Background
Methods
# | Author (s) | Year | Title | Study description | Extracted implementation topics |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1
| Bannan, Buono, McLaws, Gottlieb | 2009 | Survey of medical staff attitudes to an antibiotic approval and stewardship program | Design: | - restriction as intervention |
Questionnaire with 40 questions focused on restriction and approval | - authorization as intervention | ||||
Interest: | - advice as communication | ||||
- education as intervention | |||||
Attitude | - stop-order (withholding pharmacy) as intervention | ||||
- costs, appropriate use, resistance, time as outcomes | |||||
- pager as communication | |||||
- possible stakeholders in team | |||||
2
| Barlam, DiVall | 2006 | Antibiotic-stewardship practices at top academic centers throughout the united states and at hospitals throughout Massachusetts | Design: | - multifaceted programs |
Two surveys | - time of start with ASP | ||||
Interest: | - funding/financial support | ||||
ASP components | - (formulary) restriction as intervention | ||||
- solicited input from ID as communication | |||||
- costs, improved use, adverse effects, resistance, compliance, DDDs, clinical outcomes as outcomes | |||||
- aiming prophylaxis | |||||
- aiming only targeted antibiotics | |||||
- aiming antibiotic therapy at order | |||||
- aiming initial therapy | |||||
- recommendations as intervention (day 3 bundle) | |||||
- culture data as communication | |||||
- possible stakeholders in team | |||||
- approval as intervention | |||||
- review as communication | |||||
- consult as communication | |||||
- computerized order entry as communication | |||||
- stop-order as intervention | |||||
- IV-PO switch as intervention | |||||
- clinical practical guidelines as intervention | |||||
- evaluation as intervention (benchmarking) | |||||
- support and time needed from physicians | |||||
- rounds, didactics, program, consults/feedback as education | |||||
3*
| Burgmann, Janata, Allerberger, Frank | 2008 | Hospital antibiotic management in Austria – results of the ABS maturity survey of the ABS International group | Design: | - data evaluation as intervention (benchmarking) |
Survey | - AB consumption data as outcomes | ||||
Interest: | - hospital/department/ward levels of benchmarking | ||||
5 categories of maturity | - feedback of benchmarking as communication | ||||
- possible stakeholders in team | |||||
- guidelines for dosage, drug costs, IV-PO switch | |||||
- guidelines for antibiotic treatment | |||||
- guidelines for prophylaxis | |||||
- education as intervention (seminars, literature) | |||||
- financial resources | |||||
- cooperation with other hospitals | |||||
4
| Buyle, Metz-Gercek, Mechtler, Kern, Robays, Vogelaers, Struelens | 2013 | Development and validation of potential structure indicators for evaluating antimicrobial stewardship programmes in European hospitals | Design: | - bedside advice as communication |
Expert panel + validation survey | - rounds as intervention | ||||
- frequency of team meetings | |||||
Interest: | - audit as intervention | ||||
Potential structure indicators for ASP | - possible stakeholders in team | ||||
- formulary as intervention | |||||
- updating formulary | |||||
- stop order as intervention | |||||
- guidelines for microbiological documented therapy, empirical therapy, prophylaxis, iv-po switches | |||||
- updating guidelines | |||||
- clinical decision aid as IT | |||||
- mandate from management | |||||
- FTEs | |||||
- Education as interventions | |||||
- passive methods, interactive methods as education | |||||
- evaluation as intervention | |||||
- resistance data, consumption data, | |||||
- hospital/department/ward levels of benchmarking | |||||
- total DDDs, # of infections as outcomes | |||||
5
