Optimizing adherence to advice from antimicrobial stewardship audit and feedback rounds

Matthew D.M. Rawlins, Frank M. Sanfilippo, Paul R. Ingram, Duncan G.J. McLellan, Colin Crawford, Luca D’Orsogna, John Dyer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We examined adherence to antimicrobial stewardship prospective audit and feedback rounds in a rehabilitation service compared with the remainder of the acute hospital, and explored the reasons for this. Between October 2014 and December 2015, we retrospectively assessed the rate of non-adherence to advice from antimicrobial stewardship prospective audit and feedback rounds between the rehabilitation service and the acute hospital, along with the source of the patient referral. Compared with the rehabilitation service, acute hospital medical staff were almost twice as likely to not adhere to advice provided on antimicrobial stewardship prospective audit and feedback rounds (13.8% vs. 7.6%, p < 0.0001, relative risk 1.8 [95% confidence interval 1.3, 2.5]). In the rehabilitation service, referrals were more likely to come from medical staff (61.9% vs. 16.3%, p < 0.0001). These findings may be explained by regular, direct engagement of the antimicrobial stewardship team with the rehabilitation service clinical team, a model potentially applicable to other settings.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)59-62
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Chemotherapy
Volume30
Issue number1
Early online date2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2 Jan 2018

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Optimizing adherence to advice from antimicrobial stewardship audit and feedback rounds'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this