RESUMO
CONTEXT: The use of perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis has been consistently considered an effective means of reducing the risk of surgical site infections. However, inappropriate use of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis is associated with complications such as reduced treatment efficacy, development of antibiotic resistance, and increased health-care costs. AIMS: The aim of this study is to investigate the adherence to international/national guidelines regarding the use of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis in the perioperative period. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre (KFSH&RC) a 1589-bed tertiary/quaternary care and referral hospital based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A retrospective observational study, in which antibiotic prophylaxis parameters were assessed against recommendations provided by international/national guidelines in elective/emergency procedures performed at the general operating suite. Data was obtained from the medical records starting of 174 cases over a period of 2 weeks in May 2016. RESULTS: Preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) was prescribed for 118 (78.7%) patients, 72 (61%) of which were "recommended," whereas 46 (39%) were "not recommended." Of the 72 patients for whom the antibiotics were "recommended" and given, 19 (26.4%) received "inadequate" choice of antibiotics, 50 (69.4%) received a sub-therapeutic dose, 14 (19.4%) had "improper" timing of the first dose, 11 (15.3%) were given an "inappropriate" second intraoperative dose, and 43 (59.7%) had an unnecessarily extended duration of prophylaxis. The overall compliance to guidelines was achieved in only 23 (15.3%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: A significant gap between current KFSH & RC practice and international/national guidelines regarding surgical antibiotic prophylaxis usage has been demonstrated which calls for immediate action to ensure effective guideline adoption and implementation.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The douleur neuropathique 4 (DN4) questionnaire is a widely used tool for diagnosis of neuropathic pain (NP). The aim was to translate, culturally adapt, and validate the DN4 questionnaire in Arabic. METHODS: A systematic translation process was used to translate the original English DN4 into Arabic. After the pilot study, the Arabic version was validated among patients with chronic pain in two tertiary care centers. The reliability of the translated version was examined using internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and intraclass correlation coefficients. We examined the validity of the Arabic DN4 via construct validity, concurrent validity (associations with the numeric rating scale, brief pain inventory, and Self-Completed Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs [S-LANSS]), face validity, and diagnostic validity. To investigate the responsiveness, the translated DN4 was administered twice among the same group of patients. RESULTS: A total of 142 subjects (68 men, 74 women) were included in the study. Cronbach's α was 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-0.75), and interclass correlation coefficients was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.76-0.87). The DN4 was moderately associated with the S-LANSS questionnaire. Results showed our Arabic DN4 to have good diagnostic accuracy, with area under the curve of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.82-0.94). As with the original version, a score of ≥4 was found to be the best cut-off for the diagnosis of NP, with a sensitivity of 88.31%, specificity of 74.47%, a positive predictive value of 85%, and a negative predictive value of 80%. Most patients found the DN4 questionnaire to be clear and easy to understand, and thought the questionnaire items covered all their problem areas regarding their pain. CONCLUSION: Our Arabic version of the DN4 is a reliable and valid screening tool that can be easily administered among patients to differentiate between NP and non-NP.
