PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Inese Sviestina
AU  - Vytautas Usonis
AU  - Vilija Gurksniene
AU  - Sigita Burokiene
AU  - Inga Ivaskeviciene
AU  - Dzintars Mozgis
TI  - Prescription of antibiotics in Riga and Vilnius tertiary children’s hospitals
AID  - 10.1136/ejhpharm-2016-001124
DP  - 2018 Jul 01
TA  - European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy
PG  - 189--194
VI  - 25
IP  - 4
4099  - http://ejhp.bmj.com/content/25/4/189.short
4100  - http://ejhp.bmj.com/content/25/4/189.full
SO  - Eur J Hosp Pharm2018 Jul 01; 25
AB  - Objectives The aim of this study was to compare the use of antibiotics among hospitalised children in Riga (Latvia) and in Vilnius (Lithuania) at two tertiary paediatric centres.Methods A point prevalence survey (PPS) was conducted using validated and standardised Antibiotic Resistance and Prescribing in European Children (ARPEC) project methodology during November 2012. All inpatients less than 18 years old were included in the study. All data were recorded for patients with active antimicrobial prescriptions at 8 am on the day of the survey. Data were entered into the ARPEC-webPPS programme and were validated online for accuracy.Results The proportion of patients receiving antimicrobial therapy was statistically different: 128 (37.0%) patients in Riga and 83 (26.3%) in Vilnius. The most common age group in Riga and Vilnius was 1–5 years. The most commonly used antibiotic classes for the treatment and prophylaxis of infection were third-generation cephalosporins (38; 25.5% prescriptions) in Riga and second-generation cephalosporins (16; 19.8%) in Vilnius. Parenteral use of antimicrobials was higher in Riga than in Vilnius: 111 (74.5%) prescriptions to paediatric patients in Riga and 45 (55.6%) prescriptions in Vilnius.Conclusions The PPS identified differences in antibiotic use in both hospitals and problem areas for improvement: high use of third-generation cephalosporins for paediatric patients (in Riga) and predominant use of parenteral antibiotics. Further collaboration between both centres is needed because sharing audit data and antimicrobial stewardship initiatives may encourage further changes in practice at both institutions.