Impact of COVID-19 on ‘Start Smart, Then Focus’ Antimicrobial Stewardship at One NHS Foundation Trust in England Prior to and during the Pandemic

COVID Pub Date : 2024-01-21 DOI:10.3390/covid4010010
R. Abdelsalam Elshenawy, N. Umaru, Z. Aslanpour
{"title":"Impact of COVID-19 on ‘Start Smart, Then Focus’ Antimicrobial Stewardship at One NHS Foundation Trust in England Prior to and during the Pandemic","authors":"R. Abdelsalam Elshenawy, N. Umaru, Z. Aslanpour","doi":"10.3390/covid4010010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR), a major global public health threat that has caused 1.2 million deaths, calls for immediate action. Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) promotes judicious antibiotic use, but the COVID-19 pandemic increased AMR by 15%. Although there are paramount data on the impact of COVID-19 on AMS, empirical data on AMS implementation during the pandemic are lacking. This study aimed to investigate antibiotic prescribing and AMS implementation prior to the pandemic (PP) in 2019 and during the pandemic (DP) in 2020 at one NHS Foundation Trust in England. Method: This cross-sectional study involved adult patients admitted to one NHS Foundation Trust in England, focusing on those prescribed antibiotics for respiratory tract infections (RTIs). This included cases of pneumonia in both years under study and COVID-19 cases in 2020. Data were retrospectively extracted from medical records using a validated data extraction tool, which was developed based on the ‘Start Smart, Then Focus’ (SSTF) approach of the AMS Toolkit. Results: This study included 640 patients. The largest age group in the study was 66–85 years, comprising 156 individuals (48.8%) PP in 2019 and 148 (46.3%) DP in 2020. CAP was the predominant diagnosis, affecting approximately 126 (39.4%) PP and 136 (42.5%) DP patients. Regarding the timing of antibiotic review post-admission, reviews were typically conducted within 48–72 h, with no significant difference between 2019 and 2020, with an odds ratio of 1.02 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.08, p-Value = 0.461). During the pandemic, there was a significant difference in both AMS interventions, ‘Continue Antibiotics’ and ‘De-escalation’, with odds ratios of 3.36 (95% CI 1.30–9.25, p = 0.015) and 2.77 (95% CI 1.37–5.70, p = 0.005), respectively. Conclusion: This study emphasises the need for robust AMS to ensure adherence to guidelines. It acknowledges the impact of comorbidities and advocates for sustained stewardship efforts to combat resistance both during and after the pandemic era.","PeriodicalId":72714,"journal":{"name":"COVID","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"COVID","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/covid4010010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR), a major global public health threat that has caused 1.2 million deaths, calls for immediate action. Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) promotes judicious antibiotic use, but the COVID-19 pandemic increased AMR by 15%. Although there are paramount data on the impact of COVID-19 on AMS, empirical data on AMS implementation during the pandemic are lacking. This study aimed to investigate antibiotic prescribing and AMS implementation prior to the pandemic (PP) in 2019 and during the pandemic (DP) in 2020 at one NHS Foundation Trust in England. Method: This cross-sectional study involved adult patients admitted to one NHS Foundation Trust in England, focusing on those prescribed antibiotics for respiratory tract infections (RTIs). This included cases of pneumonia in both years under study and COVID-19 cases in 2020. Data were retrospectively extracted from medical records using a validated data extraction tool, which was developed based on the ‘Start Smart, Then Focus’ (SSTF) approach of the AMS Toolkit. Results: This study included 640 patients. The largest age group in the study was 66–85 years, comprising 156 individuals (48.8%) PP in 2019 and 148 (46.3%) DP in 2020. CAP was the predominant diagnosis, affecting approximately 126 (39.4%) PP and 136 (42.5%) DP patients. Regarding the timing of antibiotic review post-admission, reviews were typically conducted within 48–72 h, with no significant difference between 2019 and 2020, with an odds ratio of 1.02 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.08, p-Value = 0.461). During the pandemic, there was a significant difference in both AMS interventions, ‘Continue Antibiotics’ and ‘De-escalation’, with odds ratios of 3.36 (95% CI 1.30–9.25, p = 0.015) and 2.77 (95% CI 1.37–5.70, p = 0.005), respectively. Conclusion: This study emphasises the need for robust AMS to ensure adherence to guidelines. It acknowledges the impact of comorbidities and advocates for sustained stewardship efforts to combat resistance both during and after the pandemic era.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
COVID-19 在大流行之前和期间对英格兰一家 NHS 基金会信托机构的 "明智起步,突出重点 "抗菌药物管理工作的影响
背景:抗菌素耐药性(AMR)是全球公共卫生的一大威胁,已造成 120 万人死亡,因此需要立即采取行动。抗菌药物管理(AMS)提倡合理使用抗生素,但 COVID-19 大流行使 AMR 增加了 15%。尽管有关于 COVID-19 对 AMS 影响的大量数据,但缺乏在大流行期间实施 AMS 的经验数据。本研究旨在调查 2019 年大流行(PP)前和 2020 年大流行(DP)期间英国一家 NHS 基金会信托基金会的抗生素处方和 AMS 实施情况。研究方法这项横断面研究涉及英格兰一家 NHS 基金会信托机构收治的成年患者,重点关注因呼吸道感染 (RTI) 而被处方抗生素的患者。其中包括研究中两个年份的肺炎病例和 2020 年的 COVID-19 病例。研究人员使用经过验证的数据提取工具从病历中回顾性地提取数据,该工具是根据 AMS 工具包中的 "明智开始,然后聚焦"(SSTF)方法开发的。研究结果这项研究包括 640 名患者。研究中最大的年龄组为 66-85 岁,其中 2019 年 PP 患者 156 人(48.8%),2020 年 DP 患者 148 人(46.3%)。CAP是最主要的诊断,影响了约126名(39.4%)PP患者和136名(42.5%)DP患者。关于入院后抗生素复查的时间,复查通常在 48-72 小时内进行,2019 年和 2020 年之间没有显著差异,几率比为 1.02(95% CI 0.97 至 1.08,p-Value = 0.461)。在大流行期间,"继续使用抗生素 "和 "降级 "这两种急性呼吸系统疾病干预措施存在显著差异,几率比分别为 3.36(95% CI 1.30-9.25,p = 0.015)和 2.77(95% CI 1.37-5.70,p = 0.005)。结论本研究强调,有必要建立健全的 AMS,以确保遵守指南。它承认了合并症的影响,并倡导在大流行期间和之后持续开展管理工作以消除耐药性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Impact of COVID-19 on Dental Students’ Mental Health Status and Perception of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine SARS-CoV-2-Related Parotitis in Children: A Narrative-Focused Review 3Cs: Unleashing Capsule Networks for Robust COVID-19 Detection Using CT Images EFCAB4B (CRACR2A/Rab46) Genetic Variants Associated with COVID-19 Fatality Comparison of the Psychological Impact of COVID-19 on Healthcare Workers between 2022 and 2023 in a Romanian COVID-19 Hub Hospital
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1