Suchergebnisse

Background: To understand the role of infrastructure, manpower, and education and training (E&T) in relation to Antimicrobial Stewardship (AMS) in Indian healthcare organizations. Methods: Mixed method approach using quantitative survey and qualitative interviews was applied. Through key informants, healthcare professionals from 69 hospitals (public & private) were invited to participate in online survey and follow up qualitative interviews. Thematic analysis was applied to identify the key emerging themes from the interviews. The survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: 60 healthcare professionals from 51 hospitals responded to the survey. Eight doctors participated in semi-structured telephone interviews. 69% (27/39) of the respondents received E&T on AMS during undergraduate or postgraduate training. 88% (15/17) had not received any E&T at induction or during employment. In the qualitative interviews three key areas of concern were identified: (1) need for government level endorsement of AMS activities; (2) lack of AMS programs in hospitals; and, (3) lack of postgraduate E&T in AMS for staff. Conclusion: No structured provision of E&T for AMS currently exists in India. Stakeholder engagement is essential to the sustainable design and implementation of bespoke E&T for hospital AMS in India.

In many parts of the world, including in India, pharmacist roles in antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes remain unexplored. We describe the evolution and effect of the role of adding clinical pharmacists to a multidisciplinary AMS at a tertiary care teaching hospital in Kerala, India. Through effective leadership, multidisciplinary AMS (February 2016) and antitubercular therapy (ATT) stewardship programmes (June 2017) were established. Clinical pharmacists were introduced as core members of the programmes, responsible for the operational delivery of key stewardship interventions. Pharmacy-led audit and feedback monitored the appropriateness of antimicrobial prescriptions and compliance to AMS/ATT recommendations. Between February 2016 and January 2017, 56% (742/1326) of antimicrobial prescriptions were appropriate, and 54% (318/584) of recommendations showed compliance. By the third year of the AMS, appropriateness increased to 80% (1752/2190), and compliance to the AMS recommendations to 70% (227/325). The appropriateness of ATT prescriptions increased from a baseline of 61% (95/157) in the first year, to 72% (62/86, June 2018–February 2019). The compliance to ATT recommendations increased from 42% (25/60) to 58% (14/24). Such a model can be effective in implementing sustainable change in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) such as India, where the shortage of infectious disease physicians is a major impediment to the implementation and sustainability of AMS programmes.

The lack of access to safe and effective antimicrobials for human populations is a threat to global health security and a contributor to the emergence and spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The increasingly common shortages of antimicrobials are an additional threat to the emergence of AMR. While the threat of such drug shortages is most acutely experienced in low-income and middle-income settings, their consequences impact the quality and effectiveness of antimicrobials worldwide. Furthermore, there is a need for robustly conducted studies examining the impact of these increasingly prevalent shortages on patient outcomes and on the emergence and spread of AMR. In this review, we have mapped common drivers for antimicrobial shortages and propose strategies for rethinking the regulation, supply and pricing of antimicrobials to secure their sustainable access across diverse healthcare systems and to help minimise the unintended consequences of weak and ineffective supply chains. Greater government involvement in antimicrobial manufacture and supply is essential to ensure no one is left behind. Dedicated demand systems need to be developed for antimicrobials which take into consideration evolving AMR patterns, burden of diseases, pandemic events and supply and demand issues and facilitate implementation of strategies to address them. Interventions, ranging from advocacy and forecasting to public–private collaborations, new economic models and international consortia working across countries and supply chains, will help assure access to safe and effective antimicrobials to all populations around the globe and ensure that shortages no longer contribute to AMR.

BACKGROUND: The global concern over antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is gathering pace. Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are at the epicentre of this growing public health threat and governmental and healthcare organizations are at different stages of implementing action plans to tackle AMR. The South Indian state of Kerala was one of the first in India to implement strategies and prioritize activities to address this public health threat. STRATEGIES: Through a committed and collaborative effort from all healthcare related disciplines and its professional societies from both public and private sector, the Kerala Public Private Partnership (PPP) has been able to deliver a state-wide strategy to tackle AMR A multilevel strategic leadership model and a multilevel implementation approach that included developing state-wide antibiotic clinical guidelines, a revision of post-graduate and undergraduate medical curriculum, and a training program covering all general practitioners within the state the PPP proved to be a successful model for ensuring state-wide implementation of an AMR action plan. Collaborative work of multi-professional groups ensured co-design and development of disease based clinical treatment guidelines and state-wide infection prevention policy. Knowledge exchange though international and national platforms in the form of workshops for sharing of best practices is critical to success. Capacity building at both public and private institutions included addressing practical and local solutions to the barriers e.g. good antibiotic prescription practices from primary to tertiary care facility and infection prevention at all levels. CONCLUSION: Through 7 years of stakeholder engagement, lobbying with government, and driving change through co-development and implementation, the PPP successfully delivered an antimicrobial stewardship plan across the state. The roadmap for the implementation of the Kerala PPP strategic AMR plan can provide learning for other states and countries aiming to implement ...

