Dataset Information

Implementation of an antimicrobial stewardship programme in three regional hospitals in the south-east of Liberia: lessons learned.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes can improve the use of antimicrobial agents. However, there is limited experience in the implementation of such programmes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Objectives

To assess the effect of AMS measures in south-east Liberia on the quality of antimicrobial use in three regional hospitals.

Methods

A bundle of three measures (local treatment guideline, training and regular AMS ward rounds) was implemented and quality indicators of antimicrobial use (i.e. correct compounds, dosage and duration) were assessed in a case series before and after AMS ward rounds. Primary endpoints were (i) adherence to the local treatment guideline; (ii) completeness of the microbiological diagnostics (according to the treatment guideline); and (iii) clinical outcome. The secondary endpoint was reduction in ceftriaxone use.

Results

The majority of patients had skin and soft tissue infections (n = 108) followed by surgical site infections (n = 72), pneumonia (n = 64), urinary tract infection (n = 48) and meningitis (n = 18). After the AMS ward rounds, adherence to the local guideline improved for the selection of antimicrobial agents (from 34.5% to 61.0%, P < 0.0005), dosage (from 15.2% to 36.5%, P < 0.0005) and duration (from 13.2% to 31.0%, P < 0.0005). In total, 79.7% of patients (247/310) had samples sent for microbiological analysis. Overall, 92.3% of patients improved on Day 3 (286/310). The proportion of patients receiving ceftriaxone was significantly reduced after the AMS ward rounds from 51.3% to 14.2% (P < 0.0005).

Conclusions

AMS measures can improve the quality of antimicrobial use in LMICs. However, long-term engagement is necessary to make AMS programmes in LMICs sustainable.

SUBMITTER: Alabi AS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9226657 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) describes activities concerned with safe-guarding antibiotics for the future, reducing drivers for the major global public health threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), whereby antibiotics are less effective in preventing and treating infections. Appropriate antibiotic prescribing is central to AMS. Whilst previous studies have explored the effectiveness of specific AMS interventions, largely from uni-professional perspectives, our literature search could not find any existing evidence evaluating the processes of implementing an integrated national AMS programme from multi-professional perspectives. METHODS:This study sought to explain mechanisms affecting the implementation of a national antimicrobial stewardship programme, from multi-professional perspectives. Data collection involved in-depth qualitative telephone interviews with 27 implementation lead clinicians from 14/15 Scottish Health Boards and 15 focus groups with doctors, nurses and clinical pharmacists (n = 72) from five Health Boards, purposively selected for reported prescribing variation. Data was first thematically analysed, barriers and enablers were then categorised, and Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used as an interpretive lens to explain mechanisms affecting the implementation process. Analysis addressed the NPT questions 'which group of actors have which problems, in which domains, and what sort of problems impact on the normalisation of AMS into everyday hospital practice'. RESULTS:Results indicated that major barriers relate to organisational context and resource availability. AMS had coherence for implementation leads and prescribing doctors; less so for consultants and nurses who may not access training. Conflicting priorities made obtaining buy-in from some consultants difficult; limited role perceptions meant few nurses or clinical pharmacists engaged with AMS. Collective individual and team action to implement AMS could be constrained by lack of medical continuity and hierarchical relationships. Reflexive monitoring based on audit results was limited by the capacity of AMS Leads to provide direct feedback to practitioners. CONCLUSIONS:This study provides original evidence of barriers and enablers to the implementation of a national AMS programme, from multi-professional, multi-organisational perspectives. The use of a robust theoretical framework (NPT) added methodological rigour to the findings. Our results are of international significance to healthcare policy makers and practitioners seeking to strengthen the sustainable implementation of hospital AMS programmes in comparable contexts.

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.