 (82.7%) had central venous catheters and 69/98 (70.4%) were immunocompromised. 48/98 (49%) prescriptions were for empiric treatment with 38/98 (38.8%) for prophylaxis and 11/98 (12.2%) therapeutic. 19/98 (19.4%) prescriptions were deemed appropriate, 6 (6.1%) by HICPAC criteria, and a further 13 (13.3%) by IDSA or other criteria. Of 19 prescriptions started appropriately, only 7/17 (41.1%) were continued appropriately beyond 48 h. Appropriate cultures were taken before prescription in 93.3% of cases. Dose was appropriate in 91/98 (92.9%) and frequency appropriate in all cases. The cost of inappropriate prescribing was approximately $9500.

Discussion: A high rate of inappropriate glycopeptide prescribing was evident in this paediatric population. Inappropriate prescribing existed across all subspecialties. Use was primarily for empiric therapy and prophylaxis in young children with an oncology diagnosis. A number of situations existed where glycopeptide prescription was felt appropriate despite not being included in HICPAC/IDSA guidelines. Areas with high rates of inappropriate prescribing were identified and will be targeted for education and intervention. Audit of practice continues.