Prescribing trends before and after implementation of an antimicrobial stewardship program

Kelly A Cairns, Adam W J Jenney, Iain J Abbott, Matthew J Skinner, Joseph S Doyle, Michael Dooley and Allen C Cheng
Med J Aust 2013; 198 (5): 262-266. || doi: 10.5694/mja12.11683
Published online: 18 March 2013


Objectives: Antimicrobial stewardship programs are recommended to reduce antimicrobial resistance by reducing inappropriate use of antimicrobials. We implemented an antimicrobial stewardship program and aimed to evaluate its effect on broad-spectrum antimicrobial use.

Design, setting and participants: Observational study with historical control using interrupted time series analysis conducted in a tertiary referral hospital. Hospital inpatients prescribed restricted antimicrobials for non-standard indications, where approval had expired or without approval.

Intervention: Baseline period of 30 months immediately followed by an 18-month intervention period commencing January 2011.

Main outcome measures: Number and type of interventions made by antimicrobial stewardship team; monthly rate of use of broad-spectrum antimicrobial agents (in defined daily doses/1000 occupied bed-days).

Results: The antimicrobial stewardship team made 1104 recommendations in 779 patients during the 18-month intervention period. In 64% of cases, the recommendation was made to cease or de-escalate the antimicrobial therapy, or to change from intravenous to oral therapy. The introduction of the intervention resulted in an immediate 17% (95% CI, 13%–20%) reduction in broad-spectrum antimicrobial use in the intensive care unit and a 10% (95% CI, 4%–16%) reduction in broad-spectrum antimicrobial use outside the intensive care unit. Reductions were particularly seen in cephalosporin and glycopeptide use, although these were partially offset by increases in the use of β-lactam–β-lactamase inhibitors.

Conclusions: The introduction of an antimicrobial stewardship program, including postprescription review, resulted in an immediate reduction in broad-spectrum antimicrobial use in a tertiary referral centre. However, the effect of this intervention reduced over time.

Up to 50% of antimicrobial agents prescribed to hospital inpatients are considered to be inappropriate,1,2 and this excess use has been associated with increased mortality, adverse drug reactions and the development of resistant bacteria.3,4 The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care recently published recommendations for hospital-based antimicrobial stewardship programs.2 A variety of approaches are available to implement these recommendations, including dissemination of guidelines, education, restricting antimicrobial availability and postprescribing audit and review.

We aimed to evaluate changes in antimicrobial prescribing after the implementation of an antimicrobial stewardship program in a specialist tertiary referral hospital.

Antimicrobial stewardship program

We have previously described the preliminary activities of the antimicrobial stewardship team.5 A web-based antimicrobial approval system (Guidance MS, Melbourne Health) was rolled out from October 20106 and a full-time pharmacist was appointed in January 2011. Before this, authorisation to prescribe restricted antimicrobial agents required approval from infectious diseases (ID) registrars, but auditing had suggested poor compliance. In the new system, online approval could be obtained to use restricted antimicrobials for pre-approved indications that were included in national or local consensus guidelines. Short-term approval was granted for other indications specified by the clinician (non-standard indications). Pharmacists could alert the antimicrobial stewardship team of unauthorised antimicrobial use exceeding 24 hours (pharmacist alerts).

Non-ICU antimicrobial stewardship ward rounds (by the stewardship pharmacist and either an ID registrar and/or an ID physician, on weekdays) commenced in January 2011. Each round comprised a focused review of clinical notes and results of investigations aimed at establishing the indication, planned duration, appropriateness, and alternatives to the use of restricted antimicrobial agents. Recommendations were discussed with the treating team and documented in writing; the final decision regarding patient management was the responsibility of the treating team. Patients who required more in-depth management advice were referred to the ID consult service.

