A mixed methods study of the barriers and enablers in implementing antimicrobial stewardship programmes in Australian regional and rural hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care released recommendations for antimicrobial stewardship programmes to be established within all Australian healthcare facilities. However, implementation practices are not well defined. The aim of this study was to gain an understanding of factors affecting implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programmes within Australian regional and rural hospitals. METHODS: This study was designed whereby a preliminary quantitative process was used to contribute to a principally qualitative study. Site visits to regional and rural hospitals in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia were planned to assess factors impacting on implementation of antimicrobial stewardship. Subsequently researchers identified issues requiring further exploration with specific key informant interviews and focus group discussions. Data were collected between May and October 2012 and entered into Nvivo10, openly coded and analysed according to mixed methods data analysis principles. RESULTS: Regional and rural hospitals were not conducting many of the recommended activities and seven major themes emerged. The key barriers were perceived to be lack of access to education, resources and specialist support. The enablers were a flatter governance structure, greater sense of pride, desire for success and good internet and tele-health access. CONCLUSIONS: This study helps us to identify where efforts should be focused to facilitate the establishment of antimicrobial stewardship programmes in regional and rural hospitals, by describing the gaps and limitations of current programmes and the major issues currently being faced, providing recommendations to better guide activities that support regional and rural hospitals.

Measuring antimicrobial prescribing quality in Australian hospitals: development and evaluation of a national antimicrobial prescribing survey tool.

OBJECTIVES: Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes have been developed with the intention of reducing inappropriate and unnecessary use of antimicrobials, while improving the quality of patient care and locally helping prevent the development of antimicrobial resistance. An important aspect of AMS programmes is the qualitative assessment of prescribing through antimicrobial prescribing surveys (APS), which are able to provide information about the prescribing behaviour within institutions. Owing to lack of standardization of audit tools and the resources required, qualitative methods for the assessment of antimicrobial use are not often performed. The aim of this study was to design an audit tool that was appropriate for use in all Australian hospitals, suited to local user requirements and included an assessment of the overall appropriateness of the prescription. METHODS: In November 2011, a pilot APS was conducted across 32 hospitals to assess the usability and generalizability of a newly designed audit tool. Following participant feedback, this tool was revised to reflect the requirements of the respondents. A second pilot study was then performed in November 2012 across 85 hospitals. RESULTS: These surveys identified several areas that can be targets for quality improvement at a national level, including: documentation of indication; surgical prophylaxis prescribed for >24 h; compliance with prescribing guidelines; and the appropriateness of the prescription. CONCLUSIONS: By involving the end users in the design and evaluation, we have been able to provide a practical and relevant APS tool for quantitative and qualitative data collection in a wide range of Australian hospital settings.

Antimicrobial stewardship in Victorian hospitals: a statewide survey to identify current gaps.

OBJECTIVE: To determine antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) activities currently being undertaken at Victorian hospitals, identifying gaps when assessed against the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care criteria for effective AMS. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A survey open to all Victorian health services, conducted between January and March 2012. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Availability of the endorsed prescribing guidelines, antimicrobial prescribing policies, formularies, approval systems for restricted antimicrobials, procedures for postprescription review, auditing and selective reporting of sensitivities. RESULTS: Response rates were 96.4% for public health services and 67.7% for private hospitals. Guidelines were available at all public and 88.1% of private hospitals, and 90.6% of public metropolitan, 45.7% of public regional and 21.4% of private hospitals had antimicrobial prescribing policies. Antimicrobial approval systems were used in 93.8% of public metropolitan, 17.3% of public regional and 4.8% of private hospitals. Prescribing audits were conducted by 62.5% of public metropolitan, 35.8% public regional and 52.4% of private hospitals. Nearly all hospitals had selective laboratory reporting of antimicrobial sensitivities. Few hospitals had dedicated funding for AMS personnel. CONCLUSIONS: We identified wide differences between hospital AMS activities. Additional support for AMS is particularly required in the public regional and private hospital sectors, principally in the key areas of policy development, antimicrobial approval systems, prescription review and auditing. Further research is required to develop recommendations for implementation of AMS within the regional and private hospital settings.