Antimicrobial stewardship in wound care implementation and measuring outcomes: results of an e-survey

Author:

Ousey Karen12345,Rippon Mark6,Rogers Alan7,Stephenson John8

Affiliation:

1. Professor of Skin Integrity, Director for the Institute of Skin Integrity and Infection Prevention, Department of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Huddersfield, UK

2. Adjunct Professor, School of Nursing, Faculty of Health at the Queensland University of Technology, Australia

3. Visiting Professor, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland

4. Chair, International Wound Infection Institute

5. Regional Director, International Skin Tear Advisory Panel (Europe)

6. Visiting Clinical Research Fellow, Medical Consultant, Dane River Consultancy Ltd, UK

7. Flint, North Wales, UK

8. Senior Lecturer in Biomedical Statistics, University of Huddersfield, UK

Abstract

Objective: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) occurs (as a result of misuse, such as over-prescribing) when certain pathogens fail to respond to treatment with antimicrobials. Consequently, patients can become severely ill and possibly die. A strategy referred to as antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) has been introduced which reduces the impact of this antimicrobial misuse. To explore health professionals' (working in wound care, treating both acute and hard-to-heal wounds) position in terms of the following: awareness of AMS; if they are aware of AMS, if they implement procedures to support its practice; and if they implement AMS, do they measure its impact by and compare pre- and post-implementation? Method: An e-survey designed to explore health professionals' awareness of AMS and its implications for wound care. Results: There were 987 respondents to the survey. The majority were specialist wound care nurses, mainly based in the UK or the US and Canada. A high proportion of those surveyed were completely/partially aware (35.1/57.9%, respectively) of AMS, and almost all implemented strategies to reduce antimicrobial prescribing. Of those surveyed, 36% took steps to measure the impact of AMS, and as a result 35.2% reported positive impacts (for example, cost reductions, a reduction in the systemic use of antimicrobials, a reduction in the topical use of antimicrobials and a reduced level of antimicrobial-resistant microorganisms). Challenging aspects of AMS implementation were reported by 33.2% of respondents (for example, poorer clinical outcomes in terms of healing and increased costs). The data highlighted that 40.49% felt that AMS would be ‘easy’ or ‘very easy’ to implement while 21.73% felt that AMS would be ‘difficult’ or ‘very difficult’ to implement. Conclusion: Education strategies need to be devised to raise awareness and support health professionals, including wound care practitioners, to understand and implement effective AMS programmes. Development of clear metrics is required to evaluate the effect of AMS programmes in clinical practice.

Publisher

Mark Allen Group

Subject

Nursing (miscellaneous),Fundamentals and skills

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3