Connect
MJA
MJA

Safer use of antimicrobials in hospitals: the value of antimicrobial usage data

Vicki McNeil, Marilyn Cruickshank and Margaret Duguid
Med J Aust 2010; 193 (8): S114. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2010.tb04026.x
Published online: 18 October 2010

Antimicrobial resistance is a major threat to the great advances in treatment of infectious diseases over the past 40 years.1 The relationship between antimicrobials and resistant organisms is complex, encompassing selection and dissemination of resistance determinants between humans and bacterial hosts. Despite difficulties in proving a cause–effect relationship, there is good evidence that overuse and inappropriate use of antimicrobials lead to emergence and dissemination of resistant organisms, with studies showing that resistance rises with increased antimicrobial use and falls after reduced use.1-3 Patients with infections due to resistant bacteria have poorer outcomes, experiencing delayed recovery, treatment failure and even death.4 Inappropriate use of antimicrobials also increases the risk of patient harm from adverse effects such as Clostridium difficile infection, and increases costs to health care and society. Prudent use of antimicrobials is considered central to the control of resistance, and active surveillance of antimicrobial usage is paramount.

Changing antimicrobial use in hospitals is complex and challenging and requires an organised approach, such as an antimicrobial management program, also termed antimicrobial stewardship (AMS). AMS involves a systematic approach to optimising antimicrobial use. Successful hospital AMS programs have been shown to improve the appropriateness of antimicrobial use, and to reduce institutional resistance rates and, in turn, morbidity and mortality.5-10 Together with infection control, hand hygiene and surveillance, AMS is considered a key strategy in local and national programs to decrease preventable health care-associated infections. When supported by hospital management, a decrease in inappropriate use, improved patient outcomes and savings in health care costs can be achieved.5,6,8,9

Hospital AMS programs include a range of different interventions aimed at improving antimicrobial prescribing. One of the essential components of an AMS program is monitoring antimicrobial usage11 to:

The monitoring of antimicrobial usage is also critical to understanding antimicrobial resistance by linking patterns of usage with the emergence of resistant organisms. Box 1 provides an example of the temporal relationship between the prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and the use of antimicrobial agents known to induce methicillin resistance.

Antimicrobial usage data

There are two main methods of antimicrobial data collection: patient-level surveillance and population surveillance.13

Patient-level surveillance involves collecting data about the dosage and duration of therapy for individual patients. This approach gives the most accurate information, particularly if the aim is to link excessive antimicrobial use with development of resistance in a particular area of practice.

Population-level surveillance data are aggregated antimicrobial use data. The data are generally derived from the volume of antimicrobial agents issued to wards and clinical units or from individual patient prescription data from pharmacy reports summarised at the level of a hospital or unit. Although not as accurate as patient-level surveillance, population-level surveillance is currently the only realistic option for ongoing, systematic monitoring of antimicrobial use.

Comprehensive data at individual patient level are not available from most hospitals in Australia, and aggregate data from issues to wards combined with individual patient dispensing records are most commonly used.1 Here, we discuss how population surveillance data can be used to drive safety and quality improvement in hospital practice.

Use of data to target antimicrobial stewardship interventions

Case study 1 demonstrates how antimicrobial usage data revealed a high usage of the broad spectrum antimicrobial meropenem compared with the mean of reporting hospitals. A targeted review of usage was undertaken with subsequent interventions, including dosing optimisation.

Use of data to measure the effect of antimicrobial stewardship activities

Intervention programs that restrict use of broad-spectrum antimicrobials have shown dramatic effects on antimicrobial prescribing. Case study 2 demonstrates the usefulness of surveillance of antimicrobial use in monitoring the effect of a restrictive AMS intervention.

Initially, surveillance detected high usage of a specific broad-spectrum antimicrobial agent (ceftriaxone). This information stimulated investigation and subsequent implementation of a targeted intervention, followed by monitoring of the effect of the intervention. This case study also illustrates the importance of continued routine surveillance and the need for hospitals to include a range of different interventions in their AMS programs.

Use of data to obtain resources for antimicrobial stewardship activities

In Case study 3, antimicrobial usage data was used alongside microbiological data to demonstrate the need for an AMS program and to obtain the resources required to set up the program. The case also demonstrates the value of monitoring usage to measure the effect of an AMS program.