Background: Variation in the approaches taken to contain the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic at country level has been shaped by economic and political considerations, technical capacity, and assumptions about public behaviours. To address the limited application of learning from previous pandemics, this study aimed to analyse perceived facilitators and inhibitors during the pandemic and to inform the development of an assessment tool for pandemic response planning. Methods: A cross-sectional electronic survey of health and non-health care professionals (5 May - 5 June 2020) in six languages, with respondents recruited via email, social media and website posting. Participants were asked to score inhibitors (-10 to 0) or facilitators (0 to +10) impacting country response to COVID-19 from the following domains - Political, Economic, Sociological, Technological, Ecological, Legislative, and wider Industry (the PESTELI framework). Participants were then asked to explain their responses using free text. Descriptive and thematic analysis was followed by triangulation with the literature and expert validation to develop the assessment tool, which was then compared with four existing pandemic planning frameworks. Results: 928 respondents from 66 countries (57% health care professionals) participated. Political and economic influences were consistently perceived as powerful negative forces and technology as a facilitator across high- and low-income countries. The 103-item tool developed for guiding rapid situational assessment for pandemic planning is comprehensive when compared to existing tools and highlights the interconnectedness of the 7 domains. Conclusions: The tool developed and proposed addresses the problems associated with decision making in disciplinary silos and offers a means to refine future use of epidemic modelling.

Background Variation in the approaches taken to contain the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic at country level has been shaped by economic and political considerations, technical capacity, and assumptions about public behaviours. To address the limited application of learning from previous pandemics, this study aimed to analyse perceived facilitators and inhibitors during the pandemic and to inform the development of an assessment tool for pandemic response planning. Methods A cross-sectional electronic survey of health and non-health care professionals (5 May - 5 June 2020) in six languages, with respondents recruited via email, social media and website posting. Participants were asked to score inhibitors (-10 to 0) or facilitators (0 to +10) impacting country response to COVID-19 from the following domains – Political, Economic, Sociological, Technological, Ecological, Legislative, and wider Industry (the PESTELI framework). Participants were then asked to explain their responses using free text. Descriptive and thematic analysis was followed by triangulation with the literature and expert validation to develop the assessment tool, which was then compared with four existing pandemic planning frameworks. Results 928 respondents from 66 countries (57% health care professionals) participated. Political and economic influences were consistently perceived as powerful negative forces and technology as a facilitator across high- and low-income countries. The 103-item tool developed for guiding rapid situational assessment for pandemic planning is comprehensive when compared to existing tools and highlights the interconnectedness of the 7 domains. Conclusions The tool developed and proposed addresses the problems associated with decision making in disciplinary silos and offers a means to refine future use of epidemic modelling.

