From Little Things Big Things Grow: The Development of an Auditing Program to Assess the Quality of Antimicrobial Prescribing
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: An important aspect of antimicrobial stewardship is the qualitative assessment of antimicrobial prescribing. Owing to lack of standardized tools and resources required to design, conduct and analyze qualitative audits, these assessments are rarely performed. Objective: We designed an audit tool that was appropriate for all Australian hospital types, suited to local user requirements and including an assessment of the appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing. Methods: In 2011, a pilot survey was conducted in 32 Australian hospitals to assess the usability and generalizability of a qualitative audit tool. The tool was revised to reflect the respondents’ feedback. A second study was performed in 2012 in 85 hospitals. In 2013, following further feedback and refinement, an online auditing tool, the Hospital National Antimicrobial Prescribing Survey (NAPS), was developed. Early audits demonstrated that surgical prophylaxis had the highest rates of inappropriate prescribing. In 2016, the Surgical NAPS was developed to further investigate reasons for this, and the NAPS program was further expanded to audit antimicrobial prescribing practices in Australian aged-care homes (ie, the Aged Care NAPS). Results: Between January 1, 2013, and November 12, 2019, 523 Australian public and private hospitals (53.8%) utilized the Hospital NAPS; 215 (22.1%) have utilized the Surgical NAPS; and 774 of Australian aged-care homes (29.0%) have utilized the Aged Care NAPS. National reporting has identified key target areas for quality improvement initiatives at both local and national levels. The following initiatives have been outlined in 14 public reports: improved documentation; prolonged antimicrobial prophylaxis; compliance with prescribing guidelines; appropriateness of prescribing; access to evidence-based guidelines; and improved microbiology sampling. Conclusions: By utilizing the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle for healthcare improvement and by involving end users in the design and evaluation, we have created a practical and relevant auditing program to assess both quantitative and qualitative aspects of antimicrobial prescribing in a wide range of settings. This voluntary program is now endorsed by the National Strategy for Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance, partners with the Antimicrobial Use and Resistance in Australian Surveillance System, and is utilized by facilities to meet mandatory national accreditation standard requirements. With the success of the NAPS program in Australia, it has now been implemented in New Zealand, Canada, Malaysia, Fiji, and Bhutan, with plans for other countries to implement the program soon. Current research is being conducted to expand the program to include audits for family physicians, veterinarians, and remote indigenous communities, and for antifungal use. Disclosures: None Funding: None
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».