Antimicrobial Stewardship Programmes in Community Healthcare Organisations in England: A Cross-Sectional Survey to Assess Implementation of Programmes and National Toolkits

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess antimicrobial stewardship activities in Community Healthcare Organisations (CHOs) with focus on the implementation of the two national antimicrobial stewardship toolkits, TARGET (Treat Antibiotics Responsibly, Guidance, Education, Tools) and SSTF (Start Smart, then Focus). The study utilised a web-based survey comprising 34 questions concerning antimicrobial policies and awareness and implementation of antimicrobial stewardship toolkits. This was distributed to pharmacy teams in all 26 CHOs in England. Twenty CHOs (77%) responded. An antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) committee was active in 50% of CHOs; 25% employed a substantive pharmacist post and 70% had a local antibiotic policy. Fourteen of the responding CHOs were aware of both AMS toolkits, five organisations were aware of either SSTF or TARGET, and one organisation was not aware of either toolkit. Of the organisations aware of SSTF and TARGET, eight had formally reviewed both toolkits, though three had not reviewed either. Less than half of the respondents had developed local action plans for either toolkit. National guidance in England has focused attention on initiatives to improve AMS implementation in primary and secondary care; more work is required to embed AMS activities and the implementation of national AMS toolkit recommendations within CHOs.

An investigation of antifungal stewardship programmes in England

PURPOSE

We sought to explore the current status of antifungal stewardship (AFS) initiatives across National Health Service (NHS) Trusts within England, the challenges and barriers, as well as ways to improve current AFS programmes.

METHODOLOGY

An electronic survey was sent to all 155 acute NHS Trusts in England. A total of 47 Trusts, corresponding to 30 % of English acute Trusts, responded to the the survey; 46 Trusts (98 %) had an antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programme but only 5 (11 %) had a dedicated AFS programme. Overall, 20 (43 %) Trusts said they included AFS as part of their AMS programmes. From those conducting AFS programmes, 7 (28 %) have an AFS/management team, 16 (64 %) monitor and report on antifungal usage, 5 (20 %) have dedicated AFS ward rounds and 12 (48 %) are directly involved in the management of invasive fungal infections.Results/Key findings. Altogether, 13 acute Trusts (52 %) started their AFS programme to manage costs, whilst 12 (48 %) commenced the programme due to clinical need; 27 (73 %) declared that they would increase their AFS initiatives if they could. Of those without an AFS programme, 14 (67 %) responded that this was due to lack of resources/staff time. Overall, 12 Trusts (57 %) responded that the availability of rapid diagnostics and clinical support would enable them to conduct AFS activities.

CONCLUSION

Although a minority of Trusts conduct dedicated AFS programmes, nearly half include AFS as part of routine AMS activities. Cost issues are the main driver for AFS, followed by clinical need. The availability of rapid diagnostics and clinical support could help increase AFS initiatives.