Dataset Information

Assessing the impact of the Global Point Prevalence Survey of Antimicrobial Consumption and Resistance (Global-PPS) on hospital antimicrobial stewardship programmes: results of a worldwide survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Global Point Prevalence Survey of Antimicrobial Consumption and Resistance (Global-PPS) provides a methodology to support hospitals worldwide in collecting antimicrobial use data. We aim to evaluate the impact of the Global-PPS on local antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes and assess health care professionals' educational needs and barriers for implementing AMS.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was disseminated within the Global-PPS network. The target audience consisted of hospital healthcare workers, involved in local surveillance of antimicrobial consumption and resistance. This included contacts from hospitals that already participated in the Global-PPS or were planning to do so. The survey contained 24 questions that addressed the hospital's AMS activities, experiences conducting the PPS, as well as the learning needs and barriers for implementing AMS.

Results

A total of 248 hospitals from 74 countries participated in the survey, of which 192 had already conducted the PPS at least once. The survey response rate was estimated at 25%. In 96.9% of these 192 hospitals, Global-PPS participation had led to the identification of problems related to antimicrobial prescribing. In 69.3% at least one of the hospital's AMS components was initiated as a result of Global-PPS findings. The level of AMS implementation varied across regions. Up to 43.1% of all hospitals had a formal antimicrobial stewardship strategy, ranging from 10.8% in Africa to 60.9% in Northern America. Learning needs of hospitals in high-income countries and in low-and middle-income countries were largely similar and included general topics (e.g. 'optimising antibiotic treatment'), but also PPS-related topics (e.g. 'translating PPS results into meaningful interventions'). The main barriers to implementing AMS programmes were a lack of time (52.7%), knowledge on good prescribing practices (42.0%), and dedicated funding (39.9%). Hospitals in LMIC more often reported unavailability of prescribing guidelines, insufficient laboratory capacity and suboptimal use of the available laboratory services.

Conclusions

Although we observed substantial variation in the level of AMS implementation across regions, the Global-PPS has been very useful in informing stewardship activities in many participating hospitals. More is still to be gained in guiding hospitals to integrate the PPS throughout AMS activities, building on existing structures and processes.

SUBMITTER: Pauwels I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8478001 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatient-level surveillance (indication, appropriate choice, dosing, route, duration) of antimicrobial use in Canadian hospitals is needed to reduce antimicrobial overuse and misuse. Patient-level surveillance has not been performed on a national level in Canada. The Global Point Prevalence Survey of Antimicrobial Consumption and Resistance (Global-PPS) is an international collaborative to monitor antimicrobial use and resistance in hospitals worldwide. Global-PPS locally documents on a single day patient-level antimicrobial prescribing practices. This article presents the results of the 2017 Global-PPS in Canadian hospitals with established antimicrobial stewardship programs.MethodsHospitals part of the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program were invited to participate. Surveys could be performed any time in the 2017 calendar year. All in-patient wards in each hospital were surveyed by a physician, pharmacist or nurse with infectious disease training.ResultsFourteen Canadian hospitals participated in the survey. Of 4118 patients, 1400 patients (34.0%) received a total of 2041 antimicrobials. Overall, 73.1% (n = 1493) of antimicrobials were for therapeutic use, 14.2% (n = 288) were for medical prophylaxis, 8.3% (n = 170) were for surgical prophylaxis, 1.8% (n = 37) were for other reasons, and 0.2% (n = 3) were used as prokinetic agents. Only 2.5% (n = 50) were for unknown reasons. For antimicrobials for therapeutic use, 29.9% of patients were treated for lower respiratory tract (343/1147), 10.5% for intra-abdominal (120/1147), 9.3% for skin and soft tissue (107/1147) and 7.5% for gastro-intestinal (86/1147) infections.ConclusionsStandardized methodology amongst Global-PPSs allows the comparison of our results to the 2015 Global-PPS. The prevalence of antimicrobial use on medical, surgical, and intensive care wards are similar to those previously observed in North America. Indication of antimicrobials has not been previously reported on such a large scale in Canadian hospitals. This report serves as a comparison for further point prevalence surveys that are currently underway. It will be used for identifying opportunities and benchmarking in antibiotic stewardship.

