Observational studyThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2015
Omitted doses as an unintended consequence of a hospital restricted antibacterial system: a retrospective observational study.
Observational study in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- An audit of antibiotic prescriptions: an antimicrobial stewardship pre-implementation study at a tertiary care public hospital.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2025Article
- Analysis of omission of antimicrobial doses in Intensive Care Units.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2024Article
- Bacteriocins: Properties and potential use as antimicrobials.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2022Review
- A UK hospital survey to explore healthcare professional views and attitudes to patients incorrectly labelled as penicillin allergic: an antibiotic stewardship patient safety project.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2019Article
- Identifying antibiotic stewardship interventions to meet the NHS England CQUIN: an evaluation of antibiotic -prescribing against published evidence-based antibiotic audit tools .Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of this study was to determine the frequency of omitted doses of antibacterial agents and explore a number of risk factors, including the effect of a restricted antibacterial system.
methodsAntibacterial data were extracted from a hospital electronic prescribing and medication administration system for the period 1 January to 30 April 2014. Percentage dose omission rates were calculated. Omission rates for the first dose of antibacterial courses were analysed using logistic regression to identify any correlation between first dose omission rates and potential risk factors, including the antibacterials' restriction status and whether or not they were ward stock.
resultsThe study included 90 761 antibacterial doses. Of these, 6535 (7.2%) were documented as having been omitted; omission of 847 (0.9% of 90 761) was due to medication being unavailable. Non-restricted, ward stock antibacterials had the lowest frequency of omission, with 6.2% (271 of 4391) first doses omitted. The prevalence was 10.4% (27 of 260) for restricted, ward-stock antibacterials (OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.0-2.4, P = 0.027) and 15.5% (53 of 341) for non-restricted, non-ward stock antibacterials (OR = 2.7, 95% CI = 2.0-3.7, P < 0.001). Restricted, non-ward stock antibacterials had the highest frequency (30.7%, 71 of 231; OR = 6.2, 95% CI = 4.5-8.4, P < 0.001).
conclusionsAntibacterials not stocked in clinical areas were significantly more likely to be omitted. The prevalence of omitted doses increased further if the antibiotic was also restricted. To achieve safe, effective antimicrobial use, a balance is needed between promoting antimicrobial stewardship and preventing unintended omitted doses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.