Barriers to implementing antimicrobial stewardship programs in three low- and middle-income country tertiary care settings: findings from a multi-site qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance has been named as one of the top ten threats to public health in the world. Hospital-based antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) can help reduce antimicrobial resistance. The purpose of this study was to determine perceived barriers to the development and implementation of ASPs in tertiary care centers in three low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 45 physicians at tertiary care hospitals in Sri Lanka (n = 22), Kenya (12), and Tanzania (11). Interviews assessed knowledge of antimicrobial resistance and ASPs, current antimicrobial prescribing practices, access to diagnostics that inform antimicrobial use, receptiveness to ASPs, and perceived barriers to implementing ASPs. Two independent reviewers coded the interviews using principles of applied thematic analysis, and comparisons of themes were made across the three sites. RESULTS: Barriers to improving antimicrobial prescribing included prohibitively expensive antimicrobials, limited antimicrobial availability, resistance to changing current practices regarding antimicrobial prescribing, and limited diagnostic capabilities. The most frequent of these barriers in all three locations was limited drug availability. Many physicians in all three sites had not heard of ASPs before the interviews. Improved education was a suggested component of ASPs at all three sites. The creation of guidelines was also recommended, without prompting, by interviewees at all three sites. Although most participants felt microbiological results were helpful in tailoring antibiotic courses, some expressed distrust of laboratory culture results. Biomarkers like erythrocyte sedimentation rate and c-reactive protein were not felt to be specific enough to guide antimicrobial therapy. Despite limited or no prior knowledge of ASPs, most interviewees were receptive to implementing protocols that would include documentation and consultation with ASPs regarding antimicrobial prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlighted several important barriers to implementing ASPs that were shared between three tertiary care centers in LMICs. Improving drug availability, enhancing availability of and trust in microbiologic data, creating local guidelines, and providing education to physicians regarding antimicrobial prescribing are important steps that could be taken by ASPs in these facilities.

Point-of-care assessment of C-reactive protein and white blood cell count to identify bacterial aetiologies in malaria-negative paediatric fevers in Tanzania.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the role of point-of-care (PoC) assessment of C-reactive protein (CRP) and white blood cell (WBC) count to identify bacterial illness in Tanzanian children with non-severe non-malarial fever. METHODS: From the outpatient department of a district hospital in Tanzania, 428 patients between 3 months and 5 years of age who presented with fever and a negative malaria test were enrolled. All had a physical examination and bacterial cultures from blood and urine. Haemoglobin, CRP and WBC were measured by PoC devices. RESULTS: Positive blood cultures were detected in 6/428 (1.4%) children and urine cultures were positive in 24/401 (6.0%). Mean WBC was similar in children with or without bacterial illness (14.0 × 109 , 95% CI 12.0-16.0 × 109 vs. 12.0 × 109 , 95% CI 11.4-12.7 × 109), while mean CRP was higher in children with bacterial illness (41.0 mg/l, 95% CI 28.3-53.6 vs. 23.8 mg/l, 95% CI 17.8-27.8). In ROC analysis, the optimum cut-off value for CRP to identify bacterial illness was 19 mg/l but with an area under the curve of only 0.62. Negative predictive values exceeded 80%, while positive predictive values were under 40%. CONCLUSION: WBC and CRP levels had limited value in identifying children with bacterial infections. The positive predictive values for both tests were too low to be used as single tools for treatment decisions.

Monitoring patient care through health facility exit interviews: an assessment of the Hawthorne effect in a trial of adherence to malaria treatment guidelines in Tanzania.

BACKGROUND: Survey of patients exiting health facilities is a common way to assess consultation practices. It is, however, unclear to what extent health professionals may change their practices when they are aware of such interviews taking place, possibly paying more attention to following recommended practices. This so-called Hawthorne effect could have important consequences for interpreting research and programme monitoring, but has rarely been assessed. METHODS: A three-arm cluster-randomised trial of interventions to improve adherence to guidelines for the use of anti-malarial drugs was conducted in Tanzania. Patient interviews were conducted outside health facilities on two randomly-selected days per week. Health workers also routinely documented consultations in their ledgers. The Hawthorne effect was investigated by comparing routine data according to whether exit interviews had been conducted on three key indicators of malaria care. Adjusted logistic mixed-effects models were used, taking into account the dependencies within health facilities and calendar days. RESULTS: Routine data were collected on 19,579 consultations in 18 facilities. The odds of having a malaria rapid diagnostic test (RDT) result reported were 11 % higher on days when exit surveys were conducted (adjusted odds ratio 95 % CI: 0.98-1.26, p = 0.097), 17 % lower for prescribing an anti-malarial drug to patients with a negative RDT result (0.56-1.23, p = 0.343), and 27 % lower for prescribing an anti-malarial when no RDT result was reported (0.53-1.00, p = 0.052). The effect varied with time, with a U-shaped association over the study period (p < 0.001). We also observed a higher number of consultations recorded on days when exit-interviews were conducted (adjusted mean difference = 2.03, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although modest, there was some suggestion of better practice by health professionals on days when exit interviews were conducted. Researchers should be aware of the potential Hawthorne effect, and take into account assessment methods when generalising findings to the 'real word' setting. This effect is, however, likely to be context dependent, and further controlled evaluation across different settings should be conducted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01292707 . Registered on 29th January 2011.