Patients were reviewed by the stewardship team if they were receiving at least one restricted antimicrobial for a non-standard indication, where approval had expired, or where a pharmacist alert had been created. At our hospital, 13 restricted antimicrobial agents require web-based approval: amikacin, azithromycin, cefepime, ceftazidime, ceftriaxone, ciprofloxacin, meropenem, moxifloxacin, piperacillin/tazobactam, teicoplanin, ticarcillin/clavulanate, tobramycin and vancomycin. Patients were not reviewed by the antimicrobial stewardship team if they had already received a formal ID consult, or were admitted under lung transplant/cystic fibrosis, haematology and bone marrow transplant, or burns services, where ID physicians performed regular ward rounds (Box 1).

For several years in the ICU, the microbiology registrar has discussed results and antimicrobial treatments with ICU teams daily (supported by an ID physician three times per week). The stewardship pharmacist augmented this from January 2011 with all patients reviewed routinely. In December 2010, there was also a change to empirical ICU guidelines for health care-acquired sepsis, from ticarcillin/clavulanate or cefepime (for early and late sepsis, respectively) to piperacillin/tazobactam (regardless of onset), in all cases combined with an aminoglycoside, except when combined with quinolone in specified situations. Recommendations for vancomycin use did not change.

Outcome measures

We compared trends in the rate of use of antimicrobial classes before stewardship implementation (January 2008 to December 2010) and after implementation (January 2011 to June 2012). Antimicrobial consumption quantities were converted into defined daily doses (DDD) per 1000 occupied bed-days (OBD) as part of the National Antimicrobial Utilisation Surveillance Program.7,8 Total broad-spectrum antimicrobial use was defined as the sum of usage for all classes except for aminoglycosides, which are regarded as narrow-spectrum antibiotics. Antimicrobial use is based on pharmacy purchasing data and inpatient stock distribution (excluding hospital in the home and the emergency department). Outcomes were assessed by:

We defined a clinically significant decrease in antimicrobial use as:

Statistical tests were performed using Stata version 12 (StataCorp). Ethical permission to review these data was obtained from the Alfred Health Human Ethics Committee.

Impact of antimicrobial stewardship rounds

Between 10 January 2011 and 30 June 2012, 2254 patients were identified as requiring review by the antimicrobial stewardship team. An antimicrobial management recommendation was made in 779 of 2254 (35%) patients, with a total of 1104 recommendations made. Of the patients for whom a recommendation was made, the median age was 66 years (range, 16–98 years) and 503 (65%) were male.

Recommendations were made in patients under 26 different treating units; 63% (490/779) of patients were managed by surgical/trauma units and 37% (289/779) were medical patients. The median duration of antimicrobial therapy before review was 2 days (interquartile range, 1–4 days). The majority of recommendations were made following pharmacy alerts (907/1104; 82%), by non-standard approvals (92/1104; 8%) or based on expiry of the current antimicrobial approval (93/1104; 8%).

Recommendations were made to modify treatment for patients on restricted broad-spectrum antimicrobials; most commonly, ceftriaxone (278), piperacillin/tazobactam (155), ciprofloxacin (99) and vancomycin (96).

In 40% (440/1104) of recommendations, antimicrobial discontinuation was suggested; in an additional 11% (123/1104), antimicrobial de-escalation was recommended; and in 13% (145/1104), an intravenous to oral switch was recommended. Escalation of antimicrobial spectrum was recommended in 2% (25/1104) of cases and antimicrobial initiation in 3% (29/1104). A formal ID consult referral was recommended on 71 occasions (6%).

In 74% (819/1104) of cases, the recommendation was accepted by the treating team. For most of the unaccepted recommendations (233/285; 82%), no reason was cited for non-acceptance. Where reasons for non-acceptance were documented, they included the use of unapproved unit protocols (13) and the insistence of a more senior doctor in the treating team (14).