Project description:BackgroundPatient-level surveillance of antimicrobial use (AMU) in Canadian hospitals empowers the reduction of inappropriate AMU and was piloted in 2017 among 14 hospitals in Canada. We aimed to describe AMU on the basis of patient-level data in Canadian hospitals in 2018 in terms of antimicrobial prescribing prevalence and proportions, antimicrobial indications, and agent selection in medical, surgical and intensive care wards.MethodsCanadian adult, pediatric and neonatal hospitals were invited to participate in the standardized web-based cross-sectional Global Point Prevalence Survey of Antimicrobial Consumption and Resistance (Global-PPS) conducted in 2018. An identified site administrator assigned all wards admitting inpatients to specific surveyors. A physician, pharmacist or nurse with infectious disease training performed the survey. The primary outcomes were point prevalence rates for AMU over the study period regarding prescriptions, indications and agent selection in medical, surgical and intensive care wards. The secondary outcomes were AMU for resistant organisms and practice appropriateness evaluated on the basis of quality indicators. Antimicrobial consumption is presented in terms of prevalence and proportions.ResultsForty-seven of 118 (39.8%) hospitals participated in the survey; 9 hospitals were primary care centres, 15 were secondary care centres and 23 were tertiary or specialized care centres. Of 13 272 patients included, 33.5% (n = 4447) received a total of 6525 antimicrobials. Overall, 74.1% (4832/6525) of antimicrobials were for therapeutic use, 12.6% (n = 825) were for medical prophylaxis, 8.9% (n = 578) were for surgical prophylaxis, 2.2% (n = 143) were for other use and 2.3% (n = 147) were for unidentified reasons. A diagnosis or indication was documented in the patient's file at the initiation for 87.3% (n = 5699) of antimicrobials; 62.9% (n = 4106) of antimicrobials had a stop or review date; and 72.0% (n = 4697) of prescriptions were guided by local guidelines.InterpretationOverall, three-quarters of AMU was for therapeutic use across participating hospitals. Canadian hospitals should be further incentivized to create and adapt local guidelines on the basis of recent antimicrobial resistance data.

Project description:IntroductionAntimicrobial stewardship (AMS) is an important strategy to control antimicrobial resistance. Resources are available to provide guidance for design and implementation of AMS programmes, however these may have limited applicability in resource-limited settings including those in Asia. This scoping review aims to identify context-specific domains and items for the development of a healthcare facility (HCF)-level tool to guide AMS implementation in Asia.Methods and analysisThis review is the first step in a larger project to assess AMS implementation, needs and gaps in Asia. We will employ a deductive qualitative approach to identify locally appropriate domains and items of AMS implementation guided by Nilsen and Bernhardsson's contextual dimensions. This process is also informed by discussions from a technical advisory group coordinated by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to develop an AMS HCF-level assessment tool for low-income and middle-income countries. We will review English-language documents that discuss HCF-level implementation, including those describing frameworks, components/elements or recommendations for design, implementation or assessment globally and specific to Asia. We have performed the search in August-September 2021 including general electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Google Scholar), region-specific databases, national action plans, grey literature sources and reference lists to identify eligible documents. Country-specific documents will be restricted to countries in three subregions: South Asia, East Asia and Southeast Asia. Codes and themes will be derived through a content analysis, classified following the predefined context dimensions and used for developing domains and items of the assessment tool.Ethics and disseminationResults from this review will feed into our stepwise process for developing a context-specific HCF-level assessment tool for AMS programmes to assess the implementation status, identify intervention opportunities and monitor progress over time. The process will be done in consultation with local stakeholders, the end-users of the generated knowledge.