Erratum to: Oral and parenteral antibiotic use in Norwegian nursing homes: are primary care institutions becoming our new local hospitals?

JAC Antimicrob Resist 2020; 2: https://doi.org/10.1093/jacamr/dlaa093

The following errors were present in the original published version of this article.

In the Abstract, Results section: ‘Mean use of antibiotics was 10.0 DDD/100 bed days (range 0.6–30.9 DDD/100 bed days)’ should be ‘Mean use of antibiotics was 9.5 DDD/100 bed days (range 0.6–30.9 DDD/100 bed days)’.

In the Results, Total antibiotic use (excluding methenamine) section: ‘Mean overall use of antibiotics was 10.0 DDD/100 BD (range 0.6–30.9)’ should be ‘Mean overall use of antibiotics was 9.5 DDD/100 BD (range 0.6–30.9)’ and ‘Mean antibiotic use for mixed NHs was 10.0 DDD/100 BD (range 3.9–15.2)’ should be ‘Mean antibiotic use for mixed NHs was 9.1 DDD/100 BD (range 3.9–15.2)’.

In the Results, Parenteral antibiotic use section: ‘Mean total IV-AB use in short-term NHs was 6.2 DDD/100 BD, while for mixed and long-term NHs it was 1.6 and 1.0 DDD/100 BD, respectively’ should be ‘Mean total IV-AB use in short-term NHs was 6.2 DDD/100 BD, while for mixed and long-term NHs it was 1.4 and 1.0 DDD/100 BD, respectively’.

Results, Methenamine section: ‘Mean total methenamine use was 5.6 DDD/BD’ should be ‘Mean total methenamine use was 5.3 DDD/BD’.

Discussion, first paragraph: ‘We found a high use of antibiotics: higher by approximately 26% and 40% than in two previous Norwegian studies (when excluding methenamine),^11,25 and higher by 120% than in a 2016 French study³⁷ and 37% than in a 2017 Dutch study.²⁷’ should be ‘We found a high use of antibiotics: higher by approximately 20% than in two previous Norwegian studies (when excluding methenamine),^11,25 and higher by 110% than in a 2016 French study³⁷ and 30% than in a 2017 Dutch study.²⁷’

These errors have now been corrected in the published version of the article. The overall conclusions of the study remain unaltered.

The authors apologize for these errors.