Snapshot of Barriers to and Indicators for Antimicrobial Stewardship in Australian Hospitals

Implementation of an antimicrobial stewardship program in the Australian private hospital system: qualitative study of attitudes to antimicrobial resistance and antimicrobial stewardship

BACKGROUND

Antimicrobial Stewardship (AMS) is a key method to tackle antimicrobial resistance (AMR). In Australia, private hospitals have a higher rate of inappropriate prescribing and non-compliance with antimicrobial guidelines, yet this phenomenon is poorly described. Private hospitals make up 49% of hospitals in Australia, making it vital to understand AMS in this setting.

METHODS

This study aimed to explore capabilities, opportunities and motivations for AMR and AMS with stakeholders at an Australian private hospital, and identify barriers and enablers 5 years post-implementation of an AMS program comparing with pre-implementation findings. A mixed-methods study was performed, involving three focus groups with stakeholders. All doctors, nurses and pharmacists at the hospital were invited to complete a survey on their experiences with and awareness of AMR, AMS and antimicrobial prescribing.

RESULTS

Thirteen staff took part in the focus groups, 100 staff responded to the survey. Staff understood the importance of the AMS program, but active engagement was low. Staff felt more thorough feedback and monitoring could improve prescribing behaviour, but acknowledged difficulty in private hospitals in changing habits of staff who valued autonomy in making prescribing decisions. Half of respondents felt the current AMS restrictions should continue. Executive engagement may be needed to drive system changes across a complex network.

CONCLUSION

AMS awareness increased post-implementation, but staff remained sceptical of its benefits. Engagement and education of medical consultants regarding local benefits of AMS must improve. Enhanced understanding of feedback provision, methods for engagement, and advocacy from leadership will ensure success and longevity for the program.

Pharmacists' Perspectives of Their Roles in Antimicrobial Stewardship: A Qualitative Study among Hospital Pharmacists in Malaysia

Antimicrobial resistance has negatively impacted patient outcomes and increased healthcare costs. Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) includes all activities and policies to promote the judicious use of antimicrobials. Pharmacists are key players in AMS models worldwide. However, there is a research gap in the role of pharmacists as antimicrobial stewards in Malaysia. This study aimed to explore hospital pharmacists' perspectives on their roles in, and barriers and facilitators to the implementation of AMS strategies. Individual, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 hospital pharmacists involved in AMS activities from 13 public hospitals in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor. Audio-taped interviews were transcribed verbatim and imported into NVivo software version 10.0 (QSR). A thematic analysis method was used to identify themes from the qualitative data until theme saturation was reached. Respondents perceived pharmacists as having important roles in the implementation of AMS strategies, in view of the multiple tasks they were entrusted with. They described their functions as antimicrobial advisors, antimicrobial guardians and liaison personnel. The lack of resources in terms of training, manpower and facilities, as well as attitudinal challenges, were some barriers identified by the respondents. Administrative support, commitment and perseverance were found to be facilitators to the role of pharmacists in AMS. In conclusion, pharmacists in public hospitals play important roles in AMS teams. This study has provided insights into the support that AMS pharmacists in public hospitals require to overcome the barriers they face and to enhance their roles in the implementation of AMS strategies.

Barriers and Facilitators to Implementation of Antibiotic Stewardship Programmes in Hospitals in Developed Countries: Insights From Transnational Studies

Objectives: To identify perceived influences on implementation of antibiotic stewardship programmes (ASPs) in hospitals, across healthcare systems, and to exemplify the use of a behavioral framework to conceptualize those influences. Methods: EMBASE and MEDLINE databases were searched from 01/2001 to 07/2017 and reference lists were screened for transnational studies that reported barriers and/or facilitators to implementing actual or hypothetical ASPs or ASP-supporting strategies. Extracted data were synthesized using content analysis with the Theoretical Domains Framework as an organizing framework. Commonly reported influences were quantified. Results: From 3,196 abstracts 75 full-text articles were screened for inclusion. Eight studies met the eligibility criteria. The number of countries involved in each study ranged from 2 to 36. These studies included a total of 1849 participants. North America, Europe and Australasia had the strongest representation. Participants were members of special interest groups, designated hospital representatives or clinical experts. Ten of the 14 theoretical domains in the framework were present in the results reported in the included studies. The most commonly reported (≥4 out of 8 studies) influences on ASP implementation were coded in the domain "environmental context and resources" (e.g., problems with data and information systems; lack of key personnel; inadequate financial resources) and "goals" (other higher priorities). Conclusions: Despite an extensive transnational research effort, there is evidence from international studies of substantial barriers to implementing ASPs in hospitals, even in developed countries. Large-scale efforts to implement hospital antibiotic stewardship in those countries will need to overcome issues around inadequacy of information systems, unavailability of key personnel and funding, and the competition from other priority initiatives. We have enhanced the evidence base to inform guidance by taking a behavioral approach to identify influences on ASP uptake. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration number CRD42017076425.