The antimicrobial stewardship program brought immediate reductions in the use of total broad-spectrum antimicrobials, particularly third/fourth generation cephalosporins and glycopeptides. In addition to case-by-case audit and feedback, regular stewardship rounds identified unapproved unit guidelines, provided an accessible clinical resource for junior doctors, raised awareness of appropriate antimicrobial use and reinforced the use of the web-based antimicrobial approval system. Our experience is consistent with a systematic review of stewardship programs that suggested that restrictive interventions were more likely to be successful than those based only on education or persuasion.9

The interventions that we have implemented are resource intensive, requiring a full-time pharmacist supported by part-time ID physicians (8–10 hours/week). Although a previous study has shown a decrease in several classes of broad-spectrum antimicrobials associated with a web-based approval system only,6 we felt that without an audit and feedback mechanism, this intervention would not be sustainable. Additionally, postprescribing audit and feedback recognises that appropriateness of therapy often needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis, and that broad guidelines on prescribing may not be easily applied to individual patients. Previous studies of similar interventions have found similar patterns of intervention, but on a much less intensive scale.10-12 Despite this, only six of 78 respondents in an Australian survey of hospital pharmacies reported implementing regular multidisciplinary antimicrobial stewardship ward rounds.13

There are several limitations to this observational study. We were unable to definitively ascribe changes in prescribing to the intervention, due to confounders such as concurrent changes in ICU empirical treatment guidelines. Aggregated data on antimicrobial use is not able to provide a measure of appropriateness of use and does not account for changes in antimicrobial dosing. The data on antimicrobial use includes units known to be high users of broad-spectrum antimicrobials (eg, cystic fibrosis) but where the only new intervention was the introduction of the web-based approval system. A formal cost-effectiveness study was not undertaken; however, we note that the antimicrobial classes where significant decreases in use were seen are relatively inexpensive (ceftriaxone 1 g, $1; vancomycin 1 g, $3) and thus are unlikely to offset the cost of the stewardship team based on saved drug costs alone. The antimicrobial use data used in this study were based on pharmacy purchasing data and inpatient stock distribution, with purchasing practices likely to have affected use data and to have potentially introduced delays in use trends. A 2-month worldwide benzylpenicillin shortage occurred during the study period (September–November 2011), which may have affected antimicrobial use trends at this time.

We attempted to reduce potential adverse effects by using built-in safeguards, including the provision to commence antimicrobials without approval for 24 hours, routinely discussing recommendations with the clinical team, and leaving the final decision regarding changes to antimicrobial therapy to the treating clinicians. We found evidence of greater use of β-lactam–β-lactamase inhibitor combinations that offset the decreased use of other classes, particularly cephalosporins and aminogylcosides — a phenomenon termed “squeezing the antibiotic balloon”. Concerningly, in the ICU we found some evidence of a rebound in the overall use of antimicrobials, and specifically, in the use of carbapenems, fluoroquinolones and glycopeptides. Further work is required to improve the quality of prescribing and evaluate longer term effects on antimicrobial resistance and patient outcomes.

2 Change in antimicrobial use before and after implementation of antimicrobial stewardship interventions

Before intervention

After intervention


Antimicrobial class/setting


Trend (%/month)


Trend (%/month)

Change in use

Immediate change (95% CI)

Change in trend (95% CI)§

Intensive care

Total broad spectrum






16.6% ( 19.9%, 13.2%)

1.0% (0.7%, 1.4%)







20.3% ( 30.2%, 9.1%)

1.5% (0.4%, 2.7%)

Antipseudomonal β-lactam–β-lactamase inhibitor






34.2% (21.8%, 47.9%)

0.3% ( 0.5%, 1.1%)







11.2% ( 20.7%, 0.6%)

2.1% (1.2%, 3.0%)

Cephalosporins (3rd/4th generation)






54.6% ( 59.0%, 49.7%)

0.8% ( 0.1%, 1.7%)







3.3% ( 10.1%, 4.0%)

0.7% (0.1%, 1.4%)







24.8% ( 31.1%, 18.0%)

1.7% (1.0%, 2.5%)

General wards (excluding intensive care)

Total broad spectrum






9.9% ( 15.7%, 3.7%)

0.2% ( 0.4%, 0.8%)







9.8% ( 6.7%, 29.1%)

0.3% ( 1.1%, 1.7%)

Antipseudomonal β-lactam– β-lactamase inhibitor






2.9% ( 18.5%, 15.7%)

