Practical Pharmacist-Led Interventions to Improve Antimicrobial Stewardship in Ghana, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kerr F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8293468 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) remains an important global public health issue with antimicrobial misuse and overuse being one of the main drivers. The Global Point Prevalence Survey (G-PPS) of Antimicrobial Consumption and Resistance assesses the prevalence and the quality of antimicrobial prescriptions across hospitals globally. G-PPS was carried out at 17 hospitals across Ghana, Uganda, Zambia and Tanzania. The overall prevalence of antimicrobial use was 50% (30-57%), with most antibiotics prescribed belonging to the WHO 'Access' and 'Watch' categories. No 'Reserve' category of antibiotics was prescribed across the study sites while antimicrobials belonging to the 'Not Recommended' group were prescribed infrequently. Antimicrobials were most often prescribed for prophylaxis for obstetric or gynaecological surgery, making up between 12 and 18% of total prescriptions across all countries. The most prescribed therapeutic subgroup of antimicrobials was 'Antibacterials for systemic use'. As a result of the programme, PPS data are now readily available for the first time in the hospitals, strengthening the global commitment to improved antimicrobial surveillance. Antimicrobial stewardship interventions developed included the formation of AMS committees, the provision of training and the preparation of new AMS guidelines. Other common interventions included the presentation of findings to clinicians for increased awareness, and the promotion of a multi-disciplinary approach to successful AMS programmes. Repeat PPS would be necessary to continually monitor the impact of interventions implemented. Broader participation is also encouraged to strengthen the evidence base.
| S-EPMC8469030 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a highly infectious disease that can be treated with antivirals in addition to other antimicrobials in cases of secondary or concomitant infections. This creates potential for antimicrobials misuse, which increases antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Pharmacists are known to undertake prominent roles in combatting AMR.AimThe aim of this review was to characterize pharmacist-driven interventions that have been performed in patients with COVID-19 globally and describe their impact on antimicrobial use.MethodWe followed the Joanna Briggs Institutes manual framework for scoping reviews in our study. Studies that reported antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions performed by pharmacists in COVID-19 patients were included. Articles that did not report outcomes or did not mention pharmacists in the intervention were excluded. Restrictions included English-only articles from inception date until June 2022. Articles were searched from four databases.ResultsEleven publications were included in the review. The most common AMS intervention was pharmacist-driven interventions reported in 63.2% of all studies, followed by guideline development and application (26.3%), and medication supply coordination (10.5%), respectively. The outcomes of the interventions were difficult to compare but showed a reduction in antimicrobial use and prevention of adverse drug reactions with a relatively high acceptance rate from physicians.ConclusionPharmacists played an important role in performing AMS-related interventions in COVID-19 patients and helped in the fight against the worsening of AMR during the pandemic. The impact of pharmacist-driven AMS interventions in patients with COVID-19 seemed to be positive and improved outcomes related to antimicrobial use.
| S-EPMC10171144 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Our antimicrobial pharmacist-led intervention included: (a) a structured review of antibiotic prescriptions; (b) educating prescribers on antimicrobial therapy; (c) monthly reporting of department-level rates of blood sampling for culture. Daily review began in May 2018 and was discontinued after 10 months; however, the other interventions were conducted throughout the study period. This study aimed to evaluate the sustained impact of pharmacist's interventions on antimicrobial therapy and clinical outcomes between the baseline (May-December 2017), intervention (May-December 2018), and post-intervention (May-December 2019) periods. The rate of blood culture collections before starting antipseudomonal agent therapy was significantly increased from the baseline to post-intervention periods (71% vs. 85%, p < 0.001). Antipseudomonal agent therapy was more frequently de-escalated in the post-intervention period than in the baseline period (73% vs. 54%, p = 0.038). Total use of antipseudomonal agents was reduced from the baseline to intervention periods and persisted during the post-intervention period (50.5 vs. 41.8 and 42.6 DDD per 1000 patient-days, p = 0.016 and p = 0.022, respectively). During the study period, there were significant reductions in the incidence of hospital-acquired Clostridioides difficile infection (1.12, 0.54, and 0.51 per 10,000 patient-days, respectively, p = 0.031) and 30-day mortality with bacteremia (19%, 18%, and 12%, respectively, p = 0.005). Our pharmacist-led interventions sustainably achieved appropriate antimicrobial therapy and improved clinical outcomes.