Pharmacist participation in antimicrobial stewardship in Australian and French hospitals: a cross-sectional nationwide survey

Background

Hospital pharmacists are an integral part of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes globally. Currently, little is known as to how hospital pharmacists see their role and involvement within the AMS framework.

Objectives

To assess the current level of involvement of Australian and French hospital pharmacists in AMS programmes and identify barriers limiting their involvement in AMS.

Methods

Hospital pharmacists throughout Australia and France were invited to participate in a nationwide online survey throughout March-May 2016. The survey was promoted through the national hospital pharmacists' association in Australia, while a stratified sampling method was used in France to invite pharmacists working in a variety of hospital settings.

Results

Invitations to participate in this survey were sent to 334 Australian pharmacists and 482 French pharmacists. Responses from 133 Australian and 126 French pharmacists were included for analysis. A total of 78.4% (203/259) of pharmacists reported the presence of an AMS programme. Pharmacists were most likely to be involved in AMS through assessing total antibiotic consumption and participating in AMS committee meetings. Barriers to participating in AMS included a lack of time and substantial non-clinical activities limiting involvement in AMS. Differences in responses were found between the two countries.

Conclusions

While the majority of pharmacists reported the presence of an AMS programme, multiple barriers to participation were identified by pharmacists in both countries. Further research should consider how to overcome the identified barriers to optimize the involvement of pharmacists in AMS.

Prioritizing research areas for antibiotic stewardship programmes in hospitals: a behavioural perspective consensus paper

SCOPE

Antibiotic stewardship programmes (ASPs) are necessary in hospitals to improve the judicious use of antibiotics. While ASPs require complex change of key behaviours on individual, team organization and policy levels, evidence from the behavioural sciences is underutilized in antibiotic stewardship studies across the world, including high-income countries (HICs). A consensus procedure was performed to propose research priority areas for optimizing effective implementation of ASPs in hospital settings using a behavioural perspective.

METHODS

A workgroup for behavioural approaches to ASPs was convened in response to the fourth call for leading expert network proposals by the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance (JPIAMR). Eighteen clinical and academic specialists in antibiotic stewardship, implementation science and behaviour change from four HICs with publicly funded healthcare systems (e.g. Canada, Germany, Norway and the UK) met face-to-face to agree on broad research priority areas using a structured consensus method. Question addressed and recommendations: The consensus process assessing the ten identified research priority areas resulted in recommendations that need urgent scientific interest and funding to optimize effective implementation of ASPs for hospital inpatients in HICs with publicly funded healthcare systems. We suggest and detail behavioural science evidence-guided research efforts in the following areas: (a) comprehensively identifying barriers and facilitators to implementing ASPs and clinical recommendations intended to optimize antibiotic prescribing; (b) identifying actors ('who') and actions ('what needs to be done') of ASPs and clinical teams; (c) synthesizing available evidence to support future research and planning for ASPs; (d) specifying the activities in current ASPs with the purpose of defining a control group for comparison with new initiatives; (e) defining a balanced set of outcomes and measures to evaluate the effects of interventions focused on reducing unnecessary exposure to antibiotics; (f) conducting robust evaluations of ASPs with built-in process evaluations and fidelity assessments; (g) defining and designing ASPs; (h) establishing the evidence base for impact of ASPs on resistance; (i) investigating the role and impact of government and policy contexts on ASPs; and (j) understanding what matters to patients in ASPs in hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessment, revisions and updates of our priority-setting exercise should be considered at intervals of 2 years. To propose research priority areas in low- and middle-income countries, the methodology reported here could be applied.

