RESUMO
Background: Necrotising fasciitis (NF) is a fulminant soft tissue infection that requires timely diagnosis, urgent surgical debridement, and appropriate antimicrobial therapy. The choice of empiric antimicrobial therapy depends on the microorganisms cultured and the antimicrobial resistance profile of the institution. Necrotising fasciitis has not been studied in our setting. Objectives: The aim of the study was to audit the microbiological profile of NF and antimicrobial susceptibility profile. Method: This was a retrospective study in a secondary level hospital from the period of 2014-2020. The patients' demographic data, clinical features, location of infection, comorbidities, laboratory and microbiological profiles were analysed. Results: There were 53 patients during 2014-2020 with median age of 45.5 (38.5-56.0) years. The majority of the patients were males (35 [66.04%]), had no comorbidities (25 [47.17%]), and the lower limb was the most common anatomic site (17 [32.08%]). Type II (monomicrobial) NF was the predominant type (31 [58.49%]). Staphylococcus aureus was the most prevalent Gram-positive bacteria (18 [38%]) and Escherichia coli, the main species isolated in the Gram-negative bacteria (14 [36%]) with susceptibility to cloxacillin (94%) and amoxicillin and/or clavulanic acid (92%), respectively. Conclusion: Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli were the most common bacteria with low rate of antimicrobial resistance. Amoxicillin and/or clavulanic acid and an adjunctive clindamycin are appropriate antimicrobial therapy for empiric treatment for NF in our setting. Contribution: Amoxicillin and/or clavulanic acid and an adjunctive clindamycin can be used as an empiric treatment for NF.
RESUMO
Objective: Antimicrobial stewardship programmes (ASPs) facilitate appropriate antimicrobial use and require contextualization for optimal functioning. We aimed to investigate perceptions of and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and ASPs among healthcare workers in academic and nonacademic hospitals. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Setting: Three academic (Charlotte Maxeke Johannesburg Academic, Inkosi Albert Luthuli, Tygerberg) and three nonacademic hospitals (Leratong, Prince Mshiyeni Memorial, and Paarl) in South Africa from January to June 2022. Participants: Doctors, nurses, and pharmacists. Methods: Voluntary questionnaire using Google Forms, encompassing AMR, ASPs, and selected discipline-specific components. Results: Participants comprised 79 doctors (50 academic), 178 nurses (169 academic), and 21 pharmacists (18 academic) and were female predominant. AMR was a problem in academic hospitals (74.7% vs 51.2%, p 0.004); 73.5% overall reported inappropriate antimicrobial use as a major contributor. Adequate education on antimicrobials occurred in only 36.4% overall. Microbiological testing guided therapy more often in nonacademic settings (80.0% vs 50.2%, p <0.001). In both settings, antimicrobial availability drove selection in 48.2%. Overall, ASPs improved patient care (89.8%) and reduced antimicrobial use (86.9%), although felt to override prescriber autonomy in academic settings (29.4% vs 7.5%, p 0.007), mainly among nurses. Only 50.2% reported successful local ASPs. A minority of pharmacists (20.0%) reported sufficient hospital support for ASPs. Education, involvement of infection control staff, and inclusion of nurses in ASPs were most impactful on AMR. Conclusion: Selected healthcare worker perspectives differ by category and setting and can be targeted to improve ASPs. Further studies should target a higher number of clinical staff in both settings.
