Antimicrobial stewardship programs; a two-part narrative review of step-wise design and issues of controversy. Part II: Ten questions reflecting knowledge gaps and issues of controversy in the field of antimicrobial stewardship

Abstract

Regardless of one’s opinion on antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs), it is hardly possible to work in hospital care and not be exposed to the term or its practical effects. Despite the term being relatively new, the number of publications in the field is vast, including several excellent reviews of general and specific aspects. Work in antimicrobial stewardship is complex, and include aspects not only of infectious disease and microbiology, but also of epidemiology, genetics, behavioural psychology, systems science, economics and ethics, to name but a few. This review aims to take several of these aspects and the scientific evidence from antimicrobial stewardship studies and merge them into two questions: How should we design ASPs based on what we know today? and Which are the most essential unanswered questions regarding antimicrobial stewardship on a broader scale? This narrative review is written in two separate parts aiming to provide answers to the two questions. The first part, published separately, is written as a step-wise approach to designing a stewardship intervention based on the pillars of unmet need, feasibility, scientific evidence and necessary core elements. It is written mainly as a guide to someone new to the field. It is sorted into five distinct steps; (a) focusing on designing aims; (b) assessing performance and local barriers to rational antimicrobial use; (c) deciding on intervention technique; (d) practical, tailored design including core element inclusion; and (e) evaluation and sustainability. This second part formulates 10 critical questions on controversies in the field of antimicrobial stewardship. It is aimed at clinicians and researchers with stewardship experience and strives to promote discussion, not to provide answers.