The impact of digital interventions on antimicrobial stewardship in hospitals: a qualitative synthesis of systematic reviews.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes in hospitals support optimal antimicrobial use by utilizing strategies such as restriction policies and education. Several systematic reviews on digital interventions supporting AMS have been conducted but they have focused on specific interventions and outcomes.Objectives
To provide a systematic overview and synthesis of evidence on the effectiveness of digital interventions to improve antimicrobial prescribing and monitoring in hospitals.Methods
Multiple databases were searched from 2010 onwards. Review papers were eligible if they included studies that examined the effectiveness of AMS digital interventions in an inpatient hospital setting. Papers were excluded if they were not systematic reviews, were limited to a paediatric setting, or were not in English.Results
Eight systematic reviews were included for data extraction. A large number of digital interventions were evaluated, with a strong focus on clinical decision support. Due to the heterogeneity of the interventions and outcome measures, a meta-analysis could not be performed. The majority of reviews reported that digital interventions reduced antimicrobial use and improved antimicrobial appropriateness. The impact of digital interventions on clinical outcomes was inconsistent.Conclusions
Digital interventions reduce antimicrobial use and improve antimicrobial appropriateness in hospitals, but no firm conclusions can be drawn about the degree to which different types of digital interventions achieve these outcomes. Evaluation of sociotechnical aspects of digital intervention implementation is limited, despite the critical role that user acceptance, uptake and feasibility play in ensuring improvements in AMS are achieved with digital health.
SUBMITTER: Van Dort BA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9244225 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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
Project description:BackgroundRandomized trials of hospital antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions aimed to optimize antimicrobial use contribute less to the evidence base due to heterogeneity in outcome selection and reporting. Developing a core outcome set (COS) for these interventions can be a way to address this problem. The first step in developing a COS is to identify and map all outcomes.ObjectivesTo identify outcomes reported in systematic reviews of hospital AMS interventions.MethodsCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE and Embase were searched for systematic reviews published up until August 2019 of interventions relevant to reducing unnecessary antimicrobial use for inpatient populations in secondary care hospitals. The methodological quality of included reviews was assessed using AMSTAR-2, A (revised) MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews. Extracted outcomes were analysed using deductive and inductive thematic analysis. A list of overarching (unique) outcomes reflects the outcomes identified within the systematic reviews.ResultsForty-one systematic reviews were included. Thirty-three (81%) systematic reviews were of critically low or low quality. A long list of 1739 verbatim outcomes was identified and categorized under five core areas of COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) taxonomy: 'resources use' (45%), 'physiological/clinical' (27%), 'life impact' (16%), 'death' (8%) and 'adverse events' (4%). A total of 421 conceptually different outcomes were identified and grouped into 196 overarching outcomes.ConclusionsThere is significant heterogeneity in outcomes reported for hospital AMS interventions. Reported outcomes do not cover all domains of the COMET framework and may miss outcomes relevant to patients (e.g. emotional, social functioning, etc.). The included systematic reviews lacked methodological rigour, which warrants further improvements.
| S-EPMC9806591 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs (ASP) were introduced in healthcare as a public health priority to promote appropriate prescribing of antimicrobials, to reduce adverse events related to antimicrobials, as well as to control the escalating challenges of antimicrobial resistance. To deliver aimed outcome objectives, ASPs involve multiple connected implementation process measures. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate both concepts of ASPs. Guided by PRISMA frames, published systematic reviews (SR) focusing on ASPs restricted to secondary and tertiary healthcare were evaluated over the past 10 years involving all age groups. Out of 265 identified SR studies, 63 met the inclusion criteria. The majority were conducted in Europe and North America, with limited studies from other regions. In the reviewed studies, all age groups were examined, although they were conducted mainly on adults when compared to children and infants. Both process and outcomes measures of ASPs were examined equally and simultaneously through 25 different concepts, dominated by efficacy, antimicrobial resistance, and economic impact, while information technology as well as role of pharmacy and behavioral factors were equally examined. The main broad conclusions from the review were that, across the globe, ASPs demonstrated effectiveness, proved efficacy, and confirmed efficiency, while focused evaluation advocated that developed countries should target medium- and small-sized hospitals while developing countries should continue rolling ASPs across healthcare facilities. Additionally, the future of ASPs should focus on embracing evolving information technology to bridge the gaps in knowledge, skills, and attitude, as well as to enhance appropriate decision making.