Conclusion

National antimicrobial usage data allows contributing hospitals to compare their usage with peer-group hospitals, identify trends in prescribing requiring further investigation and measure the effectiveness of AMS programs, including cost savings. The regular feedback is a useful tool for educating prescribers and monitoring the effect of targeted interventions. Overall high usage has been used by hospitals and area health services as a stimulus for initiation or expansion of AMS programs.

There is potential to further utilise the data, including linking longitudinal usage data with resistance data, at national and hospital levels, to identify reduction in resistant organisms and emerging patterns of resistance.

Comparison of national usage data with international data indicates that Australian hospitals are relatively high users of antimicrobials when compared with their northern European counterparts. The national focus on implementing AMS programs in hospitals, which is led by the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, is aimed at improving patient safety by reducing inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing and by reducing health care-associated infections from resistant organisms. Antimicrobial usage data, such as that provided through NAUSP, will be useful for monitoring the effect of these programs on influencing antimicrobial prescribing at hospital, state and territory, and national levels.

  • Vicki McNeil1
  • Marilyn Cruickshank2
  • Margaret Duguid2

  • 1 Antimicrobial Utilisation Surveillance Programs, Infection Control Service, Communicable Disease Control Branch, SA Health, Adelaide, SA.
  • 2 Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, Sydney, NSW.



Acknowledgements: 

We acknowledge the assistance of contributors to the NAUSP, in particular the case study contributors. The NAUSP is funded by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing and conducted by the Infection Control Service, Communicable Diseases Control Branch, SA Health.

Competing interests:

None identified.

  • 1. Cruickshank M, Ferguson J, editors. Reducing harm to patients from health care associated infection: the role of surveillance. Sydney: Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, 2008.
  • 2. Guillemot D, Carbon C, Balkau B, et al. Low dosage and long treatment duration of beta-lactam: risk factors for carriage of penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae. JAMA 1998; 279: 365-370.
  • 3. Richard P, Delangle M, Merrien D, et al. Fluoroquinolone use and fluoroquinolone resistance: is there an association? Clin Infect Dis 1994; 19: 54-59.
  • 4. Roberts R, Hota B, Ahmad I, et al. Hospital and societal costs of antimicrobial-resistant infections in a Chicago teaching hospital: implications for antimicrobial stewardship. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 49: 1175-1184.
  • 5. Dellit H, Owens R, McGowan J, et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America guidelines for developing an institutional program to enhance antimicrobial stewardship. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 44: 159-177.
  • 6. MacDougall C, Polk R. Antimicrobial stewardship programs in health care systems. Clin Microbiol Rev 2005; 18: 638-656.
  • 7. Drew R, White R, MacDougall C, et al. Insights from the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists on Antimicrobial Stewardship Guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Pharmacotherapy 2009; 29: 593-607.
  • 8. Fishman N. Antimicrobial stewardship. Am J Infect Control 2006; 34: S55-S63.
  • 9. Carling P, Fung T, Killion A, et al. Favourable impact of a multidisciplinary antibiotic management program conducted during 7 years. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003; 24: 699-706.
  • 10. Davey P, Brown E, Fenelon L, et al. Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005; (4): CD003543.
  • 11. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. Windows into safety and quality in health care 2009. Sydney: ACSQHC, 2009.
  • 12. Monnet D, MacKenzie F, López-Lozano J, et al. Antimicrobial drug use and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Aberdeen, 1996–2000. Emerg Infect Dis 2004; 10: 1432-1441.
  • 13. Kritsotakis E, Gikas A. Surveillance of antibiotic use in hospitals: methods, trends and targets. Clin Microbiol Infect 2006; 12: 701-704.
  • 14. Gerding D. Clindamycin, cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones, and Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea: this is an antimicrobial resistance problem. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 38: 646-648.
  • 15. National Antimicrobial Utilisation Surveillance Program. Annual report 2008–2009. Adelaide: NAUSP, 2009. http://www.health.sa.gov.au/INFECTIONCONTROL/Default.aspx?PageContentID=65&tabid=199 (accessed Mar 2010).

Author

remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Comment
Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.