| Cooke, Alexander, Charani, Hand, Hills, Howard, Jamieson, Lawson, Richardson, Wade | 2010 | Antimicrobial stewardship: an evidence-based, antimicrobial self-assessment toolkit (ASAT) for acute hospitals | Design: | - guidelines as intervention |
ASAT toolkit (checklist) | - formulary as intervention | ||||
Interest: | - restriction as intervention | ||||
Levels of antimicrobial stewardship | - IV-PO switches as intervention | ||||
- guidelines for prophylaxis as intervention | |||||
- adherence as outcome | |||||
- education as intervention | |||||
- training as education | |||||
- information systems as IT | |||||
- digital prescribing as IT | |||||
- possible stakeholders in team | |||||
6
| Dumartin, Rogues, Amadeo, Pefau, Venier, Parneix, Maurain | 2011 | Antibiotic stewardship programmes: legal framework and structure and process indicator in Southwestern French hospitals, 2005–2008 | Design: | - frequency in meetings |
Survey | - available human resources | ||||
Interest: | - digital prescription, pharmaceutical analysis, dispensation, digital link between lab, pharm, wards as IT | ||||
Checking whether legal framework is present | - restriction as intervention | ||||
- stop order as intervention | |||||
- first-line, prophylaxis as guidelines | |||||
- audits as intervention/communication | |||||
- evaluation feedback as communication | |||||
- education as intervention | |||||
- Formulary as intervention | |||||
- ab consumption as benchmarking | |||||
- DDDs, resistance as outcomes (and communication) | |||||
- possible stakeholders in team | |||||
7
| van Gastel, Costers, Peetermans, Struelens | 2010 | Nationwide implementation of antibiotic management teams in Belgian hospitals: a self-reporting survey | Design: | - Possible stakeholders in team |
Questionnaire | - consultation per phone, email, intranet, face-to-face, staff meetings as communication | ||||
Interest: | - formulary as intervention | ||||
Level of AMT activities | - guidelines for empirical and prophylaxis | ||||
- updates of formulary and guidelines | |||||
- restriction as intervention | |||||
- approval/review as intervention | |||||
- concurrent review/audit as intervention | |||||
- de-escalation as intervention | |||||
- stop order as intervention | |||||
- order forms as intervention | |||||
- IV-PO switch as intervention | |||||
- consumption and resistance as outcomes | |||||
- by hospital/unit or by antibiotic type | |||||
- feedback of outcomes | |||||
8
| Greater New York Hospital Association | 2011 | Antimicrobial stewardship toolkit | Design: | - benchmark and review antibiotic use (patterns) |
Best practice | - review resistance | ||||
Interest: | - IT infrastructure | ||||
Implementation toolkit | - possible stakeholders in team | ||||
- aim for common infections, pathogens, agents | |||||
- rollout: hospital vs. ward | |||||
- available resources | |||||
- strategy: | |||||
- guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, duration, dose optimization, IV-PO, streamlining/de-escalation | |||||
- formulary as intervention | |||||
- restriction as intervention | |||||
- education as intervention | |||||
- prospective review as intervention | |||||
- stickers, notes, face-to-face as communication | |||||
- data collection (benchmarking) | |||||
- usage, clinical, microbiologic, costs as data | |||||
9
| Hulscher, Grol, van der Meer | 2010 | Antibiotic prescribing in hospitals: a social and behavioral scientific approach | Design: | - formulary as intervention |
Review | - order form as intervention | ||||
Interest: | - restriction as intervention | ||||
socio-cultural factors of ASP | - stop orders as intervention | ||||
- infection control committee | |||||
- guidelines as intervention | |||||
- review as intervention | |||||
- rounds as intervention | |||||
- telephone advice as intervention | |||||