| S-EPMC8837014 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:In the past decade, direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOAC) have been introduced to medical practice for several indications, with a wide range of dosing regimens. As both over- and under-dosing might lead to life-threatening events, development of methods promoting safe and effective utilization of these agents is imperative. The Hadassah Clinical Pharmacy team initiated a hospital-wide program, for monitoring and promoting safe and effective prescription of DOAC during hospitalization. This study describes the types of drug related problems addressed and the program's performance in terms of consultation rates and physician acceptance. METHODS:Electronic medical records throughout the hospital were screened for DOAC orders. All DOAC orders were assessed by a clinical pharmacist for potentially-inappropriate prescribing. When potentially-inappropriate prescribing or a drug-related problem was identified, the clinical pharmacist provided consultation on management options. In specific cases, additional guidance was provided by coagulation and pharmacology specialists. Data on patient characteristics, clinical pharmacist consultations, and physician response was retrospectively retrieved for the first six months of 2017. Characteristics of patients with and without consultations were compared, consultations were categorized by the recommended management of the drug related problem, and physician acceptance rates were evaluated by category. RESULTS:During the evaluated period, 585 patients with DOAC orders were identified. Patients were evenly distributed by gender, and age averaged 78?years. Most patients received apixaban (75%) followed by rivaroxaban (14%) and dabigatran (11%), and most (63%) received "reduced dose" regimens. Clinical pharmacists provided 258 consultations for 210 patients, regarding anticoagulation management, such that more than one in three patients on DOAC had potentially inappropriate prescribing or drug related problems. Consultations included alerts regarding potentially inappropriate DOAC doses and recommendations to increase (29%) or decrease (5%) the dose, potentially inappropriate concomitant antiplatelet agents (20%), need for DOAC level monitoring (23%), and alerts regarding other drug related problems (23%). More than 70% of recommendations were accepted by the attending physician. CONCLUSION:Due to the complexity of DOAC management, potentially-inappropriate prescribing and drug related problems are common. Multidisciplinary collaborative projects including review and consultation by clinical pharmacists are an effective method of improving management of patients on DOAC. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Retrospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03527615 .
| S-EPMC6357500 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDeaths due to overdose from illicit drugs have risen in Canada, despite various community-led harm reduction programs. There have been limited pharmacist-led inpatient initiatives aimed at reducing opioid harm. The authors' group recently developed and implemented the Medication and Risk Factor Review, Optimize, Refer at Risk Patients, Educate and Plan (MORE) tool, a systematic checklist designed to help pharmacists follow and enhance the safety of in-hospital opioid prescribing.ObjectivesTo evaluate the impact of a pharmacist-led opioid stewardship program utilizing the MORE tool in the care of patients at one tertiary teaching hospital.MethodsThis study involved a review of health care records for patients admitted to general surgery and internal medicine clinical teaching units at a tertiary hospital between September 10 and December 31, 2018, for whom opioids were prescribed during the hospital stay. A descriptive data analysis was performed for patients who underwent assessment with the MORE tool.ResultsOf the 210 patients who met the initial eligibility criteria, including in-hospital opioid therapy for at least 3 days, 50 were assessed by a pharmacist using the MORE tool. For 40 (80%) of these patients, the pharmacist recommended an intervention, and 35 (87.5%) of these interventions were accepted by the prescriber. Among all 50 patients, the most common pharmacist interventions were adding or optimizing non-opioid pain medications (23 patients [46%]), decreasing opioid dose or frequency (15 patients [30%]), and adding a bowel regimen (9 patients [18%]).ConclusionsMost patients who underwent assessment by a pharmacist had risk factors for adverse events from opioid prescriptions and/or suboptimal orders and drug combinations. The MORE tool provided a guided approach for pharmacists to make targeted interventions aimed at improving opioid safety. A dedicated opioid stewardship pharmacist might be able to provide additional benefit.