| S-EPMC10967423 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Mobile phone usage has been rapidly increasing worldwide. mHealth could efficiently deliver high-quality health care, but the evidence supporting its current effectiveness is still mixed.We performed a systematic review of systematic reviews to assess the impact or effectiveness of mobile health (mHealth) interventions in different health conditions and in the processes of health care service delivery.We used a common search strategy of five major scientific databases, restricting the search by publication date, language, and parameters in methodology and content. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist.The searches resulted in a total of 10,689 articles. Of these, 23 systematic reviews (371 studies; more than 79,665 patients) were included. Seventeen reviews included studies performed in low- and middle-income countries. The studies used diverse mHealth interventions, most frequently text messaging (short message service, SMS) applied to different purposes (reminder, alert, education, motivation, prevention). Ten reviews were rated as low quality (AMSTAR score 0-4), seven were rated as moderate quality (AMSTAR score 5-8), and six were categorized as high quality (AMSTAR score 9-11). A beneficial impact of mHealth was observed in chronic disease management, showing improvement in symptoms and peak flow variability in asthma patients, reducing hospitalizations and improving forced expiratory volume in 1 second; improving chronic pulmonary diseases symptoms; improving heart failure symptoms, reducing deaths and hospitalization; improving glycemic control in diabetes patients; improving blood pressure in hypertensive patients; and reducing weight in overweight and obese patients. Studies also showed a positive impact of SMS reminders in improving attendance rates, with a similar impact to phone call reminders at reduced cost, and improved adherence to tuberculosis and human immunodeficiency virus therapy in some scenarios, with evidence of decrease of viral load.Although mHealth is growing in popularity, the evidence for efficacy is still limited. In general, the methodological quality of the studies included in the systematic reviews is low. For some fields, its impact is not evident, the results are mixed, or no long-term studies exist. Exceptions include the moderate quality evidence of improvement in asthma patients, attendance rates, and increased smoking abstinence rates. Most studies were performed in high-income countries, implying that mHealth is still at an early stage of development in low-income countries.
| S-EPMC5792697 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is little information on the prevalence and type of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) activities that are currently occurring in Australian hospitals.ObjectivesTo determine what AMS activities are currently occurring in Australian hospitals, identify gaps in compliance with the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC) standards and determine perceived barriers and enablers for implementing AMS programmes.MethodsA cross-sectional survey open to all Australian hospitals, conducted online and available to hospitals between November 2016 and July 2017.ResultsResponses were received from 254 hospitals. Compliance with ACSQHC AMS essential activities was high, except for essential activity 3 (post-prescription reviews), which was conducted by only 39% of respondent hospitals. Importantly, compliance varied by hospital remoteness classification for all activities except essential activity 1 (availability and endorsement of guidelines) and additional activity 4 (publishing antimicrobial susceptibility data annually), with major city hospitals having the highest compliance across all activities. The three most frequently reported barriers to implementing AMS programmes were a lack of training and education, lack of pharmacy resources and a lack of willingness from medical officers to change.ConclusionsDue to low response rates from certain hospital groups, the survey results are not generalizable to all Australia hospitals. This survey has identified that several gaps in compliance still exist and outlines the need to address lower AMS compliance in hospitals located outside major cities. The key barriers and enablers for AMS programme implementation identified should be used to inform future strategies.
| S-EPMC8210182 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImproved knowledge regarding antimicrobial use in Ghana is needed to reduce antimicrobial resistance (AMR). This includes point prevalence studies (PPSs) in hospitals. Objectives were to: (i) provide baseline data in two hospitals [Keta Municipal Hospital (KMH) and Ghana Police Hospital (GPH)] and identify priorities for improvement; (ii) assess the feasibility of conducting PPSs; and (iii) compare results with other studies.MethodsStandard PPS design using the Global PPS paper forms, subsequently transferred to their template. Training undertaken by the Scottish team. Quality indicators included: rationale for use; stop/review dates; and guideline compliance.ResultsPrevalence of antibiotic use was 65.0% in GPH and 82.0% in KMH. Penicillins and other β-lactam antibiotics were the most frequently prescribed in both hospitals, with third-generation cephalosporins mainly used in GPH. Antibiotic treatment was mainly empirical and commonly administered intravenously, duration was generally short with timely oral switching and infections were mainly community acquired. Encouragingly, there was good documentation of the indications for antibiotic use in both hospitals and 50.0%-66.7% guideline compliance (although for many indications no guideline existed). In addition, almost all prescribed antibiotics had stop dates and there were no missed doses. The duration of use for surgical prophylaxis was generally more than 1 day (69.0% in GPH and 77.0% in KMH).ConclusionsThese two hospitals were the first in Ghana to use the Global PPS system. We found the PPS was feasible, relatively rapid and achieved with limited training. Targets for improvement identified included reduction of broad-spectrum antibiotics and duration of treatment.