- improve infrastructure | |||||
- education as intervention | |||||
- conferences, seminars, skill training programs as education | |||||
- individual instructions (outreach, academic detailing) | |||||
- feedback of outcomes | |||||
- decision support via IT | |||||
10
| Nault, Beaudoin, Thirion, Gosselin, Cossette, Valiquette | 2008 | Antimicrobial stewardship in acute care centres: survey of 68 hospitals in Quebec | Design: | - Duration of ASP or busy setting up |
Questionnaire | - distributed units, DDDs, acquisition costs as benchmarking data | ||||
Interest: | - direct interaction as intervention (written or phone) | ||||
Proportion and nature of programs | - education as intervention | ||||
- stop orders as intervention | |||||
- auto substitution | |||||
- formulary restriction as interventions | |||||
- local guidelines as intervention | |||||
- preauthorization as intervention | |||||
- antibiotic cycling as intervention | |||||
- decision support systems as intervention | |||||
- possible stakeholders in team | |||||
11
| Pulcini, Williams, Molinari, Davey, Nathwani | 2011 | Junior doctors’ knowledge and perceptions of antibiotic resistance and prescribing: a survey in France and Scotland | Design: | - local guidelines as intervention |
Survey | - presence of team- | ||||
Interest: | - approval as intervention | ||||
Perception and prescribing practice | - IV-PO switch protocol | ||||
- advice from ID physician, senior, microbiologist, pharmacist or team as intervention | |||||
- face-to-face, phone, consult upon request as communication | |||||
- lectures, workshops, informal education, web-based learning, self-directed learning as education | |||||
- possible stakeholders in team | |||||
- computer aided prescribing as IT | |||||
- resistance data availability | |||||
12
| Thern | 2013 | Selection of hospital antimicrobial prescribing quality indicators: | Design: | - possible stakeholders in team |
a consensus among German antibiotic stewardship (ABS) networkers | Review+ | - frequency of meetings | |||
questionnaire | - mandate | ||||
Interest: | - drug use, resistance rates as data | ||||
Indicators for quality of AB prescribing | - formulary as intervention | ||||
- updating formulary | |||||
- restriction/approval as intervention | |||||
- guidelines for empiric therapy, IV-PO, dosing, prophylaxis, | |||||
- rounds as intervention | |||||
- education as intervention | |||||
- guidance or assisted decision analysis via IT | |||||
13
| Trivedi, Rosenberg | 2013 | The state of antimicrobial stewardship programs in California | Design: | - implemented or planned ASP |
Survey | - time of start with ASP | ||||
Interest: | - possible stakeholders in team | ||||
State of ASP | - FTE availability | ||||
- - funding | |||||
- benchmarking as intervention | |||||
- DDDs, DOTs, costs, acceptance of recommendations, improved susceptibility patterns as data | |||||
- use of IT in ASP | |||||
- electronic health record, digital prescription, electronic medication administration records as IT | |||||
- formulary restriction as intervention | |||||
- ID physician consult as intervention | |||||
- audit as intervention | |||||
- prior approval as intervention | |||||
- auto stop orders as intervention | |||||
- verbal approval as intervention | |||||
- pre-authorization as intervention | |||||
- education as intervention | |||||
- guidelines as intervention | |||||
- IV-PO switch as intervention | |||||
- streamlining/de-escalation as intervention | |||||
- order forms as intervention |
Results
Response
Antibiotic stewardship program initiatives
Implementation of ASP interventions
Academic hospitals | Non-academic hospitals | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Impl | In dev | Need | Unneed | N/A* | Impl | In dev | Need | Unneed | N/A* | |