Antimicrobial stewardship activities: a survey of Queensland hospitals

OBJECTIVE

In 2011, the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC) recommended that all hospitals in Australia must have an Antimicrobial Stewardship (AMS) program by 2013. Nevertheless, little is known about current AMS activities. This study aimed to determine the AMS activities currently undertaken, and to identify gaps, barriers to implementation and opportunities for improvement in Queensland hospitals.

METHODS

The AMS activities of 26 facilities from 15 hospital and health services in Queensland were surveyed during June 2012 to address strategies for effective AMS: implementing clinical guidelines, formulary restriction, reviewing antimicrobial prescribing, auditing antimicrobial use and selective reporting of susceptibility results.

RESULTS

The response rate was 62%. Nineteen percent had an AMS team (a dedicated multidisciplinary team consisting of a medically trained staff member and a pharmacist). All facilities had access to an electronic version of Therapeutic Guidelines: Antibiotic, with a further 50% developing local guidelines for antimicrobials. One-third of facilities had additional restrictions. Eighty-eight percent had advice for restricted antimicrobials from in-house infectious disease physicians or clinical microbiologists. Antimicrobials were monitored with feedback given to prescribers at point of care by 76% of facilities. Deficiencies reported as barriers to establishing AMS programs included: pharmacy resources, financial support by hospital management, and training and education in antimicrobial use.

CONCLUSIONS

Several areas for improvement were identified: reviewing antimicrobial prescribing with feedback to the prescriber, auditing, and training and education in antimicrobial use. There also appears to be a lack of resources to support AMS programs in some facilities. WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT THE TOPIC?: The ACSQHC has recommended that all hospitals implement an AMS program by 2013 as a requirement of Standard 3 (Preventing and Controlling Healthcare-Associated Infections) of the National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards. The intent of AMS is to ensure appropriate prescribing of antimicrobials as part of the broader systems within a health service organisation to prevent and manage healthcare-associated infections, and improve patient safety and quality of care. This criterion also aligns closely with Standard 4: Medication Safety. Despite this recommendation, little is known about what AMS activities are undertaken in these facilities and what additional resources would be required in order to meet these national standards. WHAT DOES THE PAPER ADD?: This is the first survey that has been conducted of public hospital and health services in Queensland, a large decentralised state in Australia. This paper describes what AMS activities are currently being undertaken, identifies practice gaps, barriers to implementation and opportunities for improvement in Queensland hospitals. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTITIONERS?: Several areas for improvement such as reviewing antimicrobial prescribing with feedback to the prescriber, auditing, and training and education in antimicrobial use have been identified. In addition, there appears to be a lack of resources to support AMS programs in some facilities.

A Review of Quality Measures for Assessing the Impact of Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs in Hospitals

The growing problem of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has led to calls for antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) to control antibiotic use in healthcare settings. Key strategies include prospective audit with feedback and intervention, and formulary restriction and preauthorization. Education, guidelines, clinical pathways, de-escalation, and intravenous to oral conversion are also part of some programs. Impact and quality of ASP can be assessed using process or outcome measures. Outcome measures are categorized as microbiological, patient or financial outcomes. The objective of this review was to provide an overview of quality measures for assessing ASP and the reported impact of ASP in peer-reviewed studies, focusing particularly on patient outcomes. A literature search of papers published in English between 1990 and June 2015 was conducted in five databases using a combination of search terms. Primary studies of any design were included. A total of 63 studies were included in this review. Four studies defined quality metrics for evaluating ASP. Twenty-one studies assessed the impact of ASP on antimicrobial utilization and cost, 25 studies evaluated impact on resistance patterns and/or rate of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). Thirteen studies assessed impact on patient outcomes including mortality, length of stay (LOS) and readmission rates. Six of these 13 studies reported non-significant difference in mortality between pre- and post-ASP intervention, and five reported reductions in mortality rate. On LOS, six studies reported shorter LOS post intervention; a significant reduction was reported in one of these studies. Of note, this latter study reported significantly (p < 0.001) higher unplanned readmissions related to infections post-ASP. Patient outcomes need to be a key component of ASP evaluation. The choice of metrics is influenced by data and resource availability. Controlling for confounders must be considered in the design of evaluation studies to adequately capture the impact of ASP and it is important for unintended consequences to be considered. This review provides a starting point toward compiling standard outcome metrics for assessing ASP.