BACKGROUND Health-care workers constitute a high-risk population for acquisition of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Capacity for acute diagnosis via PCR testing was limited for individuals with mild to moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and a substantial proportion of health-care workers with suspected infection were not tested. We aimed to investigate the performance of point-of-care and laboratory serology assays and their utility in late case identification, and to estimate SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence. METHODS We did a prospective multicentre cohort study between April 8 and June 12, 2020, in two phases. Symptomatic health-care workers with mild to moderate symptoms were eligible to participate 14 days after onset of COVID-19 symptoms, as per the Public Health England (PHE) case definition. Health-care workers were recruited to the asymptomatic cohort if they had not developed PHE-defined COVID-19 symptoms since Dec 1, 2019. In phase 1, two point-of-care lateral flow serological assays, the Onsite CTK Biotech COVID-19 split IgG/IgM Rapid Test (CTK Bitotech, Poway, CA, USA) and the Encode SARS-CoV-2 split IgM/IgG One Step Rapid Test Device (Zhuhai Encode Medical Engineering, Zhuhai, China), were evaluated for performance against a laboratory immunoassay (EDI Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 IgG ELISA kit [Epitope Diagnostics, San Diego, CA, USA]) in 300 samples from health-care workers and 100 pre-COVID-19 negative control samples. In phase 2 (n=6440), serosurveillance was done among 1299 (93·4%) of 1391 health-care workers reporting symptoms, and in a subset of asymptomatic health-care workers (405 [8·0%] of 5049). FINDINGS There was variation in test performance between the lateral flow serological assays; however, the Encode assay displayed reasonable IgG sensitivity (127 of 136; 93·4% [95% CI 87·8-96·9]) and specificity (99 of 100; 99·0% [94·6-100·0]) among PCR-proven cases and good agreement (282 of 300; 94·0% [91·3-96·7]) with the laboratory immunoassay. By contrast, the Onsite assay had reduced sensitivity (120 of 136; 88·2% [95% CI 81·6-93·1]) and specificity (94 of 100; 94·0% [87·4-97·8]) and agreement (254 of 300; 84·7% [80·6-88·7]). Five (7%) of 70 PCR-positive cases were negative across all assays. Late changes in lateral flow serological assay bands were recorded in 74 (9·3%) of 800 cassettes (35 [8·8%] of 400 Encode assays; 39 [9·8%] of 400 Onsite assays), but only seven (all Onsite assays) of these changes were concordant with the laboratory immunoassay. In phase 2, seroprevalence among the workforce was estimated to be 10·6% (95% CI 7·6-13·6) in asymptomatic health-care workers and 44·7% (42·0-47·4) in symptomatic health-care workers. Seroprevalence across the entire workforce was estimated at 18·0% (95% CI 17·0-18·9). INTERPRETATION Although a good positive predictive value was observed with both lateral flow serological assays and ELISA, this agreement only occurred if the pre-test probability was modified by a strict clinical case definition. Late development of lateral flow serological assay bands would preclude postal strategies and potentially home testing. Identification of false-negative results among health-care workers across all assays suggest caution in interpretation of IgG results at this stage; for now, testing is perhaps best delivered in a clinical setting, supported by government advice about physical distancing. FUNDING None.

Funding received from the Research Council of Norway (RCN) through the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance (JPIAMR) under the fourth call (2016). Costs included travel costs, running face-to-face meetings and dissemination of results. The Health Services Research Unit is core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. J.M.G. holds a Canada Research Chair in Health Knowledge Transfer and Uptake. E.C. is funded by the National Institute of Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at Imperial College London and the Economic and Social Research Council. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the report. ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF

Scope Antibiotic stewardship programmes (ASPs) are necessary in hospitals to improve the judicious use of antibiotics. While ASPs require complex change of key behaviours on individual, team organization and policy levels, evidence from the behavioural sciences is underutilized in antibiotic stewardship studies across the world, including high-income countries (HICs). A consensus procedure was performed to propose research priority areas for optimizing effective implementation of ASPs in hospital settings using a behavioural perspective. Methods A workgroup for behavioural approaches to ASPs was convened in response to the fourth call for leading expert network proposals by the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance (JPIAMR). Eighteen clinical and academic specialists in antibiotic stewardship, implementation science and behaviour change from four HICs with publicly funded healthcare systems (e.g. Canada, Germany, Norway and the UK) met face-to-face to agree on broad research priority areas using a structured consensus method. Question addressed and recommendations: The consensus process assessing the ten identified research priority areas resulted in recommendations that need urgent scientific interest and funding to optimize effective implementation of ASPs for hospital inpatients in HICs with publicly funded healthcare systems. We suggest and detail behavioural science evidence–guided research efforts in the following areas: (a) comprehensively identifying barriers and facilitators to implementing ASPs and clinical recommendations intended to optimize antibiotic prescribing; (b) identifying actors ('who') and actions ('what needs to be done') of ASPs and clinical teams; (c) synthesizing available evidence to support future research and planning for ASPs; (d) specifying the activities in current ASPs with the purpose of defining a control group for comparison with new initiatives; (e) defining a balanced set of outcomes and measures to evaluate the effects of interventions focused on reducing unnecessary exposure to antibiotics; (f) conducting robust evaluations of ASPs with built-in process evaluations and fidelity assessments; (g) defining and designing ASPs; (h) establishing the evidence base for impact of ASPs on resistance; (i) investigating the role and impact of government and policy contexts on ASPs; and (j) understanding what matters to patients in ASPs in hospitals. Conclusions Assessment, revisions and updates of our priority-setting exercise should be considered at intervals of 2 years. To propose research priority areas in low- and middle-income countries, the methodology reported here could be applied.

This project has received funding from the Research Council of Norway (RCN) through the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance (JPIAMR) call 4 (2016). Costs included travel costs, running face to-face meetings and dissemination of results. The HSRU is core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. JMG holds a Canada research Chair in Health Knowledge Transfer an Uptake. EC is funded by National Institute of Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at Imperial College London and the Economic and Social Research Council. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF