It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Background
Antibiotic use (ABU) surveillance in healthcare facilities (HCFs) is essential to guide stewardship. Two methods are recommended: antibiotic consumption (ABC), expressed as the number of DDD/1000 patient-days; and prevalence of antibiotic prescription (ABP) measured through point prevalence surveys. However, no evidence is provided about whether they lead to similar conclusions.
Objectives
To compare ABC and ABP regarding HCF ranking and their ability to identify outliers.
Methods
The comparison was made using 2012 national databases from the antibiotic surveillance network and prevalence study. HCF rankings according to each method were compared with Spearman’s correlation coefficient. Analyses included the ABU from entire HCFs as well as according to type, clinical ward and by antibiotic class and specific molecule.
Results
A total of 1076 HCFs were included. HCF rankings were strongly correlated in the whole cohort. The correlation was stronger for HCFs with a higher number of beds or with a low or moderate proportion of acute care beds. ABU correlation between ABC or ABP was globally moderate or weak in specific wards. Furthermore, the two methods did not identify the same outliers, whichever HCF characteristics were analysed. Correlation between HCF ranking varied according to the antibiotic class.
Conclusions
Both methods ranked HCFs similarly overall according to ABC or ABP; however, major differences were observed in ranking of clinical wards, antibiotic classes and detection of outliers. ABC and ABP are two markers of ABU that could be used as two complementary approaches to identify targets for improvement.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details

1 Centre hospitalier intercommunal de Poissy St Germain, 10 rue du champ Gaillard, 78100 Poissy, France
2 Centre d’appui pour la prévention des infections associées aux soins (CPias) Ile-de-France, Paris, France
3 Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), délégation à la recherche clinique et à l’innovation (DRCI), Paris, France
4 Université Bordeaux, Inserm, Bordeaux Population Health Research Center, Team Pharmacoepidemiology, UMR 1219, F-33000 Bordeaux, France; CHU Bordeaux, Hygiène hospitalière, F-33000 Bordeaux, France
5 Université Bordeaux, Inserm, Bordeaux Population Health Research Center, Team Pharmacoepidemiology, UMR 1219, F-33000 Bordeaux, France; CHU Bordeaux, CPias Nouvelle Aquitaine, F-33000 Bordeaux, France
6 Centre Hospitalier de Tourcoing, 59208 Tourcoing, France
7 Centre d’appui pour la prévention des infections associées aux soins (CPias) Ile-de-France, Paris, France; Sorbonne Université, INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d’Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, F-75013 Paris, France