Gaps and barriers in the implementation and functioning of antimicrobial stewardship programmes: results from an educational and behavioural mixed methods needs assessment in France, the United States, Mexico and India.

Background: Evidence shows limited adherence to antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) principles. Objectives: To identify educational gaps and systemic barriers obstructing adherence to AMS principles. Methods: A mixed-methods study combining a thematic analysis of qualitative interviews (January-February 2021) and inferential analysis of quantitative surveys (May-June 2021) was conducted. Participants from France, the USA, Mexico and India were purposively sampled from online panels of healthcare professionals to include infectious disease physicians, infection control specialists, clinical microbiologists, pharmacologists or pharmacists expected to apply AMS principles in their practice setting (e.g. clinic, academic-affiliated or community-based hospital). A gap analysis framework guided this study. Results: The final sample included 383 participants (n = 33 interviews; n = 350 surveys). Mixed-methods findings indicated suboptimal knowledge and skills amongst participants to facilitate personal and collective application of AMS principles. Survey data indicated a gap in ideal versus current knowledge of AMS protocols, especially amongst pharmacologists (Δ0.95/4.00, P < 0.001). Gaps in ideal versus current skill levels were also measured and were highest amongst infectious control specialists (Δ1.15/4.00, P < 0.001), for convincing hospital executives to allocate resources to AMS programmes. Already existing systemic barriers (e.g. insufficient dedicated time/funding/training) were perceived as being aggravated during the COVID-19 pandemic (72% of survey participants agreed). Reported gaps were highest in India and France. Conclusions: The educational needs of professionals and countries included in this study can inform future continuous professional development activities in AMS. Additional funding should be considered to address perceived systemic barriers. Local assessments are warranted to validate results and suitability of interventions.

SCOPE of Pain: An Evaluation of an Opioid Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy Continuing Education Program.

OBJECTIVE: Due to the high prevalence of prescription opioid misuse, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandated a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) requiring manufacturers of extended-release/long-acting (ER/LA) opioid analgesics to fund continuing education based on a FDA Blueprint. This article describes the Safe and Competent Opioid Prescribing Education (SCOPE of Pain) program, an ER/LA opioid analgesic REMS program, and its impact on clinician knowledge, confidence, attitudes, and self-reported clinical practice. METHOD: Participants of the 3-h SCOPE of Pain training completed pre-, immediate post- and 2-month post-assessments. SUBJECTS: The primary target group (n = 2,850), and a subset (n = 476) who completed a 2-month post-assessment, consisted of clinicians licensed to prescribe ER/LA opioid analgesics, who care for patients with chronic pain and who completed the 3-h training between February 28, 2013 and June 13, 2014. RESULTS: Immediately post-program, there was a significant increase in correct responses to knowledge questions (60% to 84%, P ≤ 0.02) and 87% of participants planned to make practice changes. At 2-months post-program, there continued to be a significant increase in correct responses to knowledge questions (60% to 69%, P ≤ 0.03) and 67% reported increased confidence in applying safe opioid prescribing care and 86% reported implementing practice changes. There was also an improvement in alignment of desired attitudes toward safe opioid prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: The SCOPE of Pain program improved knowledge, attitudes, confidence, and self-reported clinical practice in safe opioid prescribing. This national REMS program holds potential to improve the safe use of opioids for the treatment of chronic pain.