↓ Skip to main content

Antimicrobial stewardship activities: a survey of Queensland hospitals

Overview of attention for article published in Australian Health Review, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Antimicrobial stewardship activities: a survey of Queensland hospitals
Published in
Australian Health Review, November 2014
DOI 10.1071/ah13137
Pubmed ID
Authors

Minyon L Avent, Lisa Hall, Louise Davis, Michelle Allen, Jason A Roberts, Sean Unwin, Kylie A McIntosh, Karin Thursky, Kirsty Buising, David L Paterson

Abstract

Objective In 2011, the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC) recommended that all hospitals in Australia must have an Antimicrobial Stewardship (AMS) program by 2013. Nevertheless, little is known about current AMS activities. This study aimed to determine the AMS activities currently undertaken, and to identify gaps, barriers to implementation and opportunities for improvement in Queensland hospitals. Methods The AMS activities of 26 facilities from 15 hospital and health services in Queensland were surveyed during June 2012 to address strategies for effective AMS: implementing clinical guidelines, formulary restriction, reviewing antimicrobial prescribing, auditing antimicrobial use and selective reporting of susceptibility results. Results The response rate was 62%. Nineteen percent had an AMS team (a dedicated multidisciplinary team consisting of a medically trained staff member and a pharmacist). All facilities had access to an electronic version of Therapeutic Guidelines: Antibiotic, with a further 50% developing local guidelines for antimicrobials. One-third of facilities had additional restrictions. Eighty-eight percent had advice for restricted antimicrobials from in-house infectious disease physicians or clinical microbiologists. Antimicrobials were monitored with feedback given to prescribers at point of care by 76% of facilities. Deficiencies reported as barriers to establishing AMS programs included: pharmacy resources, financial support by hospital management, and training and education in antimicrobial use. Conclusions Several areas for improvement were identified: reviewing antimicrobial prescribing with feedback to the prescriber, auditing, and training and education in antimicrobial use. There also appears to be a lack of resources to support AMS programs in some facilities. What is known about the topic? The ACSQHC has recommended that all hospitals implement an AMS program by 2013 as a requirement of Standard 3 (Preventing and Controlling Healthcare-Associated Infections) of the National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards. The intent of AMS is to ensure appropriate prescribing of antimicrobials as part of the broader systems within a health service organisation to prevent and manage healthcare-associated infections, and improve patient safety and quality of care. This criterion also aligns closely with Standard 4: Medication Safety. Despite this recommendation, little is known about what AMS activities are undertaken in these facilities and what additional resources would be required in order to meet these national standards. What does the paper add? This is the first survey that has been conducted of public hospital and health services in Queensland, a large decentralised state in Australia. This paper describes what AMS activities are currently being undertaken, identifies practice gaps, barriers to implementation and opportunities for improvement in Queensland hospitals. What are the implications for practitioners? Several areas for improvement such as reviewing antimicrobial prescribing with feedback to the prescriber, auditing, and training and education in antimicrobial use have been identified. In addition, there appears to be a lack of resources to support AMS programs in some facilities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 83 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 15%
Student > Master 11 13%
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 20 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 26%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 15 18%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Psychology 4 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 19 23%