Identifying targets for antibiotic stewardship interventions through analysis of the antibiotic prescribing process in hospitals - a multicentre observational cohort study

Understanding and mapping the antibiotic prescribing and administration process in assisted living facilities

Objective

Inappropriate prescribing practices significantly contribute to antibiotic resistance which poses a significant public health challenge. While antibiotic prescribing and administration process has been widely studied in various settings including nursing homes, little is known about Assisted Living Facilities (ALFs). This study aims to map the antibiotic prescribing and administration processes in ALFs.

Design

A qualitative descriptive study using the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) 2.0 model.

Methods

Seven semi-structured interviews were conducted with staff from five ALFs located in a mid-western state. Participating staff were either involved in or knowledgeable about the process. The interviews were analyzed in NVivo using SEIPS 2.0 model as a theoretical framework.

Results

The analysis informed the mapping of a 33-step antibiotic prescribing and administration process for residents in ALFs. They were grouped into five sections: admission, resident having a change in condition, antibiotic prescribing, obtaining the prescription from the pharmacy, and antibiotic administration and follow-up. Pharmacies played critical role in delivery of prescriptions to ALFs and are uniquely positioned to support antibiotic stewardship efforts.

Conclusions and implications

This study is among the first to systematically map the antibiotic prescribing and administration process in ALFs. Insights gathered regarding the use of preferred pharmacies highlight opportunities for pharmacists in stewardship practices. Comparison of the process to that of nursing homes, suggests that several pharmacist-led stewardship interventions used there could be adapted effectively in ALFs. Further research is essential to assess the impact of antibiotic prescribing and pharmacist-driven stewardship interventions tailored specifically for ALFs.

Determinants of non-adherence to antibiotic treatment guidelines in hospitalized adults with suspected community-acquired pneumonia: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global health threat with millions of deaths annually attributable to bacterial resistance. Effective antimicrobial stewardship programs are crucial for optimizing antibiotic use. This study aims to identify factors contributing to deviations from antibiotic treatment guidelines in hospitalized adults with suspected community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study at Haukeland University Hospital's Emergency Department in Bergen, Norway, from September 2020 to April 2023. Patients were selected from two cohorts, with data on clinical and microbiologic test results collected. We analysed adherence of antibiotic therapy to guidelines for the choice of empirical treatment and therapy duration using multivariate regression models to identify predictors of non-adherence.

RESULTS

Of the 523 patients studied, 479 (91.6%) received empirical antibiotic therapy within 48 h of admission, with 382 (79.7%) adhering to guidelines. However, among the 341 patients included in the analysis of treatment duration adherence, only 69 (20.2%) received therapy durations that were consistent with guideline recommendations. Key predictors of longer-than-recommended therapy duration included a C-reactive protein (CRP) level exceeding 100 mg/L (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.18-1.59) and a hospital stay longer than two days (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.04-1.43). The primary factor contributing to extended antibiotic therapy duration was planned post-discharge treatment. No significant temporal trends in adherence to treatment duration guidelines were observed following the publication of the updated guidelines.

CONCLUSION

While adherence to guidelines for the choice of empirical antibiotic therapy was relatively high, adherence to guidelines for therapy duration was significantly lower, largely due to extended post-discharge antibiotic treatment. Our findings suggest that publishing updated guidelines alone is insufficient to change clinical practice. Targeted stewardship interventions, particularly those addressing discharge practices, are essential. Future research should compare adherence rates across institutions to identify factors contributing to higher adherence and develop standardized benchmarks for optimal antibiotic stewardship. Trial registration NCT04660084.

[What is the proportion of infectiology in the specialization urology? : A pilot study to underline the significance of Antibiotic Stewardship in urology]

BACKGROUND

Urinary tract infections account for one of the most bacterial infectious diseases worldwide.

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this pilot project was to identify the relative percentage of antibiotic use in comparison to all patients in a university medical center for the better establishment of antibiotic stewardship (ABS) programs.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is an epidemiological pilot project. In the time period of three months it was evaluated which relative percentage of the patients was treated with antibiotics for bacterial urinary tract infection in comparison to all patients.

RESULTS

In summary, about 40% of all urological patients received an antibiotic treatment against urinary tract infections or as perioperative prophylaxis against bacterial infection in the operating room (OR). The antibiotic use at the urological ward is highest in comparison to ambulance or OR.

CONCLUSION

Infectious diseases, especially bacterial infections, account for a significant part of urology. This knowledge is essential to establish ABS programs and to tackle the progression of antibiotic resistance. Detailed studies are necessary to understand antibiotic prescription practice in urology to develop targeted ABS interventions.

