ArticlePharmacy practice
Paediatric antimicrobial stewardship and safe prescribing: an assessment of medical staff knowledge and behaviour.
Article in Pharmacy practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveDetermine baseline knowledge of antimicrobial stewardship, and safe prescribing among junior medical officers, monitor their level of participation in interactive education during protected teaching time and assess day-to-day prescribing behaviours over the subsequent 3-month period.
methodsA voluntary and anonymous survey of all non-consultant level medical officers was conducted with the use of an audience response system during mandatory face-to-face orientation sessions at a tertiary paediatric hospital. Routine prescribing audits monitored compliance with national and locally derived quality use of medicines indicators.
resultsEighty-six percent of medical officers participated by responding to at least one question (171/200). Response rate for individual questions ranged between 31% and 78%. Questions that addressed adverse drug reactions, documentation and monitoring for empiric antibiotics and the error-prone abbreviations IU and U were correctly answered by over 90% of participants. Other non-standard and error-prone abbreviations were less consistently identified. In practice, 68% of patients had complete adverse drug reaction documentation (113/166). Error-prone abbreviations were identified on 5% of audited medication orders (47/976), approximately half included a documented indication and intended dose.
conclusionsParticipants demonstrated a good understanding of safe prescribing and antimicrobial stewardship. Audits of prescribing identified potential discrepancies between prescribing knowledge and behaviours.
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.