Greening guide
Download the Greening guide as a printable poster here.
Clinical care
Sharing the indication and intended treatment duration of multiple anticoagulant therapies with primary care
The prescription of multiple anticoagulant therapy (e.g. double or triple therapy with anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents) is complex and associated with an increased risk of bleeding. Patients often use these combinations temporarily, for example after acute coronary syndrome, percutaneous coronary intervention, or concomitant atrial fibrillation and stent implantation (1). European and Dutch guidelines therefore emphasize that double or triple therapy is never indicated for life, but always has a limited treatment period, depending on the clinical situation and the individual balance between the risk of bleeding or an ischemic event (1).
In practice, however, it appears that these drugs are regularly used for too long or are continued without a current indication, which significantly increases the risk of serious, preventable bleeding. For example, research in Dutch pharmacies showed that 14— 23% of patients who used dual anticoagulation no longer had a valid indication (2). During hospitalization, it was found that more than 40% of patients with multiple anticoagulant therapies used these combinations incorrectly (3). This risks bleeding complications, and thus unnecessary hospital admissions (4), but also contributes to unnecessary costs and environmental impact.
To prevent this, clear communication during dismissal and transfer is crucial. Explicitly sharing the indication and the intended treatment duration with primary care (general practitioner and pharmacist) enables follow-up care providers to continue treatment responsibly or to stop it in time. This contributes to medication safety, reduces the risk of complications and prevents unnecessary drug use.
Clinical care
Treatment with oral antibiotics when bioavailability is good
Timely conversion from intravenous (IV) to oral antibiotics is an important intervention within appropriate and sustainable care. Within the national antimicrobial stewardship program, as developed by SWAB, it is recommended to re-evaluate the route of antibiotic administration daily and switch to oral therapy as soon as possible once the patient is clinically stable and oral intake is possible (1). Switching to oral therapy contributes to shortening hospital stays, reduces complications from IV administration such as line infections and phlebitis, decreases the time spent preparing and administering infusions, and reduces material usage (2).
The Dutch Healthcare Institute explicitly states in its improvement report on Lower Respiratory Tract Infections that, where possible, a switch to oral antibiotics should be made for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) (3). This recommendation has been translated into a target of 80% IV-to-oral switch, as included in the implementation agenda for Healthcare Evaluation and Appropriate Use (4). The Antimicrobial Stewardship Monitor (AMSM), which provides feedback on prescribing behavior to local A-teams, shows that this target percentage is often not yet achieved in practice (5).
Besides CAP, there is increasing evidence for IV-to-oral switch in other indications. A systematic review shows that in clinically stable patients with osteomyelitis, bacteremia, and endocarditis, an early switch to oral antibiotics leads to a clinically equivalent, but safer treatment, including a shorter hospital stay (6). For bone and joint infections, it has been shown that oral therapy during the first six weeks of treatment is non-inferior to intravenous therapy (7). It also appears that in patients with cellulitis, a switch to oral treatment, once the spread of the infection has stopped, leads to a non-inferior treatment (8).
Timely switching to oral treatment offers not only clinical benefits but also sustainability gains. For example, for penicillin use in pneumonia, based on the baseline situation in Denmark, it has been shown that timely completion of oral treatment leads to a reduction in climate impact of approximately 56%, increasing to 94% with fully oral treatment (9). For ciprofloxacin, a recent study has shown that one oral dose has a climate impact of 12.6 grams of CO2-equivalent, while an IV dose corresponds to a climate impact of almost 900 grams of CO2-equivalent (10).
Frequently asked questions
Should I use prescription data or administration data to evaluate an intervention?
That depends on the intervention and the care setting. Some interventions look at prescriptions, while others look at actual administrations. The medication step-by-step plan indicates which data can be used for evaluation for each intervention.
How do I extract prescription and/or administration data from the EHR?