Antimicrobial Stewardship from Policy to Practice: Experiences from UK Antimicrobial Pharmacists

Antimicrobial stewardship in the UK has evolved dramatically in the last 15 years. Factors driving this include initial central funding for specialist pharmacists and mandatory reductions in healthcare-associated infections (particularly Clostridium difficile infection). More recently, the introduction of national stewardship guidelines, and an increased focus on stewardship as part of the UK five-year antimicrobial resistance strategy, have accelerated and embedded developments. Antimicrobial pharmacists have been instrumental in effecting changes at an organizational and national level. This article describes the evolution of the antimicrobial pharmacist role, its impact, the progress toward the actions listed in the five-year resistance strategy, and novel emerging areas in stewardship in the UK.

Surgical site infection-a population-based study in Australian adults measuring the compliance with and correct timing of appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis

Prophylaxis for surgical site infection (SSI) is often at variance with guidelines, despite the prevalence of SSI and its associated cost, morbidity, and mortality. The CareTrack Australia study, undertaken by a number of the authors, demonstrated that appropriate care (in line with evidence- or consensus-based guidelines) was provided at 38% of eligible SSI healthcare encounters. Here, we report the indicator-level CareTrack Australia findings for SSI prophylaxis. Indicators were extracted from Australian and international clinical guidelines and ratified by clinical experts. A sample designed to be representative of the Australian population was recruited (n=1154). Participants' medical records were reviewed and analysed for compliance with the five SSI indicators. The main outcome measure was the percentage of eligible healthcare encounters with documented compliance with indicators for appropriate SSI prophylaxis. Of the 35,145 CareTrack Australia encounters, 702 (2%) were eligible for scoring against the SSI indicators. Where antibiotics were recommended, compliance was 49% for contaminated surgery, 57% for clean-contaminated surgery and 85% for surgery involving a prosthesis: these fell to 8%, 10% and 14%, respectively (an average of 11%), when currently recommended timing of antibiotic administration was included. Where antibiotics were not indicated, 72% of patients still received them. SSI prophylaxis in our sample was poor; over two-thirds of patients were given antibiotics, whether indicated or not, mainly at the wrong time. There is a need for national agreement on clinical standards, indicators and tools to guide, document and monitor SSI prophylaxis, with both local and national measures to increase and monitor their uptake.

An international cross-sectional survey of antimicrobial stewardship programmes in hospitals

OBJECTIVES

To report the extent and components of global efforts in antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) in hospitals.

METHODS

An Internet-based survey comprising 43 questions was disseminated worldwide in 2012.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 660 hospitals in 67 countries: Africa, 44; Asia, 50; Europe, 361; North America, 72; Oceania, 30; and South and Central America, 103. National AMS standards existed in 52% of countries, 4% were planning them and 58% had an AMS programme. The main barriers to implementing AMS programmes were perceived to be a lack of funding or personnel, a lack of information technology and prescriber opposition. In hospitals with an existing AMS programme, AMS rounds existed in 64%; 81% restricted antimicrobials (carbapenems, 74.3%; quinolones, 64%; and cephalosporins, 58%); and 85% reported antimicrobial usage, with 55% linking data to resistance rates and 49% linking data to infection rates. Only 20% had electronic prescribing for all patients. A total of 89% of programmes educated their medical, nursing and pharmacy staff on AMS. Of the hospitals, 38% had formally reviewed their AMS programme: reductions were reported by 96% of hospitals for inappropriate prescribing, 86% for broad-spectrum antibiotic use, 80% for expenditure, 71% for healthcare-acquired infections, 65% for length of stay or mortality and 58% for bacterial resistance.

CONCLUSIONS

The worldwide development and implementation of AMS programmes varies considerably. Our results should inform and encourage the further evaluation of this with a view to promoting a worldwide stewardship framework. The prospective measurement of well-defined outcomes of the impact of these programmes remains a significant challenge.