Abstract

BackgroundAntibiotic resistance is a global threat to patient safety and care. In response, hospitals start antibiotic stewardship programs to optimise antibiotic use. Expert-based guidelines recommend strategies to implement such programs, but local implementations may differ per hospital. Earlier published assessments determine maturity of antibiotic stewardship programs based on expert-based structure indicators, but they disregard that there may be valid deviations from these expert-based programs.AimTo analyse the progress and barriers of local implementations of antibiotic stewardship programs with stakeholders in nine Dutch hospitals and to develop a toolkit that guides implementing local antibiotic stewardship programs.MethodsAn online questionnaire based on published guidelines and recommendations, conducted with seven clinical microbiologists, seven infectious disease physicians and five clinical pharmacists at nine Dutch hospitals.ResultsResults show local differences in antibiotic stewardship programs and the uptake of interventions in hospitals. Antibiotic guidelines and antibiotic teams are the most extensively implemented interventions. Education, decision support and audit-feedback are deemed important interventions and they are either piloted in implementations at academic hospitals or in preparation for application in non-academic hospitals. Other interventions that are recommended in guidelines - benchmarking, restriction and antibiotic formulary - appear to have a lower priority. Automatic stop-order, pre-authorization, automatic substitution, antibiotic cycling are not deemed to be worthwhile according to respondents.ConclusionThere are extensive local differences in the implementation of antibiotic stewardship interventions. These differences suggest a need to further explore the rationale behind the choice of interventions in antibiotic stewardship programs. Rather than reporting this rationale, this study reports where rationale can play a key role in the implementation of antibiotic stewardship programs. A one-size-fits-all solution is unfeasible as there may be barriers or valid reasons for local experts to deviate from expert-based guidelines. Local experts can be supported with a toolkit containing advice based on possible barriers and considerations. These parameters can be used to customise an implementation of antibiotic stewardship programs to local needs (while retaining its expert-based foundation).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/2047-2994-3-33) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Highlights

  • Antibiotic resistance is a global threat to patient safety and care

  • There are extensive local differences in the implementation of antibiotic stewardship interventions. These differences suggest a need to further explore the rationale behind the choice of interventions in antibiotic stewardship programs

  • Rather than reporting this rationale, this study reports where rationale can play a key role in the implementation of antibiotic stewardship programs

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Hospitals start antibiotic stewardship programs to optimise antibiotic use. Antibiotic resistance is an increasing worldwide threat to patient safety and quality of care [1,2]. To curb the increasing resistance, hospitals started antibiotic stewardship programs (ASPs) as quality initiatives for infection prevention and control. In the Netherlands, the Dutch Working Party on Antibiotic Policy (SWAB) is responsible for guideline development, education and surveillance for optimal antibiotic use. This organisation recently published a vision document, stressing the need for Dutch hospitals to form an ASP team and start planning future ASP initiatives as per January 2014 [9]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call