| Title |
Optimizing Antibiotic Stewardship in Nursing Homes: A Narrative Review and Recommendations for Improvement
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drugs & Aging, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40266-015-0292-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christopher J. Crnich, Robin Jump, Barbara Trautner, Philip D. Sloane, Lona Mody |
| Abstract |
The emerging crisis in antibiotic resistance and concern that we now sit on the precipice of a post-antibiotic era have given rise to advocacy at the highest levels for widespread adoption of programmes that promote judicious use of antibiotics. These antibiotic stewardship programmes, which seek to optimize antibiotic choice when clinically indicated and discourage antibiotic use when clinically unnecessary, are being implemented in an increasing number of acute care facilities, but their adoption has been slower in nursing homes. The antibiotic prescribing process in nursing homes is fundamentally different from that observed in hospital and clinic settings, with formidable challenges to implementation of effective antibiotic stewardship. Nevertheless, an emerging body of research points towards ways to improve antibiotic prescribing practices in nursing homes. This review summarizes the findings of this research and presents ways in which antibiotic stewardship can be implemented and optimized in the nursing home setting. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 10% |
| South Africa | 1 | 10% |
| United States | 1 | 10% |
| Canada | 1 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 70% |
| Scientists | 2 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 141 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 24 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 14% |
| Researcher | 19 | 13% |
| Other | 14 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 8% |
| Other | 25 | 17% |
| Unknown | 31 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 23 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 5% |
| Psychology | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 24 | 17% |
| Unknown | 37 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 August 2022.
All research outputs
#1,819,740
of 25,761,363 outputs
Outputs from Drugs & Aging
#78
of 1,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,386
of 280,476 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs & Aging
#3
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,761,363 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,301 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,476 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.