Developing core elements and checklist items for global hospital antimicrobial stewardship programmes: a consensus approach.

OBJECTIVES: With increasing global interest in hospital antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes, there is a strong demand for core elements of AMS to be clearly defined on the basis of principles of effectiveness and affordability. To date, efforts to identify such core elements have been limited to Europe, Australia, and North America. The aim of this study was to develop a set of core elements and their related checklist items for AMS programmes that should be present in all hospitals worldwide, regardless of resource availability. METHODS: A literature review was performed by searching Medline and relevant websites to retrieve a list of core elements and items that could have global relevance. These core elements and items were evaluated by an international group of AMS experts using a structured modified Delphi consensus procedure, using two-phased online in-depth questionnaires. RESULTS: The literature review identified seven core elements and their related 29 checklist items from 48 references. Fifteen experts from 13 countries in six continents participated in the consensus procedure. Ultimately, all seven core elements were retained, as well as 28 of the initial checklist items plus one that was newly suggested, all with ≥80% agreement; 20 elements and items were rephrased. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus on core elements for hospital AMS programmes is relevant to both high- and low-to-middle-income countries and could facilitate the development of national AMS stewardship guidelines and adoption by healthcare settings worldwide.

Antibiotic stewardship in low- and middle-income countries: the same but different?

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic resistance (ABR) is a quickly worsening problem worldwide, also in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Appropriate antibiotic use in humans and animals, i.e. antibiotic stewardship (ABS), is one of the cornerstones of the World Health Organization's global action plan for ABR. Many LMICs are in the process of developing stewardship programs. AIMS: We highlight challenges for ABS initiatives in LMICs, give an outline of (inter)national recommendations and demonstrate examples of effective, contextualized stewardship interventions. SOURCES: We searched PubMed for articles on ABS interventions in humans in LMICs. Relevant websites and experts were consulted for additional sources. CONTENT: Evidence on effective and feasible stewardship interventions in LMICs is limited, and challenges for implementation of interventions are numerous. Nevertheless, several initiatives at the international and local levels in Latin America, Africa and Asia have shown that ABS effective interventions are feasible in LMICs, although contextualization is essential. IMPLICATIONS: Specific guidance for setting up antimicrobial stewardship programs in LMICs should be developed. Strategic points might need to be progressively addressed in LMICs, such as (a) ensuring availability of diagnostic testing, (b) providing dedicated education in ABR both for healthcare workers and the general public, (c) creating or strengthening (inter)national agencies towards better regulations and audit on production, distribution and dispensing of drugs, (d) strengthening healthcare facilities, (e) exploring a broader synergism between policy makers, academia, professional bodies and civil society and (f) designing and studying easy and scalable ABS interventions for both hospital and community settings.

An international cross-sectional survey of antimicrobial stewardship programmes in hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: To report the extent and components of global efforts in antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) in hospitals. METHODS: An Internet-based survey comprising 43 questions was disseminated worldwide in 2012. RESULTS: Responses were received from 660 hospitals in 67 countries: Africa, 44; Asia, 50; Europe, 361; North America, 72; Oceania, 30; and South and Central America, 103. National AMS standards existed in 52% of countries, 4% were planning them and 58% had an AMS programme. The main barriers to implementing AMS programmes were perceived to be a lack of funding or personnel, a lack of information technology and prescriber opposition. In hospitals with an existing AMS programme, AMS rounds existed in 64%; 81% restricted antimicrobials (carbapenems, 74.3%; quinolones, 64%; and cephalosporins, 58%); and 85% reported antimicrobial usage, with 55% linking data to resistance rates and 49% linking data to infection rates. Only 20% had electronic prescribing for all patients. A total of 89% of programmes educated their medical, nursing and pharmacy staff on AMS. Of the hospitals, 38% had formally reviewed their AMS programme: reductions were reported by 96% of hospitals for inappropriate prescribing, 86% for broad-spectrum antibiotic use, 80% for expenditure, 71% for healthcare-acquired infections, 65% for length of stay or mortality and 58% for bacterial resistance. CONCLUSIONS: The worldwide development and implementation of AMS programmes varies considerably. Our results should inform and encourage the further evaluation of this with a view to promoting a worldwide stewardship framework. The prospective measurement of well-defined outcomes of the impact of these programmes remains a significant challenge.