2.3% (0.9%, 3.7%)







6.7% ( 10.0%, 26.5%)

0.5% ( 0.9%, 2.0%)

Cephalosporins (3rd/4th generation)






22.4% ( 32.3%, 11.1%)

0.2% ( 1.0%, 1.4%)







4.2% ( 16.7%, 10.3%)

0.6% ( 1.8%, 0.7%)







14.2% ( 25.6%, 1.2%)

0.7% ( 2.0%, 0.5%)

* Defined daily doses per 1000 occupied bed-days. Positive represents increased use; negative, decreased use. Change in use at the time of the introduction of the intervention. § Relative change in monthly rate of use.

Received 16 November 2012, accepted 17 February 2013

  • Kelly A Cairns1
  • Adam W J Jenney1,2
  • Iain J Abbott1
  • Matthew J Skinner1,3
  • Joseph S Doyle1
  • Michael Dooley1,2
  • Allen C Cheng1,2

  • 1 Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC.
  • 2 Monash University, Melbourne, VIC.
  • 3 Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, WA.



We acknowledge the previous antimicrobial stewardship pharmacists involved in this project (Jenny Kirschner, Trent Lee) and the members of the Alfred Health Antimicrobial Stewardship Committee. We also thank Alex Padiglione for helpful comments on the manuscript, and the National Antibiotic Utilisation Surveillance Program for data.

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

  • 1. Gottlieb T, Nimmo GR. Antibiotic resistance is an emerging threat to public health: an urgent call to action at the Antimicrobial Resistance Summit 2011. Med J Aust 2011; 194: 281-283. <MJA full text>
  • 2. Duguid M, Cruickshank M. Antimicrobial stewardship in Australian hospitals. Sydney: Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare, 2011.
  • 3. Dellit TH, Owens RC, McGowan JE Jr, 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.
  • 4. Gums JG, Yancey RW Jr, Hamilton CA, Kubilis PS. A randomized, prospective study measuring outcomes after antibiotic therapy intervention by a multidisciplinary consult team. Pharmacotherapy 1999; 19: 1369-1377.
  • 5. Cairns KA, Jenney AWJ, Krishnaswamy S, et al. Early experience with antimicrobial stewardship ward rounds at a tertiary referral hospital [letter]. Med J Aust 2012; 196: 34-35. <MJA full text>
  • 6. Buising KL, Thursky KA, Robertson MB, et al. Electronic antibiotic stewardship — reduced consumption of broad-spectrum antibiotics using a computerized antimicrobial approval system in a hospital setting. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008; 62: 608-616.
  • 7. Natsch S, Hekster YA, de Jong R, et al. Application of the ATC/DDD methodology to monitor antibiotic drug use. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1998; 17: 20-24.
  • 8. South Australian Infection Control Service. National Antimicrobial Utilisation Surveillance Program: annual report 2010-2012. (accessed Nov 2012).
  • 9. Davey P, Brown E, Fenelon L, et al. Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005; (4): CD003543.
  • 10. Baker CA, Sehdev P. Defining an antimicrobial monitoring service. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2008; 65: 2095-2096, 2098-2099.
  • 11. Laible BR, Nazir J, Assimacopoulos AP, Schut J. Implementation of a pharmacist-led antimicrobial management team in a community teaching hospital: use of pharmacy residents and pharmacy students in a prospective audit and feedback approach. J Pharm Pract 2010; 23: 531-535.
  • 12. Cosgrove SE, Seo SK, Bolon MK, et al. Evaluation of postprescription review and feedback as a method of promoting rational antimicrobial use: a multicenter intervention. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012; 33: 374-380.
  • 13. Chen AWJ, Khumra S, Eaton V, Kong DCM. Snapshot of antimicrobial stewardship in Australian hospitals. J Pharm Prac Res 2010; 40: 19-26.
  • 14. Peterson LR. Squeezing the antibiotic balloon: the impact of antimicrobial classes on emerging resistance. Clin Microbiol Infect 2005; 11 Suppl 5: 4-16.


remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

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.