Search

The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (EML) prioritizes medicines that have significant global public health value. The EML can also deliver important messages on appropriate medicine use. Since 2017, in response to the growing challenge of antimicrobial resistance, antibiotics on the EML have been reviewed and categorized into three groups: Access, Watch, and Reserve, leading to a new categorization called AWaRe. These categories were developed taking into account the impact of different antibiotics and classes on antimicrobial resistance and the implications for their appropriate use. The 2023 AWaRe classification provides empirical guidance on 41 essential antibiotics for over 30 clinical infections targeting both the primary health care and hospital facility setting. A further 257 antibiotics not included on the EML have been allocated an AWaRe group for stewardship and monitoring purposes. This article describes the development of AWaRe, focussing on the clinical evidence base that guided the selection of Access, Watch, or Reserve antibiotics as first and second choices for each infection. The overarching objective was to offer a tool for optimizing the quality of global antibiotic prescribing and reduce inappropriate use by encouraging the use of Access antibiotics (or no antibiotics) where appropriate. This clinical evidence evaluation and subsequent EML recommendations are the basis for the AWaRe antibiotic book and related smartphone applications. By providing guidance on antibiotic prioritization, AWaRe aims to facilitate the revision of national lists of essential medicines, update national prescribing guidelines, and supervise antibiotic use. Adherence to AWaRe would extend the effectiveness of current antibiotics while helping countries expand access to these life-saving medicines for the benefit of current and future patients, health professionals, and the environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The link between healthcare worker (HCW) communication, teamwork and patient safety is well-established. Infection prevention and control (IPC) and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) require multidisciplinary teamwork and communication. We conducted a scoping review of published evidence on effective mechanisms of HCW team communication in hospitals with the intention of transferring and tailoring learning to IPC and AMS team communication. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL were searched for studies that investigated HCW team communication across in-hospital patient pathways. Studies published between 2000 and 2021 that provided evidence on/or described the effect of communication on team and patient outcomes in hospital were included. Through a process of inductive qualitative content analysis, key themes in the included studies were identified. Of 537 studies identified, 53 (from high-income countries) were included in the data extraction. Fifty one percent (27/53) of studies were conducted in high acuity settings e.g., intensive care units. Standardizing or structuring the content and/or process of team communication was the most common goal of interventions (34/53, 64%). The key outcome measures were either team communication focused (25/34,74%) or patient and process outcome focused (8/34, 24%), such as reduced length of mechanical ventilation days, length of hospital stay, and shorter empiric antibiotic duration. Four studies (4/53, 8%) associated improved communication with positive IPC and AMS outcome measures. Mixed method intervention studies primarily facilitated collaborative input from HCWs and applied structures to standardize the content of patient care discussions, whereas observational studies describe component of team communication. A communication strategy that formalizes input from multidisciplinary team members can lead to optimized and consistent clinical discussion including in IPC and AMS-related care. Although we were unable to assess the effectiveness of interventions, the existing evidence suggests that optimizing team communication can have a positive effect on infection-related patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The diagnostic gap hides the true extent of antimicrobial resistance in Africa. • Conventional laboratory diagnostics are unlikely to bridge this gap. • Various point-of-care assays for antimicrobial resistance applications are in development. • Implementation strategies for point-of-care assays are needed to close the diagnostic gap. Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries are severely impacted by antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Due to gaps in access to diagnostics in SSA, the true extent of AMR remains unknown. This diagnostic gap affects patient management and leads to significant antimicrobial overuse. This review explores how point-of-care (POC) testing for pathogen identification and AMR may be used to close the diagnostic gap in SSA countries. A narrative review exploring current clinical practice and novel developments in the field of POC testing for infectious diseases and AMR. POC assays for identification of various pathogens have been successfully rolled out in SSA countries. While implementation studies have mostly highlighted impressive test performance of POC assays, there is limited data on the impact of implementation on clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. We did not encounter local studies of host-directed POC assays relevant to AMR. Novel POC assays using real-time polymerase chain reaction, isothermal amplification, microfluidics, and other technologies are in various stages of development. Available literature shows that POC testing for AMR applications is implementable in SSA and holds the potential to reduce the diagnostic gap. Implementation will require effective regulatory pathways, incorporation of POC testing in clinical and laboratory guidelines, and adequate value capture in existing health financing models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]