Antibiotic team | 6 (75%) | 2 (25%) | - | - | 6 (55%) | 5 (45%) | - | - | - | |
(Local) antibiotic guidelines | 7 (88%) | 1 (12%) | - | - | - | 9 (82%) | 2 (18%) | - | - | - |
Antibiotic formulary | 7 (88%) | 1 (13%) | - | - | - | 8 (73%) | 2 (18%) | 1 (9%) | - | - |
Audit-and-feedback | 3 (38%) | 2 (25%) | 2 (25%) | - | 1 (13%) | - | 4 (36%) | 6 (55%) | 1 (9%) | - |
Education | 4 (50%) | 4 (50%) | - | - | - | 2 (18%) | 8 (73%) | 1 (9%) | - | - |
Information systems for ASP | 2 (25%) | 1 (13%) | 5 (63%) | - | - | 2 (18%) | 4 (36%) | 3 (27%) | - | 2 (18%) |
Benchmarking | 4 (50%) | 3 (38%) | - | 1 (13%) | - | 1 (9%) | 7 (64%) | 2 (18%) | - | 1 (9%) |
Restriction | 2 (25%) | 4 (50%) | 1 (13%) | 1 (13%) | 5 (45%) | 3 (27%) | 1 (9%) | 2 (18%) | ||
Academic detailing | 1 (13%) | 3 (38%) | 3 (38%) | - | 1 (13%) | 2 (18%) | 2 (18%) | 4 (36%) | - | 3 (27%) |
Automatic stop-order | - | 1 (13%) | 4 (50%) | 2 (25%) | 1 (13%) | - | 4 (36%) | 3 (27%) | 2 (18%) | 2 (18%) |
Pre-authorization | 1 (13%) | 1 (13%) | 3 (38%) | 1 (13%) | 2 (25%) | - | 2 (18%) | 3 (27%) | 1 (9%) | 5 (45%) |
Automatic substitution | - | 1 (13%) | 2 (25%) | 5 (63%) | - | 1 (9%) | 3 (27%) | 2 (18%) | 5 (45%) | |
Antibiotic cycling | - | 1 (13%) | 1 (13%) | 4 (50%) | 2 (25%) | - | - | 5 (45%) | 2 (18%) | 4 (36%) |
Antibiotic team
Academic hospitals | Non-academic hospitals | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Impl | In dev | Need | Unneed | N/A* | Impl | In dev | Need | Unneed | N/A* | |
Clinical microbiologist | 8 (100%) | X | - | - | 9 (82%) | X | 1 (9%) | - | 1 (9%) | |
Infectious disease physician | 8 (100%) | X | - | - | 5 (45%) | X | - | 1 (9%) | 5 (45%) | |
Clinical pharmacist | 7 (88%) | X | 1 (13%) | - | 9 (82%) | X | 1 (9%) | - | 1 (9%) | |
Member of antibiotic committee | 5 (63%) | X | 1 (13%) | - | 2 (25%) | 4 (36%) | X | 3 (27%) | 1 (9%) | 3 (27%) |
Prescribing physician | 4 (50%) | X | - | 3 (38%) | 1 (13%) | - | X | 4 (36%) | 3 (27%) | 4 (36%) |
Hygienist | 1 (13%) | X | 3 (38%) | 3 (38%) | 1 (13%) | 1 (9%) | X | 3 (27%) | 4 (36%) | 3 (27%) |
IT specialist | - | X | 3 (38%) | 4 (50%) | 1 (13%) | - | X | 4 (36%) | 5 (45%) | 2 (18%) |
Nurse | - | X | 3 (38%) | 3 (38%) | 2 (25%) | - | X | 2 (18%) | 5 (45%) | 4 (36%) |
Epidemiologist | 1 (13%) | X | 4 (50%) | 1 (13%) | 2 (25%) | - | X | 1 (9%) | 4 (36%) | 6 (55%) |
Management | - | X | - | 6 (75%) | 1 (13%) | - | X | 2 (18%) | 6 (55%) | 2 (18%) |
Supervising physician | 1 (13%) | X | 1 (13%) | 5 (63%) | 1 (13%) | - | X | 1 (9%) | 6 (55%) | 4 (36%) |
(Local) Antibiotic guidelines
Academic hospitals | Non-academic hospitals | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Impl | In dev | Need | Unneed | N/A* | Impl | In dev | Need | Unneed | N/A* | |
Diagnosis of infections | 8 (100%) | - | - | - | - | 4 (36%) | - | 3 (27%) | - | 4 (36%) |
Treatment of infections | 8 (100%) | - | - | - | - | 7 (64%) | 2 (18%) | - | - | 2 (18%) |
Antibiotic therapy | 8 (100%) | - | - | - | - | 10 (91%) | 1 (9%) | - | - | - |
Duration of therapy | 7 (88%) | - | 1 (13%) | - | - | 5 (45%) | 2 (18%) | 3 (27%) | - | - |
Prophylaxis | 8 (100%) | - | - | - | - | 10 (91%) | 1 (9%) | - | - | - |
IV-PO switches | 5 (63%) | - | 3 (38%) | - | - | 3 (27%) | 4 (36%) | 4 (36%) | - | - |
De-escalation/streamlining | 3 (38%) | 1 (13%) | 4 (50%) | - | - | 1 (9%) | 4 (36%) | 5 (45%) | - | - |
Antibiotic formulary
Audit-and-feedback
Education
Information systems for ASP
Academic hospitals | Non-academic hospitals | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Impl | In dev | Need | Unneed | N/A* | Impl | In dev | Need | Unneed | N/A* | |
Electronic health records | 5 (63%) | 2 (25%) | 1 (13%) | - | - | 9 (82%) | 2 (18%) | - | - | - |
Digital laboratory data | 6 (75%) | 1 (13%) | 1 (13%) | - | - | 6 (55%) | 1 (9%) | 3 (27%) | - | 1 (9%) |
