Barriers and facilitators for the implementation and expansion of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy: a systematic review.

Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) has been expanding in recent years and serves as a viable solution in reducing the shortage of hospital beds. However, the wider implementation of OPAT faces numerous challenges. This review aimed to assess implementation barriers and facilitators of OPAT services. Studies describing barriers and facilitators of the OPAT service were retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science Proceedings, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts and PsycINFO. All types of study designs published in the English language were included. Studies that did not mention any barrier or facilitator, did not differentiate OPAT and inpatient, focused on specific antimicrobials or diseases, and made no distinction between parenteral and other treatments were excluded. Qualitative analysis was performed using the 'best-fit' framework approach and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The review was PROSPERO registered (CRD42023441083). A total of 8761 studies were screened for eligibility and 147 studies were included. Problems in patient selection, lack of awareness, poor communication and co-ordination, lack of support, lack of structured service and inappropriate prescriptions were identified. OPAT provides safe, effective and efficient treatment while maintaining patients' privacy and comfort, resulting in less daily life disruption, and reducing the risk of infection. Satisfaction and preference for OPAT were very high. Initiatives in strengthening OPAT such as antimicrobial stewardship and telemedicine are beneficial. Challenges to and facilitators of OPAT were identified among patients, health professionals, OPAT service providers and healthcare administrators. Understanding them is crucial to designing targeted initiatives for successful OPAT service implementation.

What are the similarities and differences in antimicrobial prescribing between Australian public and private hospitals?

BACKGROUND: Identifying themes associated with inappropriate prescribing in Australian public and private hospitals will help target future antimicrobial stewardship initiatives. AIMS: To describe current antimicrobial prescribing practices, identify similarities and differences between hospital sectors and provide target areas for improvement specific to each hospital sector. METHODS: All hospitals included in the study were part of the 2014 national antimicrobial prescribing survey and conducted one of the following: a whole hospital point prevalence survey, serial point prevalence surveys or a sample of randomly selected patients. Data on the types of antibiotics used, their indications for use and the quality of prescription based on compliance with national and local prescribing guidelines were collected. RESULTS: Two hundred and two hospitals (166 public and 36 private) comprising 10 882 patients and 15 967 antimicrobial prescriptions were included. Public hospitals had higher proportions of prescriptions for treatment (81.5% vs 48.4%) and medical prophylaxis (8.8% and 4.6%), whilst private hospitals had significantly higher surgical prophylaxis use (9.6% vs 46.9%) (P < 0.001). In public hospitals, the main reasons for non-compliance of treatment prescriptions were spectrum being too broad (30.5%) while in private it was incorrect dosing. Prolonged duration was the main reason for non-compliance among surgical prophylaxis prescriptions in both types of hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Australian hospitals need to target specific areas to improve antimicrobial use. Specifically, unnecessary broad-spectrum therapy should be a priority area in public hospitals, whilst emphasis on curtailing antimicrobial overuse in surgical prophylaxis needs to be urgently addressed across in the private hospital sector.

Antibiotic dose optimization in critically ill patients.

The judicious use of existing antibiotics is essential for preserving their activity against infections. In the era of multi-drug resistance, this is of particular importance in clinical areas characterized by high antibiotic use, such as the ICU. Antibiotic dose optimization in critically ill patients requires sound knowledge not only of the altered physiology in serious infections - including severe sepsis, septic shock and ventilator-associated pneumonia - but also of the pathogen-drug exposure relationship (i.e. pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic index). An important consideration is the fact that extreme shifts in organ function, such as those seen in hyperdynamic patients or those with multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, can have an impact upon drug exposure, and constant vigilance is required when reviewing antibiotic dosing regimens in the critically ill. The use of continuous renal replacement therapy and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation remain important interventions in these patients; however, both of these treatments can have a profound effect on antibiotic exposure. We suggest placing emphasis on the use of therapeutic drug monitoring and dose individualization when optimizing therapy in these settings.

Using periodic point-prevalence surveys to assess appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing in Australian private hospitals.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Appropriateness of antimicrobial use is a measure of key importance in evaluating safety and quality of prescribing but has been difficult to define and assess on a wide scale. Published work is limited and has generally focused on tertiary public hospitals, whereas the private sector provides a significant proportion of care in many countries. Information on prescribing in the private hospital context is needed to identify where intervention might be required. An antimicrobial prescribing survey tool was utilised to assess the appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing among large private hospitals in Australia. METHODS: 'Appropriateness' of antimicrobial therapy was evaluated by a team consisting of an infectious diseases physician and specialist infectious diseases pharmacist based on clear criteria. RESULTS: Thirteen hospital-wide point-prevalence surveys were conducted. Three thousand, four hundred and seventy-two inpatient medication charts were reviewed to identify 1125 (32.4%) inpatients on 1444 antimicrobials. An indication was documented in 911 (63.1%) of surveyed prescriptions, and overall, 757 (52.4%) of antimicrobials were assessed as appropriate. Antimicrobials prescribed for treatment had a higher proportion of appropriateness when compared with antimicrobials prescribed for surgical prophylaxis (80.4% vs 40.6%). The main reason for a treatment prescription to be considered inappropriate was incorrect selection, while prolonged duration (>24 h) was the main reason for inappropriate surgical prophylaxis prescriptions. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides important data on antimicrobial prescribing patterns in Australian private hospitals. Results can be used to target areas for improvement, with documentation of indication and surgical antibiotic prophylaxis requiring initial attention.