Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Skodvin B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8210241 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate the feasibility of establishing hospital-based antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes comprising action-planning, educational interventions and data feedback in two provincial-level hospitals in Viet Nam.Design and settingThis was an implementation research using participatory action process and existing resources from the Duke Antimicrobial Stewardship Outreach Network with local adjustments. A national stakeholder meeting and Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis were conducted to identify gaps and potential interventions.ParticipantsHospital AMS staff implemented activities throughout the study phases. Routinely collected patient data were analysed to support planning, implementation and evaluation.InterventionsHospitals were considered as a complex adaptive system and leveraged their unique characteristics and interconnections to develop 1-year plans containing core interventions (data use, educational training, prospective audit with feedback (PAF) and evaluations).Outcome measuresWe assessed feasibility using outputs from stakeholder meeting, SWOT analysis, baseline data, planning process and implementation.ResultsThe stakeholder meeting identified three gaps for AMS at national level: supportive policies, AMS training and core competencies and collaboration. At the hospitals, AMS programmes took 1 year for planning due to lack of hospital-specific procedures and relevant staff competencies. Baseline data (January-December 2019) showed variations in antibiotic consumption: 951 days of therapy (DOT) per 1000 days present in the control and 496 in the intervention wards in hospital 1, and 737 and 714 in hospital 2, respectively. During 1-year implementation, clinical pharmacists audited 1890 antibiotic prescriptions in hospital 1 (June 2020-May 2021) and 1628 in hospital 2 (July 2020-July 2021), and will continue PAF in their daily work.ConclusionOur data confirmed the need to contextualise AMS programmes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) and demonstrated the usefulness of implementation research design in assessing programme feasibility. Developing staff competencies, using local data to stimulate actions and integrating programme activities in routine hospital work are key to success in LMICs.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Inappropriate use of antimicrobials in hospitals contributes to antimicrobial resistance. Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions aim to improve antimicrobial prescribing, but they are often resource and personnel intensive. Computerised decision supportsystems (CDSSs) seem a promising tool to improve antimicrobial prescribing but have been insufficiently studied in clinical trials. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The COMPuterized Antibiotic Stewardship Study trial, is a publicly funded, open-label, cluster randomised, controlled superiority trial which aims to determine whether a multimodal CDSS intervention integrated in the electronic health record (EHR) reduces overall antibiotic exposure in adult patients hospitalised in wards of two secondary and one tertiary care centre in Switzerland compared with 'standard-of-care' AMS. Twenty-four hospital wards will be randomised 1:1 to either intervention or control, using a 'pair-matching' approach based on baseline antibiotic use, specialty and centre. The intervention will consist of (1) decision support for the choice of antimicrobial treatment and duration of treatment for selected indications (based on indication entry), (2) accountable justification for deviation from the local guidelines (with regard to the choice of molecules and duration), (3) alerts for self-guided re-evaluation of treatment on calendar day 4 of antimicrobial therapy and (4) monthly ward-level feedback of antimicrobial prescribing indicators. The primary outcome will be the difference in overall systemic antibiotic use measured in days of therapy per admission based on administration data recorded in the EHR over the whole intervention period (12 months), taking into account clustering. Secondary outcomes include qualitative and quantitative antimicrobial use indicators, economic outcomes and clinical, microbiological and patient safety indicators. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethics approval was obtained for all participating sites (Comission Cantonale d'Éthique de la Recherche (CCER)2017-00454). The results of the trial will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Further dissemination activities will be presentations/posters at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03120975; Pre-results.

Project description:Introduction: Implementing a sustainable and effective Antimicrobial Stewardship (AMS) programme in secondary level hospitals, in Low-Middle Income Country (LMIC) contexts, has numerous challenges. It is important to understand these challenges so that the stewardship initiatives can be tailored according to the unique requirements thrown up by these healthcare facilities. This study explores the experiences of implementing AMS in secondary level hospitals in the state of Kerala, India. Methods: A qualitative study was planned to map the challenges in implementing AMS in the secondary level hospitals. Toward the end of the 1 year followup period, the nodal officers at each hospital were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide. The in-depth interviews were transcribed and later subjected to content analysis using N-Vivo 11.0, a popular software tool used for qualitative analysis. Results: Many physicians cite perceived patient satisfaction as one of the reasons for increased antibiotic use, as many patients consider antibiotics as standard of care. Also, the distance traveled by the patient and advancing age are factors which increase antibiotic use. The physician factors which determine use include empiric treatment needs, outbreak of diseases, absence of education programmes in antibiotic usage to fill in the knowledge gap and fear of litigation. The promotional activities by companies and antibiotics being a major source of income for small hospitals, affects use patterns. The factors which determine antibiotic selection includes conformism, experience of the physician, perceived resistance to certain antibiotics, emergence of specific diseases, and promotional activities related to antimicrobial agents. The challenges in implementing a sustainable stewardship programme is multifactorial. It includes competition between doctors, time constraints faced by physicians, absence of a champion, sub-optimal interdepartmental cooperation, absence of supporting facilities, dysfunctional regulatory systems, and unreliability of antibiograms. Discussion: AMS in resource-limited setting is going to be a challenge, especially in terms of financing, access to technologies and capacity building. Political and regulatory willpower of international partnerships should be effectively harnessed for designing solutions for LMIC contexts. Also, models for stewardship from elsewhere should undergo an adaptation process before implementation in low resource settings.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a significant variation among individual primary care providers in prescribing of potentially problematic, low-value medicines which cause avoidable patient harm. Audit and feedback is generally effective at improving prescribing. However, progress has been hindered by research waste, leading to unanswered questions about how to include audit and feedback for specific problems and circumstances. Trials of different ways of providing audit and feedback in implementation laboratories have been proposed as a way of improving population healthcare while generating robust evidence on feedback effects. However, there is limited experience in their design and delivery.AimTo explore priorities, feasibility, and ethical challenges of establishing a primary care prescribing audit and feedback implementation laboratory.Design and settingTwo-stage Delphi consensus process involving primary care pharmacy leads, audit and feedback researchers, and patient and public.MethodParticipants initially scored statements relating to priorities, feasibility, and ethical considerations for an implementation laboratory. These covered current feedback practice, priority topics for feedback, usefulness of feedback in improving prescribing and different types of prescribing data, acceptability and desirability of different organization levels of randomization, options for trial consent, different methods of delivering feedback, and interest in finding out how effective different ways of presenting feedback would be. After receiving collated results, participants then scored the items again. The consensus was defined using the GRADE criteria. The results were analyzed by group and overall score.ResultsFourteen participants reached consensus for 38 out of 55 statements. Addressing antibiotic and opioid prescribing emerged as the highest priorities for action. The panel supported statements around addressing high-priority prescribing issues, taking an "opt-out" approach to practice consent if waiving consent was not permitted, and randomizing at lower rather than higher organizational levels. Participants supported patient-level prescribing data and further research evaluating most of the different feedback methods we presented them with.ConclusionsThere is a good level of support for evaluating a wide range of potential enhancements to improve the effects of feedback on prescribing. The successful design and delivery of a primary care audit and feedback implementation laboratory depend on identifying shared priorities and addressing practical and ethical considerations.