scholarly journals Establishing a baseline for a national paediatric antimicrobial stewardship programme

2019 ◽  
Vol 74 (10) ◽  
pp. 3104-3110
Author(s):  
C L Gibbons ◽  
W Malcolm ◽  
J Sneddon ◽  
C Doherty ◽  
S Cairns ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antimicrobial Stewardship ◽  
Antimicrobial Use ◽  
Local Policy ◽  
Prevalence Survey ◽  
Antimicrobial Prescribing ◽  
Common Diagnosis ◽  
Acute Hospitals ◽  
Healthcare Associated ◽  
Hospital Acquired ◽  
National Prevalence

Abstract Background The majority of antimicrobial stewardship programmes focus on prescribing in adult populations; however, there is a recognized need for targeted paediatric antimicrobial stewardship to improve the quality and safety of prescribing amongst this patient group. Objectives To describe the current epidemiology of antimicrobial prescribing in paediatric inpatient populations in Scotland to establish a baseline of evidence and identify priority areas for quality improvement to support a national paediatric antimicrobial stewardship programme. Methods A total of 559 paediatric inpatients were surveyed during the Scottish national point prevalence survey of healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial prescribing, 2016. The prevalence of antimicrobial prescribing was calculated and characteristics of antimicrobial prescribing were described as proportions and compared between specialist hospitals and paediatric wards in acute hospitals. Results Prevalence of antimicrobial use in paediatric inpatients was 35.4% (95% CI = 31.6%–39.4%). Treatment of community- and hospital-acquired infections accounted for 47.1% and 20.7% of antimicrobial use, respectively, with clinical sepsis being the most common diagnosis and gentamicin the most frequently prescribed antimicrobial for the treatment of infection. The reason for prescribing was documented in the notes for 86.5% of all prescriptions and, of those assessed for compliance against local policy, 92.9% were considered compliant. Conclusions Data from national prevalence surveys are advantageous when developing antimicrobial stewardship programmes. Results have highlighted differences in the prescribing landscape between paediatric inpatient populations in specialist hospitals and acute hospitals, and have informed priorities for the national antimicrobial stewardship programme, which reinforces the need for a targeted paediatric antimicrobial stewardship programme.

Antimicrobial stewardship activities: a survey of Queensland hospitals

2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (5) ◽  
pp. 557 ◽  
Author(s):  
Minyon L. Avent ◽  
Lisa Hall ◽  
Louise Davis ◽  
Michelle Allen ◽  
Jason A. Roberts ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Service ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Antimicrobial Stewardship ◽  
Antimicrobial Use ◽  
Healthcare Associated Infections ◽  
Training And Education ◽  
Antimicrobial Prescribing ◽  
Barriers To Implementation ◽  
Healthcare Associated ◽  
And Training

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.

The impact of digital interventions on antimicrobial stewardship in hospitals: A qualitative synthesis of systematic reviews (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bethany A Van Dort ◽  
Jonathan Penm ◽  
Angus Ritchie ◽  
Melissa T Baysari
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Antimicrobial Stewardship ◽  
Digital Health ◽  
Hospital Setting ◽  
Antimicrobial Use ◽  
Qualitative Synthesis ◽  
Large Variability ◽  
Antimicrobial Prescribing ◽  
Digital Interventions ◽  
The Impact

BACKGROUND Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programs aim to optimize antimicrobial use by utilizing a suite of coordinated strategies. With the increased use of health information technology in hospitals, AMS processes that were traditionally paper-based are becoming computerized and streamlined. A number of reviews on digital interventions supporting AMS have been performed, so we performed a review of reviews to consolidate findings OBJECTIVE To provide a systematic overview and synthesis of evidence on the effectiveness of digital interventions to improve antimicrobial prescribing and monitoring in hospitals. METHODS Databases: Medline, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from 2010 onwards. Papers were eligible if they included studies that examined the effectiveness of digital health interventions related to antimicrobial prescribing and monitoring, in an inpatient hospital setting. Papers were excluded if they did not include a clearly defined search strategy, if they were limited to a pediatric setting, or they were not in English. RESULTS Seven systematic reviews were included for data extraction. Five reviews were of moderate quality and two of low quality. A large number of digital interventions were evaluated, with a strong focus on clinical decision support. There was a large variability in outcome measures used. Six reviews reported that digital interventions reduced antimicrobial use and improved antimicrobial appropriateness. The impact of digital interventions on clinical outcomes was inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS The results of this review indicate digital interventions, regardless of type, reduce antimicrobial use and improve antimicrobial appropriateness in hospitals. We recommend hospitals consider implementing one or more digital interventions to facilitate AMS programs.

scholarly journals Antimicrobial Use in US Hospitals: Comparison of Results From Emerging Infections Program Prevalence Surveys, 2015 and 2011

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shelley S Magill ◽  
Erin O’Leary ◽  
Susan M Ray ◽  
Marion A Kainer ◽  
Christopher Evans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Records ◽  
Generation Cephalosporin ◽  
Fourth Generation ◽  
Antimicrobial Use ◽  
Emerging Infections ◽  
Prevalence Survey ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Binomial Regression ◽  
Healthcare Associated ◽  
Critical Care Patients