| S-EPMC8237948 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Intense antibiotic consumption in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) is fueled by critical gaps in laboratory infrastructure and entrenched syndromic management of infectious syndromes. Few data inform the achievability and impact of antimicrobial stewardship interventions, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa. Our goal was to demonstrate the feasibility of a pharmacist-led laboratory-supported intervention at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and report on antimicrobial use and clinical outcomes associated with the intervention. Methods: This was a single-center prospective quasi-experimental study conducted in two phases: (i) an intervention phase (November 2017 to August 2018), during which we implemented weekly audit and immediate (verbal and written) feedback sessions on antibiotic prescriptions of patients admitted in 2 pediatric and 2 adult medicine wards, and (ii) a post-intervention phase (September 2018 to January 2019) during which we audited antibiotic prescriptions but provided no feedback to the treating teams. The intervention was conducted by an AMS team consisting of 4 clinical pharmacists (one trained in AMS) and one ID specialist. Our primary outcome was antimicrobial utilization (measured as days of therapy (DOT) per 1,000 patient-days and duration of antibiotic treatment courses); secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay and in-hospital all-cause mortality. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to explore factors associated with all-cause in-hospital mortality. Results: We collected data on 1,109 individual patients (707 during the intervention and 402 in the post-intervention periods). Ceftriaxone, vancomycin, cefepime, meropenem, and metronidazole were the most commonly prescribed antibiotics; 96% of the recommendations made by the AMS team were accepted. The AMS team recommended to discontinue antibiotic therapy in 54% of cases during the intervention period. Once the intervention ceased, total antimicrobial use increased by 51.6% and mean duration of treatment by 4.1 days/patient. Mean LOS stay as well as crude mortality also increased significantly in the post-intervention phase (LOS: 24.1 days vs. 19.8 days; in hospital death 14.7 vs. 6.9%). The difference in mortality remained significant after adjusting for potential confounders. Conclusions: A pharmacist-led AMS intervention focused on duration of antibiotic treatment was feasible and had good acceptability in our setting. Cessation of audit-feedback activities was associated with immediate and sustained increases in antibiotic consumption reflecting a rapid return to baseline (pre-intervention) prescribing practices, and worse clinical outcomes (increased length of stay and in-hospital mortality). Pharmacist-led audit-feedback activities can effectively reduce antimicrobial consumption and result in better-quality care, but require organizational leadership's commitment for sustainable benefits.
| S-EPMC7160317 | biostudies-literature
Project description:While interest in antimicrobial stewardship programmes (ASPs) is growing in most low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), there is a paucity of information on their adoption or implementation in Africa, particularly Uganda. The study assessed the presence and characteristics of ASPs, implemented antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) strategies and the challenges to their implementation in hospitals in Uganda. We conducted a cross-sectional study among heads of infection prevention committees (IPCs) in regional referral hospitals, general hospitals, and private-not-for-profit (PNFP) hospitals from November 2019 to February 2020. An interviewer-administered questionnaire was used to collect data. We analysed data using descriptive statistics. A total of 32 heads of IPCs were enrolled in the study. Of these, eight were from regional referral hospitals, 21 were from general hospitals, and three were from PNFPs. Most heads of IPC were pharmacists (17/32, 53.1%) with a mean age and standard deviation (sd) of 36.1 (±1.1) years. A formal ASP was adopted or implemented in 14 out of the 32 (44%, 95% CI 26-62) studied hospitals. Thirty out of 32 hospitals implemented at least one type of AMS strategy. Sixty-eight percent (22/32) of the hospitals implemented pre-authorisation and approval as their primary AMS core strategy to optimise antibacterial use. The most commonly reported challenges to the implementation of ASP across all 32 hospitals (with or without ASP) were lack of time for the ASP team (29/32, 90.6%) and lack of allocated funding for antimicrobial stewardship team (29/32, 90.6%). In this study, most hospitals in Uganda implemented at least one AMS strategy despite the low implementation of ASPs in hospitals. The ministry of health needs to sensitise and support the establishment of ASP in hospitals across the country.
| S-EPMC9089898 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAs meropenem is a restricted antimicrobial, lessons learned from its real-life usage will be applicable to antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) more generally.ObjectivesTo retrospectively evaluate meropenem usage at our institution to identify targets for AMS interventions.MethodsPatients receiving meropenem documented with an 'alert antimicrobial' form at two tertiary care UK hospitals were identified retrospectively. Clinical records and microbiology results were reviewed.ResultsA total of 107 adult inpatients receiving meropenem were identified. This was first-line in 47% and escalation therapy in 53%. Source control was required in 28% of cases after escalation, for predictable reasons. Those ultimately requiring source control had received more prior antimicrobial agents than those who did not (P = 0.03). Meropenem was rationalized in 24% of cases (after median 4 days). Positive microbiology enabled rationalization (OR 12.3, 95% CI 2.7-55.5, P = 0.001) but rates of appropriate sampling varied. In cases with positive microbiology where meropenem was not rationalized, continuation was retrospectively considered clinically and microbiologically necessary in 8/40 cases (0/17 empirical first-line usage). Rationalization was more likely when meropenem susceptibility was not released on the microbiology report (OR 5.2, 95% CI 1.3-20.2, P = 0.02). Input from an infection specialist was associated with a reduced duration of meropenem therapy (P < 0.0001). Early review by an infection specialist has the potential to further facilitate rationalization.ConclusionsIn real-life clinical practice, core aspects of infection management remain tractable targets for AMS interventions: microbiological sampling, source control and infection specialist input. Further targets include supporting rationalization to less familiar carbapenem-sparing antimicrobials, restricting first-line meropenem usage and selectively reporting meropenem susceptibility.