A work instruction is available for extracting prescription and administration data from HiX and Epic. For HiX, two configurations for overview generators are also available in the Teams environment ‘00 Extractie toedien- en voorschrijfdata uit EPD’.
I get an error message when I try to edit cells in the environmental impact calculation tool. What should I do?
Cells containing formulas are locked and do not need to be edited. The first tab of the environmental impact calculation tool indicates where you can enter or paste your data.
Which environmental impact calculation tool should I use?
There are two versions: a tool where data is linked via the ZI number and a tool for manual entry. Which version is suitable depends on the intervention and the available data. The manual for the environmental impact calculation tools explains which tool to use for each situation.
The antibiotic intervention is linked to specific diagnoses. Can I also implement the intervention per medication?
Yes. The conditions to which the intervention applies can be found on the intervention page. Always check whether oral administration is as effective as intravenous administration for the condition in question.
I want to calculate the environmental impact of the antibiotic intervention, but I cannot find the environmental impact calculation tool. Where is it located?
The environmental impact calculation tool for antibiotics is still under development and is expected to be available in Q2 2027. Currently, life cycle assessments (LCAs) are being conducted to obtain reliable environmental impact data for antibiotics. You can start implementing the intervention in the meantime. The environmental impact can be calculated as soon as the calculation tool is available – you will be notified when it is ready.
We are combining the IV-to-oral switch with a reduction in antibiotic use. How can we reliably evaluate the environmental impact?
The environmental impact calculation tool for antibiotics will account for differences in the number of prescriptions or administrations. This is important for antibiotics due to seasonal fluctuations. Most other environmental impact calculation tools do not explicitly correct for this, in order to keep the tools as simple and anonymous as possible. The tool for antibiotics will follow in 2027, after the life cycle assessments (LCAs) have been completed.
Why is there no manual environmental impact calculation tool for inhalation medication?
There are more than 100 preparations. As a result, a manual tool with a selection menu is neither reliable nor practical to complete. The environmental impact of the inhalation medication intervention is therefore evaluated by linking data based on the ZI number or PRK code.
Our prescription data does not contain ZI numbers because pharmacies determine which product to dispense themselves due to preference policies. How can we evaluate the intervention?
A separate tool has been developed for this situation that works based on PRK codes. You can find it in the Teams environment: CO2_Inhalatiemedicatie_PRK_template LEEG.xlsx.
The tool does not recognize all PRK codes. Why is that?
The tool only recognizes PRK codes for inhalation medication that fall within the scope of this intervention. The intervention compares dry powder and soft mist inhalers with pressurized metered-dose inhalers in accordance with the transmural guideline. Nebulized medication falls outside the scope of the intervention and is therefore not recognized by the tool.
In the Teams environment, you will find a document containing all ZI numbers & PRK codes that can be evaluated with the intervention: ZI-nummers per interventie.xlsx
Why does the paracetamol intervention focus only on oral administration, while the antiemetics intervention refers to enteral administration?
The scope of the interventions is based on prioritization by physicians and pharmacists in a Delphi study. For paracetamol, the transition from intravenous to oral paracetamol was specifically prioritized. Therefore, the intervention within 'Samen de zorg vergroenen' focuses on oral paracetamol and not on other non-intravenous dosage forms, such as suppositories.
This also means that ZI numbers for products such as paracetamol suppositories are not included in the environmental impact calculation tool and are not taken into account in the evaluation of this intervention. For antiemetics, the intervention has a broader scope and, depending on the medication, other enteral dosage forms may also be included.
What is the difference between 'targeted prescribing' and 'discontinuing' proton pump inhibitors?
Targeted prescribing involves preventing unnecessary new PPI prescriptions for gastric protection. The 'discontinuing PPIs without a current indication' intervention specifically targets patients who are already using a PPI and for whom it is being assessed whether this use is still necessary. If both of these interventions are implemented, it is recommended to allow a period of time between implementations so that the individual effect can be determined.
