Deep Dive Into Gaps and Barriers to Implementation of Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs in Hospitals in Latin America.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance has worsened in Latin America. There is an urgent need to understand the development of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) and the barriers to implementing effective ASPs in light of limited national action plans or policies to promote ASPs in the region. METHODS: We performed a descriptive mixed-methods study of ASPs in 5 Latin American countries in March-July 2022. An electronic questionnaire with an associated scoring system (hospital ASP self-assessment) was used, and ASP development was classified based on the scores (inadequate, 0-25; basic, 26-50; intermediate, 51-75; or advanced, 76-100). Interviews among healthcare workers (HCWs) involved in antimicrobial stewardship (AS) inquired about behavioral and organizational factors that influence AS activities. Interview data were coded into themes. Results from the ASP self-assessment and interviews were integrated to create an explanatory framework. RESULTS: Twenty hospitals completed the self-assessment, and 46 AS stakeholders from these hospitals were interviewed. ASP development was inadequate/basic in 35% of hospitals, intermediate in 50%, and advanced in 15%. For-profit hospitals had higher scores than not-for-profit hospitals. Interview data validated the self-assessment findings and provided further insight into ASP implementation challenges, which included limited formal hospital leadership support, inadequate staffing and tools to perform AS work more efficiently, limited awareness of AS principles by HCWs, and limited training opportunities. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several barriers to ASP development in Latin America, suggesting the need to create accurate business cases for ASPs to obtain the necessary funding for their effective implementation and sustainability.

Contextual barriers to infection prevention and control program implementation in hospitals in Latin America: a mixed methods evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Infection prevention and control (IPC) programs are essential to prevent and control the spread of multidrug-resistant organisms in healthcare facilities (HCFs). The current implementation of these programs in Latin America remains largely unknown. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation of IPC program implementation in HCFs from Guatemala, Panama, Ecuador, and Argentina, March-July 2022. We used the World Health Organization (WHO) IPC Assessment Framework (IPCAF) survey, a previously validated structured questionnaire with an associated scoring system that evaluates the eight core components of IPC (IPC program; IPC guidelines; IPC education and training; healthcare-associated infection [HAI] surveillance; multimodal strategies; monitoring and audit of IPC practices and feedback; workload, staffing, and bed occupancy; and the built environment and materials and equipment for IPC). Each section generates a score 0-100. According to the final score, the HCF IPC program implementation is categorized into four levels: inadequate (0-200), basic (201-400), intermediate (401-600), or advanced (601-800). Additionally, we conducted semi-structured interviews among IPC personnel and microbiologists using the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety model to evaluate barriers and facilitators for IPC program implementation. We performed directed content analysis of interview transcripts to identify themes that focused on barriers and facilitators of IPC program implementation which are summarized descriptively. RESULTS: Thirty-seven HCFs (15 for-profit and 22 non-profit) completed the IPCAF survey. The overall median score was 614 (IQR 569, 693) which corresponded to an "advanced" level of IPC implementation (32% [7/22] non-profit vs. 93% [14/15] for-profit HCFs in this category). The lowest scores were in workload, staffing and bed occupancy followed by IPC training and multimodal strategies. Forty individuals from 16 HCFs were interviewed. They perceived inadequate staffing and technical resources, limited leadership support, and cultural determinants as major barriers to effective IPC guideline implementation, while external accreditation and technical support from public health authorities were perceived as facilitators. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to strengthen IPC activities in Latin American HCFs should focus on improving support from hospital leadership and public health authorities to ensure better resource allocation, promoting safety culture, and improving training in quality improvement.

Antibiotic Use in Medical-Surgical Intensive Care Units and General Wards in Latin American Hospitals.

Background: The objective of this study was to identify antibiotic stewardship (AS) opportunities in Latin American medical-surgical intensive care units (MS-ICUs) and general wards (Gral-wards). Methods: We conducted serial cross-sectional point prevalence surveys in MS-ICUs and Gral-wards in 41 Latin American hospitals between March 2022 and February 2023. Patients >18 years of age in the units of interest were evaluated for antimicrobial use (AU) monthly (MS-ICUs) or quarterly (Gral-wards). Antimicrobial data were collected using a standardized form by the local AS teams and submitted to the coordinating team for analysis. Results: We evaluated AU in 5780 MS-ICU and 7726 Gral-ward patients. The hospitals' median bed size (interquartile range) was 179 (125-330), and 52% were nonprofit. The aggregate AU prevalence was 53.5% in MS-ICUs and 25.5% in Gral-wards. Most (88%) antimicrobials were prescribed to treat infections, 7% for surgical prophylaxis and 5% for medical prophylaxis. Health care-associated infections led to 63% of MS-ICU and 38% of Gral-ward AU. Carbapenems, piperacillin-tazobactam, intravenous (IV) vancomycin, and ampicillin-sulbactam represented 50% of all AU to treat infections. A minority of IV vancomycin targeted therapy was associated with documented methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection or therapeutic drug monitoring. In both units, 17% of antibiotics prescribed as targeted therapy represented de-escalation, while 24% and 15% in MS-ICUs and Gral-wards, respectively, represented an escalation of therapy. In Gral-wards, 32% of antibiotics were used without a microbiologic culture ordered. Half of surgical prophylaxis antibiotics were prescribed after the first 24 hours. Conclusions: Based on this cohort, areas to improve AU in Latin American hospitals include antibiotic selection, de-escalation, duration of therapy, and dosing strategies.

Knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of Latin American healthcare workers relating to antibiotic stewardship and antibiotic use: a cross-sectional multi-country study.

BACKGROUND: The burden of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Latin America is high. Little is known about healthcare workers' (HCWs) knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of antimicrobial stewardship (AS), AMR, and antibiotic use (AU) in the region. METHODS: HCWs from 42 hospitals from 5 Latin American countries were invited to take an electronic, voluntary, anonymous survey regarding knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of AS, AMR, and AU between March-April 2023. FINDINGS: Overall, 996 HCWs completed the survey (52% physicians, 32% nurses, 11% pharmacists, 3% microbiologists, and 2% "other"). More than 90% of respondents indicated optimizing AU was a priority at their healthcare facility (HCF), 69% stated the importance of AS was communicated at their HCF, and 23% were unfamiliar with the term "antibiotic stewardship". Most (> 95%) respondents acknowledged that appropriate AU can reduce AMR; however, few thought AU (< 30%) or AMR (< 50%) were a problem in their HCF. Lack of access to antibiogram and to locally endorsed guidelines was reported by 51% and 34% of HCWs, respectively. Among prescribers, 53% did not consider non-physicians' opinions to make antibiotic-related decisions, 22% reported not receiving education on how to select antibiotics based on culture results and 60% stated patients and families influence their antibiotic decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Although HCWs perceived improving AU as a priority, they did not perceive AU or AMR as a problem in their HCF. AS opportunities include improved access to guidelines, access to AMR/AU data, teamwork, and education on AS for HCWs and patients and families.