| S-EPMC8210134 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPharmacist prescribing authority is expanding, while antimicrobial resistance is an increasing global concern. We sought to synthesize the evidence for antimicrobial prescribing by community pharmacists to identify opportunities to advance antimicrobial stewardship in this setting.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review to characterize the existing literature on community pharmacist prescribing of systemic antimicrobials. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts for English-language articles published between 1999 and June 20, 2019, as well as hand-searched reference lists of included articles and incorporated expert suggestions.ResultsOf 3793 articles identified, 14 met inclusion criteria. Pharmacists are most often prescribing for uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI), acute pharyngitis and cold sores using independent and supplementary prescribing models. This was associated with high rates of clinical improvement (4 studies), low rates of retreatment and adverse effects (3 studies) and decreased health care utilization (7 studies). Patients were highly satisfied (8 studies) and accessed care sooner or more easily (7 studies). Seven studies incorporated antimicrobial stewardship into study design, and there was overlap between study outcomes and those relevant to outpatient antimicrobial stewardship. Pharmacist intervention reduced unnecessary prescribing for acute pharyngitis (2 studies) and increased the appropriateness of prescribing for UTI (3 studies).ConclusionThere is growing evidence to support the role of community pharmacists in antimicrobial prescribing. Future research should explore additional opportunities for pharmacist antimicrobial prescribing and ways to further integrate advanced antimicrobial stewardship strategies in the community setting. Can Pharm J (Ott) 2021;154:xx-xx.
| S-EPMC8165883 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe feasibility of core Infectious Diseases Society of America-recommended antimicrobial stewardship interventions in community hospitals is unknown.ObjectiveTo determine the feasibility and results of implementing 2 core stewardship intervention strategies in community hospitals.Design, setting, and participantsThree-stage, multicenter, prospective nonrandomized clinical trial with crossover design. The setting was 4 community hospitals in North Carolina (median bed size, 305; range, 102-425). Participants were all patients receiving targeted study antibacterial agents or alternative, nonstudy antibacterial agents. The study dates were October 2014 through October 2015. All statistical analyses were completed as of October 2016.InterventionsTwo antimicrobial stewardship strategies targeted vancomycin hydrochloride, piperacillin-tazobactam, and the antipseudomonal carbapenems on formulary at the study hospitals: (1) modified preauthorization (PA), in which the prescriber had to receive pharmacist approval for continued use of the antibiotic after the first dose, and (2) postprescription audit and review (PPR), in which the pharmacist would engage the prescriber about antibiotic appropriateness after 72 hours of therapy. Two hospitals performed modified PA for 6 months, then PPR for 6 months after a 1-month washout. The other 2 hospitals performed the reverse.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the feasibility of implementing the interventions, determined by (1) approval by hospital administration and committees at each study hospital; (2) completion of pharmacist training; (3) initiation and implementation as determined by number, type, and outcomes of interventions performed; and (4) time required for interventions. Secondary outcomes included antimicrobial use (days of therapy) compared with matched historical periods and length of hospitalization.ResultsA total of 2692 patients (median age, 65 years; interquartile range, 53-76 years) underwent a study intervention; 1413 (52.5%) were female, 1323 (49.1%) were white, and 1047 (38.9%) were African American. Intervention approvals took a median of 95 days (range, 56-119 days); during these discussions, strict PA was deemed not feasible. Instead, the modified PA intervention was used throughout the study. Pharmacists performed 1456 modified PA interventions (median per hospital, 350 [range, 129-628]) and 1236 PPR interventions (median per hospital, 298 [range, 273-366]). Study antimicrobials were determined to be inappropriate 2 times as often during the PPR period (41.0% [435 of 1060] vs 20.4% [253 of 1243]; P < .001). Pharmacists recommended dose change more often during the modified PA intervention (15.9% [232 of 1456] vs 9.6% [119 of 1236]; P < .001) and de-escalation during PPR (29.1% [360 of 1236] vs 13.0% [190 of 1456]; P < .001). The median time dedicated to the stewardship interventions varied by hospital (range of median hours per week, 5-19). Overall antibiotic use decreased during PPR compared with historical controls (mean [SD] days of therapy per 1000 patient-days, 925.2 [109.8] vs 965.3 [109.4]; mean difference, -40.1; 95% CI, -71.7 to -8.6), but not during modified PA (mean [SD] days of therapy per 1000 patient-days, 931.0 [102.0] vs 926.6 [89.7]; mean difference, 4.4; 95% CI, -55.8 to 64.7).Conclusions and relevanceStrict PA was not feasible in the study hospitals. In contrast, PPR was a feasible and effective strategy for antimicrobial stewardship in settings with limited resources and expertise.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02212808.
| S-EPMC6704742 | biostudies-literature