| S-EPMC8210261 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Surgical site infections (SSIs) are the most common healthcare-associated infections. The appropriate use of Surgical Antibiotic Prophylaxis (SAP) is a key component to reduce SSIs, while its inappropriate application is a major cause of some emerging infections and selects for antibiotic resistance. We describe an Antimicrobial Stewardship (AMS) intervention on SAP appropriateness. The prospective study was conducted in an Italian hospital, in 12 main surgical units, and was organized in three subsequent phases, as follows. Phase 0: Definition of hospital evidence-based guidelines and a new workflow to optimize the process of ordering, dispensing, administering and documenting the SAP. Phase 1: We analysed 2059 elective surgical cases from January to June 2018 for three SAP parameters of appropriateness: indication, choice and dose. Phase 2: In July 2018, an audit was performed to analyse the results; we reviewed 1781 elective surgical procedures from July to December 2018 looking for the same three SAP appropriateness parameters. The comparative analysis between phases 1 and 2 demonstrated that the correct indication, the correct dose and the overall compliance significantly improved (p-value 0.00128, p-value < 2.2·1016 and p-value < 5.6·1012 respectively). Our prospective study demonstrates a model of successful antimicrobial stewardship intervention that improves appropriateness on SAP.
| S-EPMC7235845 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWhile various interventions have helped reduce antibiotic prescribing, further gains can be made. This study aimed to identify ways to optimise antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions by assessing the extent to which important influences on antibiotic prescribing are addressed (or not) by behavioural content of AMS interventions.SettingsEnglish primary care.InterventionsAMS interventions targeting healthcare professionals' antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections.MethodsWe conducted two rapid reviews. The first included qualitative studies with healthcare professionals on self-reported influences on antibiotic prescribing. The influences were inductively coded and categorised using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Prespecified criteria were used to identify key TDF domains. The second review included studies of AMS interventions. Data on effectiveness were extracted. Components of effective interventions were extracted and coded using the TDF, Behaviour Change Wheel and Behaviour Change Techniques (BCTs) taxonomy. Using prespecified matrices, we assessed the extent to which BCTs and intervention functions addressed the key TDF domains of influences on prescribing.ResultsWe identified 13 qualitative studies, 41 types of influences on antibiotic prescribing and 6 key TDF domains of influences: 'beliefs about consequences', 'social influences', 'skills', 'environmental context and resources', 'intentions' and 'emotions'. We identified 17 research-tested AMS interventions; nine of them effective and four nationally implemented. Interventions addressed all six key TDF domains of influences. Four of these six key TDF domains were addressed by 50%-67% BCTs that were theoretically congruent with these domains, whereas TDF domain 'skills' was addressed by 24% of congruent BCTs and 'emotions' by none.ConclusionsFurther improvement of antibiotic prescribing could be facilitated by: (1) national implementation of effective research-tested AMS interventions (eg, electronic decision support tools, training in interactive use of leaflets, point-of-care testing); (2) targeting important, less-addressed TDF domains (eg, 'skills', 'emotions'); (3) using relevant, under-used BCTs to target key TDF domains (eg, 'forming/reversing habits', 'reducing negative emotions', 'social support'). These could be incorporated into existing, or developed as new, AMS interventions.
| S-EPMC7747536 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: To understand the role of infrastructure, manpower, and education and training (E&T) in relation to Antimicrobial Stewardship (AMS) in Indian healthcare organizations. Methods: Mixed method approach using quantitative survey and qualitative interviews was applied. Through key informants, healthcare professionals from 69 hospitals (public & private) were invited to participate in online survey and follow up qualitative interviews. Thematic analysis was applied to identify the key emerging themes from the interviews. The survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: 60 healthcare professionals from 51 hospitals responded to the survey. Eight doctors participated in semi-structured telephone interviews. 69% (27/39) of the respondents received E&T on AMS during undergraduate or postgraduate training. 88% (15/17) had not received any E&T at induction or during employment. In the qualitative interviews three key areas of concern were identified: (1) need for government level endorsement of AMS activities; (2) lack of AMS programs in hospitals; and, (3) lack of postgraduate E&T in AMS for staff. Conclusion: No structured provision of E&T for AMS currently exists in India. Stakeholder engagement is essential to the sustainable design and implementation of bespoke E&T for hospital AMS in India.
| S-EPMC6466562 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAntimicrobial resistance (AMR) is increasing in low resource settings. It complicates the management of infectious diseases and is an increasing cause of death. This is due to, among other things, lack of health resources for appropriate diagnosis and unregulated access to antimicrobials in the public sphere. Developing context-specific interventions that enable judicious use of antimicrobials is important to curb this problem.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic review of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) approaches in Development Assistance Committee in least developed and low-income countries. The inclusion criteria are antimicrobial stewardship interventions in hospitalised patients of all age groups and exclusion criteria are community-based trials and studies that solely focus on viral, fungal or parasite infections. Antimicrobial stewardship interventions will be classified as structural, enabling, persuasive, restrictive or combined. Outcomes of included studies will be classified as clinical, microbiological or behavioural outcomes. The studies to be included will be randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series trials, cohort and qualitative studies. Data will be extracted using forms adapted from the Cochrane collaboration data collection form. This systematic review will be conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and risk of bias will be done according to the Integrated quality Criteria for Review of Multiple Study Designs.Ethics and disseminationOur findings will be presented to clinicians and policymakers, to support developing AMS protocols for low resource settings. We will publish our results in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberCRD42020210634.
| S-EPMC8362704 | biostudies-literature