We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Online ordering will be unavailable from 17:00 GMT on Friday, April 25 until 17:00 GMT on Sunday, April 27 due to maintenance. We apologise for the inconvenience.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
A retrospective study was conducted to describe the impact of a molecular assay to detect the most common carbapenemase genes in carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales isolates recovered in culture. Carbapenemases were detected in 69% of isolates, and assay results guided treatment modifications or epidemiologic investigation in 20% and 4% of cases, respectively.
A survey of acute-care hospitals found that rapid molecular diagnostic tests (RMDTs) have been widely adopted. Although many hospitals use their antimicrobial stewardship team and/or guidelines to help clinicians interpret results and optimize treatment, opportunities to more fully achieve the potential benefits of RMDTs remain.
To assess antimicrobial prescriber knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) regarding antimicrobial stewardship (AS) and associated barriers to optimal prescribing.
DESIGN
Cross-sectional survey.
SETTING
Online survey.
PARTICIPANTS
A convenience sample of 2,900 US antimicrobial prescribers at 5 acute-care hospitals within a hospital network.
INTERVENTION
The following characteristics were assessed with an anonymous, online survey in February 2015: attitudes and practices related to antimicrobial resistance, AS programs, and institutional AS resources; antimicrobial prescribing and AS knowledge; and practices and confidence related to antimicrobial prescribing.
RESULTS
In total, 402 respondents completed the survey. Knowledge gaps were identified through case-based questions. Some respondents sometimes selected overly broad therapy for the susceptibilities given (29%) and some “usually” or “always” preferred using the most broad-spectrum empiric antimicrobials possible (32%). Nearly all (99%) reported reviewing antimicrobial appropriateness at 48–72 hours, but only 55% reported “always” doing so. Furthermore, 45% of respondents felt that they had not received adequate training regarding antimicrobial prescribing. Some respondents lacked confidence selecting empiric therapy using antibiograms (30%), interpreting susceptibility results (24%), de-escalating therapy (18%), and determining duration of therapy (31%). Postprescription review and feedback (PPRF) was the most commonly cited AS intervention (79%) with potential to improve patient care.
CONCLUSIONS
Barriers to appropriate antimicrobial selection and de-escalation of antimicrobial therapy were identified among front-line prescribers in acute-care hospitals. Prescribers desired more AS-related education and identified PPRF as the most helpful AS intervention to improve patient care. Educational interventions should be preceded by and tailored to local assessment of educational needs.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:316–322
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.