Antimicrobial stewardship activities in hospitals in Ireland and the United Kingdom: a comparison of two national surveys

Development of quality indicators for antimicrobial stewardship in Belgian hospitals: a RAND - modified Delphi procedure

INTRODUCTION

Inappropriate antibiotic use is a major cause of antibiotic resistance. Therefore, optimizing antibiotic usage is essential. In Belgium, optimization of antimicrobials for the fight against multidrug resistant organisms (MDROs) is followed up by national surveillance by public health authorities. To improve appropriate antimicrobial use in hospitals, an effective national Antimicrobial Stewardship (AMS) program should include indicators for measuring both the quantity and quality of antibiotic use.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to develop a set of process quality indicators (QIs) to evaluate and improve AMS in hospitals.

METHODS

A RAND-modified Delphi procedure was used. The procedure consisted of a structured narrative literature review to select the QIs, followed by two online questionnaires and an intermediate multidisciplinary panel discussion with experts in infectious diseases from general and teaching hospitals in Belgium.

RESULTS

A total of 38 QIs were selected after the RAND-modified Delphi procedure, from which 11 QIs were selected unanimously. These QIs address compliancy of antibiotic therapy and prophylaxis with local guidelines, documentation of the rationale for antibiotic treatment in the medical record, the availability of AMS Programs and Outpatient Parenteral Antibiotic Therapy, resistance patterns and antimicrobial prescribing during focused ward rounds.

CONCLUSION

Our study selected 38 relevant process QIs, from which 11 were unanimously selected. The QIs can contribute to the improvement of quality of antibiotic use by stimulating hospitals to present better outcomes and by providing a focus on how to intervene and to improve prescribing of antimicrobials.

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.

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.

Context-sensitive antibiotic optimization: a qualitative interviews study of a remote Australian hospital setting

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic optimization is an urgent international issue. Regulatory frameworks, including the requirement to have a functioning antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programme, are now ubiquitous across the hospital sector nationally and internationally. However, healthcare is ultimately delivered in a diverse range of institutional settings and social contexts. There is emerging evidence that implementation of antibiotic optimization strategies may be inappropriate or even counterproductive to attempts to optimize in atypical healthcare settings.

AIM

To document the experiences and perspectives of clinical staff in a remote healthcare setting in Australia with respect to antimicrobial use, and strategies for optimization in that environment.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 30 healthcare professionals, including doctors, nurses and pharmacists, from a remote hospital in Queensland, Australia.

FINDINGS

Four themes were identified from the analysis as key challenges to antibiotic optimization: (i) AMS as externally driven, and local knowledge sidelined; (ii) perceptions of heightened local population risks, treatment failure and the subsequent pressure to over-use of antimicrobials; (iii) interprofessional relationship dynamics including medical hierarchical structures perceived as a barrier to AMS; (iv) a clinical workforce dominated by transient locum staff and other process issues were perceived as significant barriers.

CONCLUSION

The perceptions of healthcare professionals in this site lead to the conclusion that antimicrobial regulations and practice improvement strategies more generally are unlikely to succeed if they fail to accommodate and respect the context of care, the resource and structural constraints of the setting, and the specificities of particular populations (and subsequent clinical 'know-how').

What prevents the intravenous to oral antibiotic switch? A qualitative study of hospital doctors' accounts of what influences their clinical practice

OBJECTIVES

Escalating antimicrobial resistance worldwide necessitates urgent optimization of antimicrobial prescribing to preserve antibiotics for future generations. Early intravenous (iv) to oral switch campaigns are one strategy that hospital-based antimicrobial stewardship programmes can incorporate to minimize inappropriate antibiotic use. Yet, iv antibiotics continue to be offered for longer than is clinically indicated, increasing hospital length of stay, increasing costs and placing patients at risk (e.g. cannula-related infections). This study aims to identify why this inappropriate prescribing trend continues.

METHODS

Twenty doctors (9 females and 11 males) working at a teaching hospital in north-east England participated in semi-structured interviews about their experiences of antibiotic use. NVivo10 software was used to conduct a thematic content analysis of the full interview transcripts driven by the framework approach. Results are reported according to COREQ guidelines.

RESULTS

Decisions around the choice of iv over oral antibiotics were influenced by three key issues: (i) consumerism, i.e. participants were concerned about the risk of litigation or complaints if patient expectations were not met; (ii) hierarchy of the medical team structure limited opportunities for de-escalation of antibiotics; and (iii) iv antibiotics were perceived as more potent and having significant mythical qualities, which participants acknowledged were not necessarily evidence based.

CONCLUSIONS

The iv to oral switch interventions should tailor strategies to demystify iv versus oral antibiotic efficacy, engage consumers around the negative effects of iv antibiotic overuse and examine strategies to streamline team decision-making. Addressing these issues has the potential to reduce inappropriate antibiotic use and resistance.

Barriers to uptake of antimicrobial advice in a UK hospital: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The role of infectious diseases (ID) and clinical microbiology (CM) in hospital settings has expanded in response to increasing antimicrobial resistance, leading to widespread development of hospital antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes, the majority of which include antibiotic approval systems. However, inappropriate antibiotic use in hospitals continues, suggesting potential disjunctions between technical advice and the logics of antibiotic use within hospitals.

AIM

To examine the experiences of doctors in a UK hospital with respect to AMS guidance of antibiotic prescribing, and experiences of a verbal postprescription antibiotic approval process.

METHODS

Twenty doctors in a teaching hospital in the UK participated in semi-structured interviews about their experiences of antibiotic use and governance. NVivo10 software was used to conduct a thematic content analysis systematically.

FINDINGS

This study identified three key themes regarding doctors' relationships with ID/CM clinicians that shaped their antibiotic practices: (1) competing hierarchical influences limiting active consultation with ID/CM; (2) non-ID/CM consultants' sense of ownership over clinical decision-making and concerns about challenges to clinical autonomy; and (3) tensions between evidence-based practice and experiential-style learning.

CONCLUSIONS

This study illustrates the importance of examining relations between ID/CM and non-ID/CM clinicians in the hospital context, indicating that AMS models that focus exclusively on delivering advice rather than managing interprofessional relationships may be limited in their capacity to optimize antibiotic use. AMS and, specifically, antibiotic approval systems would likely be more effective if they incorporated time and resources for fostering and maintaining professional relationships.