Abstract Background In the 2011 US hospital prevalence survey of healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial use 50% of patients received antimicrobial medications on the survey date or day before. More hospitals have since established antimicrobial stewardship programs. We repeated the survey in 2015 to determine antimicrobial use prevalence and describe changes since 2011. Methods The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Emerging Infections Program sites in 10 states each recruited ≤25 general and women’s and children’s hospitals. Hospitals selected a survey date from May–September 2015. Medical records for a random patient sample on the survey date were reviewed to collect data on antimicrobial medications administered on the survey date or day before. Percentages of patients on antimicrobial medications were compared; multivariable log-binomial regression modeling was used to evaluate factors associated with antimicrobial use. Results Of 12 299 patients in 199 hospitals, 6084 (49.5%; 95% CI, 48.6–50.4%) received antimicrobials. Among 148 hospitals in both surveys, overall antimicrobial use prevalence was similar in 2011 and 2015, although the percentage of neonatal critical care patients on antimicrobials was lower in 2015 (22.8% vs 32.0% [2011]; P = .006). Fluoroquinolone use was lower in 2015 (10.1% of patients vs 11.9% [2011]; P < .001). Third- or fourth-generation cephalosporin use was higher (12.2% vs 10.7% [2011]; P = .002), as was carbapenem use (3.7% vs 2.7% [2011]; P < .001). Conclusions Overall hospital antimicrobial use prevalence was not different in 2011 and 2015; however, differences observed in selected patient or antimicrobial groups may provide evidence of stewardship impact.

scholarly journals 19. A Global Point Prevalence Survey of Antimicrobial Use in Neonatal Intensive Care Units

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S10-S10
Author(s):  
Pavel Prusakov ◽  
Debra A Goff ◽  
Phillip Wozniak ◽  
Pablo J Sanchez
Keyword(s):  
Antimicrobial Stewardship ◽  
Antimicrobial Therapy ◽  
Point Prevalence ◽  
Initial Assessment ◽  
Definitive Treatment ◽  
P Value ◽  
Antimicrobial Use ◽  
Site Location ◽  
Prevalence Survey ◽  
Research Grant

Abstract Background Antimicrobials are one of the most commonly used medications in the NICU. We aimed to gather baseline global data on antimicrobial use to facilitate subsequent antimicrobial stewardship efforts. Methods We conducted a one-day global NICU point prevalence study on July 1, 2019 with a 30-day follow up. Data collection included patient demographics, antimicrobial therapy, site location, antimicrobial stewardship (AS) practices as well as the duration of antimicrobial therapy and in-hospital mortality were recorded. Results Eighty-one NICUs from twenty-eight different countries identified 2,163 admitted patients of which 570 (26%) were prescribed at least one antimicrobial. Three NICUs did not have any patients on antimicrobial therapy, all had less than 20 patients admitted. Level 3 and Level 4 NICUs comprised 51% and 48% respectively. Delivery units comprised 74%, the rest were referral centers. AS programs were in place in 62% of the hospitals and 47% of the units had NICU specific initiatives. Patients were on average 32.5 weeks gestational age (+/-5.3 SD), with birth weight of 1976 grams (+/- 1022 SD), and were 32 days (+/-65 SD) postnatal age at the time of the study. Antibiotics were the most frequently used medication in 92% of patients with 931 antibiotics prescribed on the assessment day. Hospitals with any NICU AS initiative had significantly lower rates of antibiotic utilization compared to NICUs without AS (21% and 32%; p-value: < 0.01). Of those on antibiotic therapy, ampicillin, gentamicin and amikacin were prescribed to 41%, 34%, and 21% of patients respectively. When only definitive treatment was evaluated, vancomycin, amikacin, and meropenem were the highest prescribed antibacterial agents at 25%, 19%, and 19% respectively. At the initial assessment, study participants indicated either 3 or 7 days (37% and 26%) for planned duration. Actual treatment duration for empiric and definitive treatment, was 7 and 14 days (29% and 19%) When comparing patients who had an established treatment course at the time of the initial assessment, the final length of treatment for culture negative sepsis was 7 (IQR:5–10) and culture positive sepsis was 11 days (IQR:10–14; p-value: 0.07). Conclusion Benchmarking global antimicrobial use is crucial for improving NICU-AS practices. Disclosures Pavel Prusakov, PharmD, Merck (Research Grant or Support) Debra A. Goff, PharmD, Merck (Research Grant or Support)

The 2007 Belgian national prevalence survey for hospital-acquired infections

2010 ◽  
Vol 75 (3) ◽  
pp. 163-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Gordts ◽  
F. Vrijens ◽  
F. Hulstaert ◽  
S. Devriese ◽  
S. Van de Sande
Keyword(s):  
Prevalence Survey ◽  
Hospital Acquired Infections ◽  
Hospital Acquired ◽  
National Prevalence
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document