Impact of interactive computerised decision support for hospital antibiotic use (COMPASS): an open-label, cluster-randomised trial in three Swiss hospitals

Background

Computerised decision-support systems (CDSSs) for antibiotic stewardship could help to assist physicians in the appropriate prescribing of antibiotics. However, high-quality evidence for their effect on the quantity and quality of antibiotic use remains scarce. The aim of our study was to assess whether a computerised decision support for antimicrobial stewardship combined with feedback on prescribing indicators can reduce antimicrobial prescriptions for adults admitted to hospital.

Methods

The Computerised Antibiotic Stewardship Study (COMPASS) was a multicentre, cluster-randomised, parallel-group, open-label superiority trial that aimed to assess whether a multimodal computerised antibiotic-stewardship intervention is effective in reducing antibiotic use for adults admitted to hospital. After pairwise matching, 24 wards in three Swiss tertiary-care and secondary-care hospitals were randomised (1:1) to the CDSS intervention or to standard antibiotic stewardship measures using an online random sequence generator. The multimodal intervention consisted of a CDSS providing support for choice, duration, and re-evaluation of antimicrobial therapy, and feedback on antimicrobial prescribing quality. The primary outcome was overall systemic antibiotic use measured in days of therapy per admission, using adjusted-hurdle negative-binomial mixed-effects models. The analysis was done by intention to treat and per protocol. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT03120975).

Findings

24 clusters (16 at Geneva University Hospitals and eight at Ticino Regional Hospitals) were eligible and randomly assigned to control or intervention between Oct 1, 2018, and Dec 31, 2019. Overall, 4578 (40·2%) of 11 384 admissions received antibiotic therapy in the intervention group and 4142 (42·8%) of 9673 in the control group. The unadjusted overall mean days of therapy per admission was slightly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (3·2 days of therapy per admission, SD 6·2, vs 3·5 days of therapy per admission, SD 6·8; p<0·0001), and was similar among patients receiving antibiotics (7·9 days of therapy per admission, SD 7·6, vs 8·1 days of therapy per admission, SD 8·4; p=0·50). After adjusting for confounders, there was no statistically significant difference between groups for the odds of an admission receiving antibiotics (odds ratio [OR] for intervention vs control 1·12, 95% CI 0·94–1·33). For admissions with antibiotic exposure, days of therapy per admission were also similar (incidence rate ratio 0·98, 95% CI 0·90–1·07). Overall, the CDSS was used at least once in 3466 (75·7%) of 4578 admissions with any antibiotic prescription, but from the first day of antibiotic treatment for only 1602 (58·9%) of 2721 admissions in Geneva. For those for whom the CDSS was not used from the first day, mean time to use of CDSS was 8·9 days. Based on the manual review of 1195 randomly selected charts, transition from intravenous to oral therapy was significantly more frequent in the intervention group after adjusting for confounders (154 [76·6%] of 201 vs 187 [87%] of 215, +10·4%; OR 1·9, 95% CI 1·1–3·3). Consultations by infectious disease specialists were less frequent in the intervention group (388 [13·4%] of 2889) versus the control group (405 [16·9%] of 2390; OR 0·84, 95% CI 0·59–1·25).

Interpretation

An integrated multimodal computerised antibiotic stewardship intervention did not significantly reduce overall antibiotic use, the primary outcome of the study. Contributing factors were probably insufficient uptake, a setting with relatively low antibiotic use at baseline, and delays between ward admission and first CDSS use.

Funding

Swiss National Science Foundation.

Translations

For the French and Italian translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Tipping the balance: A systematic review and meta-ethnography to unfold the complexity of surgical antimicrobial prescribing behavior in hospital settings

Surgical specialties account for a high proportion of antimicrobial use in hospitals, and misuse has been widely reported resulting in unnecessary patient harm and antimicrobial resistance. We aimed to synthesize qualitative studies on surgical antimicrobial prescribing behavior, in hospital settings, to explain how and why contextual factors act and interact to influence practice. Stakeholder engagement was integrated throughout to ensure consideration of varying interpretive repertoires and that the findings were clinically meaningful. The meta-ethnography followed the seven phases outlined by Noblit and Hare. Eight databases were systematically searched without date restrictions. Supplementary searches were performed including forwards and backwards citation chasing and contacting first authors of included papers to highlight further work. Following screening, 14 papers were included in the meta-ethnography. Repeated reading of this work enabled identification of 48 concepts and subsequently eight overarching concepts: hierarchy; fear drives action; deprioritized; convention trumps evidence; complex judgments; discontinuity of care; team dynamics; and practice environment. The overarching concepts interacted to varying degrees but there was no consensus among stakeholders regarding an order of importance. Further abstraction of the overarching concepts led to the development of a conceptual model and a line-of-argument synthesis, which posits that social and structural mediators influence individual complex antimicrobial judgements and currently skew practice towards increased and unnecessary antimicrobial use. Crucially, our model provides insights into how we might ‘tip the balance’ towards more evidence-based antimicrobial use. Currently, healthcare workers deploy antimicrobials across the surgical pathway as a safety net to allay fears, reduce uncertainty and risk, and to mitigate against personal blame. Our synthesis indicates that prescribing is unlikely to change until the social and structural mediators driving practice are addressed. Furthermore, it suggests that research specifically exploring the context for effective and sustainable quality improvement stewardship initiatives in surgery is now urgent.

