Search

Objectives Despite escalating antimicrobial resistance (AMR), implementing effective antimicrobial optimisation within healthcare settings has been hampered by institutional impediments. This study sought to examine, from a hospital management and governance perspective, why healthcare providers may find it challenging to enact changes needed to address rising AMR.Design Semistructured qualitative interviews around their experiences of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) and responsiveness to the requirement for optimisation. Data were analysed using the framework approach.Setting Two metropolitan tertiary-referral hospitals in Australia.Participants Twenty hospital managers and executives from the organisational level of department head and above, spanning a range of professional backgrounds and in both clinical and non-clinical roles, and different professional streams were represented.Results Thematic analysis demonstrated three key domains which managers and executives describe, and which might function to delimit institutional responsiveness to present and future AMR solutions. First, the primacy of ‘political’ priorities. AMR was perceived as a secondary priority, overshadowed by political priorities determined beyond the hospital by state health departments/ministries and election cycles. Second, the limits of accreditation as a mechanism for change. Hospital accreditation processes and regulatory structures were not sufficient to induce efficacious AMS. Third, a culture of acute problem ‘solving’ rather than future proofing. A culture of reactivity was described across government and healthcare institutions, precluding longer term objectives, like addressing the AMR crisis.Conclusion There are dynamics between political and health service institutions, as well as enduring governance norms, that may significantly shape capacity to enact AMS and respond to AMR. Until these issues are addressed, and the field moves beyond individual behaviour modification models, antimicrobial misuse will likely continue, and stewardship is likely to have a limited impact.

Objectives To assess an intervention for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) improvement within surgical teams focused on addressing barriers and fostering enablers and ownership of guideline compliance.Design The Queensland Surgical Antibiotic Prophylaxis (QSAP) study was a multicentre, mixed methods study designed to address barriers and enablers to SAP compliance and facilitate engagement in self-directed audit/feedback and assess the efficacy of the intervention in improving compliance with SAP guidelines. The implementation was assessed using a 24-month interrupted time series design coupled with a qualitative evaluation.Setting The study was undertaken at three hospitals (one regional, two metropolitan) in Australia.Participants SAP-prescribing decisions for 1757 patients undergoing general surgical procedures from three health services were included. Six bimonthly time points, pre-implementation and post implementation of the intervention, were measured. Qualitative interviews were performed with 29 clinical team members. SAP improvements varied across site and time periods.Intervention QSAP embedded ownership of quality improvement in SAP within surgical teams and used known social influences to address barriers to and enablers of optimal SAP prescribing.Results The site that reported senior surgeon engagement showed steady and consistent improvement in prescribing over 24 months (prestudy and poststudy). Multiple factors, including resource issues, influenced engagement and sites/time points where these were present had no improvement in guideline compliance.Conclusions The barriers-enablers-ownership model shows promise in its ability to facilitate prescribing improvements and could be expanded into other areas of antimicrobial stewardship. Senior ownership was a predictor of success (or failure) of the intervention across sites and time periods. The key role of senior leaders in change leadership indicates the critical need to engage other specialties in the stewardship agenda. The influence of contextual factors in limiting engagement clearly identifies issues of resource distributions/inequalities within health systems as limiting antimicrobial optimisation potential.

Objectives This study responds to calls for greater focus on nursing roles, and the need for nursing integration within the antimicrobial optimisation agenda. The objective of this study was to explore Australian hospital nurses’ views on antimicrobial resistance and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) in a hospital setting, in order to better understand the opportunities for and challenges to integration of nursing staff in antimicrobial optimisation within hospital settings.Design Qualitative one-on-one, semistructured interviews. Interview transcripts were digitally audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were subject to thematic analysis supported by the framework approach and informed by sociological methods and theory.Setting Four hospitals (three public and one private), across metropolitan, regional and remote areas, in two Australian states.Participants 86 nurses (77 females, 9 males), from a range of hospital departments, at a range of career stages.Results Findings were organised into three thematic domains: (1) the current peripheral role of nurses in AMS; (2) the importance of AMS as a collaborative effort, and current tensions around interprofessional roles and (3) how nurses can bolster antimicrobial optimisation within AMS and beyond.Conclusion Nursing staff are central to infection management within the hospital and are thus ideally located to enhance antibiotic optimisation and contribute to AMS governance. However, without increased interprofessional cooperation, education and integration in the AMS agenda, as well as addressing organisational/resource constraints in the hospital, the nursing role in stewardship will remain limited.