Digital antibiotic use data | 7 (88%) | - | - | - | 1 (13%) | 4 (36%) | 3 (27%) | 2 (18%) | - | 2 (18%) |
Digital precribing | 8 (100%) | - | - | - | - | 7 (64%) | 3 (27%) | 1 (9%) | - | - |
Evaluation of prescription | 2 (25%) | 4 (50%) | 2 (25%) | - | - | 1 (9%) | 2 (18%) | 5 (45%) | - | 3 (27%) |
Decision support systems | 1 (13%) | 2 (25%) | 3 (38%) | - | 2 (25%) | 1 (9%) | 4 (36%) | 4 (36%) | 1 (9%) | 1 (9%) |
Surveillance | 6 (75%) | 1 (13%) | - | 1 (13%) | 3 (27%) | 4 (36%) | 4 (36%) | - | - |
Benchmarking
Restriction
Academic detailing
Automatic stop-order, pre-authorisation, automatic substitution and antibiotic cycling
Importance of ASP interventions
Discussion
-
In the state before ASP really starts, the null or m0 state of a maturity model, most Dutch hospitals already have a comprehensive antibiotic formulary and at least guidelines for treatment of infections, antibiotic therapy and prophylaxis. This is helpful as it can be a head start for implementing ASPs. In many other countries such an antibiotic formulary did not yet exist and is usually an important first ASP activity of the antibiotic team (van Limburg M, Köck R, Karreman J, Sinha B, de Jong N, Wentzel J, Friedrich A, Hendrix R, van Gemert-Pijnen J, “Towards an Implementation Strategy for Antibiotic/Antimicrobial Stewardship: A Systematic Review”, Under review).
-
In the first stage of maturity, the initial phase, processes are ad-hoc and unorganised [11]. We found that hospitals are triggered by the SWAB vision document [9] and data from the questionnaire suggests that stakeholders are busy with a primary bundle of interventions that constitute an ASP. An antibiotic team, adequate local antibiotic guidelines for ASP, educational activities and an audit-and-feedback intervention receive early attention and seem to be the first interventions to be implemented when hospitals start with ASP. However, it seems each intervention is implemented quite differently, according to local contexts and readily available means. In other words, interventions are implemented with a slight variation between them. For example, an intervention that seems rather straight-forward is an antibiotic team, however, the composition of an antibiotic team is already quite different in each hospital, depending on the available staff, and care focuses (children, trauma, etc.) in that hospital.
-
The second stage of maturity, a managed state, is what regulatory documents aim for. There is a risk that the current proliferation of local ASPs and local variations between interventions in hospitals are unstandardized and will therefore be difficult to regulate, compare and manage. For example, how does a team with an ID physician relate to a team without? Timely guidelines that help standardisation are necessary. From a regulatory perspective, two scenarios are possible: a) allow proliferation and wait until a dominant design emerges – assuming that over time current ASPs will evolve into comparable programs or b) interact with hospitals and understand the local differences and anticipate with the regulations.
-
Further stages of maturity, which is a measured and self-optimising state, is difficult to achieve for ASPs in their current state. Standardisation in processes and measurements are necessary to evaluate ASPs both internally and externally. We found that data collection for benchmarking can be done; however, as ASPs are currently novel and diverse between hospitals, this would be like comparing apples and oranges. Also, although there is evidence that ASPs show positive effects on antibiotic use and antibiotic resistance [14, 15], there is little or no standardisation in how effectiveness of ASPs is measured in terms of standardised outcomes or even methodologies [16, 17]. That is also causing difficulties to compare (different) programs.