Institutional governance and responsiveness to antimicrobial resistance: a qualitative study of Australian hospital executives

OBJECTIVES

Despite escalating antimicrobial resistance (AMR), implementing effective antimicrobial optimisation within healthcare settings has been hampered by institutional impediments. This study sought to examine, from a hospital management and governance perspective, why healthcare providers may find it challenging to enact changes needed to address rising AMR.

DESIGN

Semistructured qualitative interviews around their experiences of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) and responsiveness to the requirement for optimisation. Data were analysed using the framework approach.

SETTING

Two metropolitan tertiary-referral hospitals in Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty hospital managers and executives from the organisational level of department head and above, spanning a range of professional backgrounds and in both clinical and non-clinical roles, and different professional streams were represented.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis demonstrated three key domains which managers and executives describe, and which might function to delimit institutional responsiveness to present and future AMR solutions. First, the primacy of 'political' priorities. AMR was perceived as a secondary priority, overshadowed by political priorities determined beyond the hospital by state health departments/ministries and election cycles. Second, the limits of accreditation as a mechanism for change. Hospital accreditation processes and regulatory structures were not sufficient to induce efficacious AMS. Third, a culture of acute problem 'solving' rather than future proofing. A culture of reactivity was described across government and healthcare institutions, precluding longer term objectives, like addressing the AMR crisis.

CONCLUSION

There are dynamics between political and health service institutions, as well as enduring governance norms, that may significantly shape capacity to enact AMS and respond to AMR. Until these issues are addressed, and the field moves beyond individual behaviour modification models, antimicrobial misuse will likely continue, and stewardship is likely to have a limited impact.

Rising significance of antibiotic stewardship in urology and urinary tract infections - a rapid review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To give an overview of the significance as well as recent developments in antibiotic stewardship (ABS) in urology and for the treatment of urinary tract infections (UTI). This rapid review is focused on recent publications during the past 18 months.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite the evidence to support the use of ABS interventions in the treatment of UTIs, there remains considerable inappropriate use of antibiotics, up to 68%, especially concerning the treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria and the overuse of fluoroquinolones. Emerging evidence indicate that ABS programs can improve patient outcome and reduce multidrug-resistant pathogens.Interestingly, in this past 18 months new targets for ABS have been developed, e.g. involvement of a pharmacist, strict adherence to guidelines, improvement of the guidelines itself and understanding the prescription process in the emergency room as well as the analysis of own surveillance data.

SUMMARY

ABS programs in urology are essential and their significance has become more apparent than ever before. New targets for ABS interventions should be evaluated in prospective controlled clinical trials of their effectiveness to reduce further inappropriate antibiotic use without hindering the treatment of UTIs.

Nationwide audit and feedback on implementation of antibiotic stewardship programmes in Norwegian hospitals

Background

Implementation of antibiotic stewardship programmes (ASPs) in hospitals is challenging and there is a knowledge gap on how to pursue this process efficiently.

Objectives

To evaluate whether audit and feedback (A&F) is a feasible and useful methodology to assess and support the implementation of ASPs in hospitals.

Methods

A multidisciplinary team performed document reviews and on-site interviews with professionals involved in the implementation of ASPs. Oral feedback on preliminary findings and areas of improvement were provided on-site, followed by feedback reports summarizing major findings and recommendations. Descriptive statistics were used to present number of hospital trusts, interviewees, professions, disciplines, workload and costs.

Results

All 22 hospital trusts in Norway participated in the A&F conducted October 2017 to April 2019. Altogether, 446 leaders and healthcare workers were interviewed: 110 leaders, 336 health professionals of whom 89 were antimicrobial stewardship team members. Median number of days from audits were performed till reporting were 36 (IQR 30-49). Median workload for auditors per visit was 7 days (6-8). Total costs were €133 952. Main audit findings were that ASP structures were established in most hospital trusts, but leadership commitment and implementation of interventions were often lacking. The hospital trusts received feedback on establishing governance structures, setting local targets, implementing interventions and increased involvement of nurses.

Conclusions

Nationwide A&F provides a unique and comprehensive insight into the implementation of ASPs in hospitals and is feasible with a reasonable amount of resources. This approach can identify targets for improved implementation of ASPs in hospitals.