Antimicrobial stewardship markers and healthcare-associated pneumonia threshold criteria in UK hospitals: analysis of the MicroGuideTm application.

Abstract

Background: To address antimicrobial resistance, antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) principles must be implemented and adhered to. Clinical decision aids such as the MicroGuide^TM app are an important part of these efforts. We sought to evaluate the consistency of core AMS information and the diversity of classification thresholds for healthcare-associated pneumonia (HAP) in the MicroGuide app.

Methods: Guidelines in the MicroGuide app were extracted and analysed for content related to AMS and HAP. Guidelines were characterized according to HAP naming classification; community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) classifications were analysed to serve as a comparator group.

Results: In total, 115 trusts (119 hospitals) were included. Nearly all hospitals had developed MicroGuide sections on AMS (n = 112/119, 94%) and sepsis management (n = 117/119, 98%). Other AMS sections were outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (47%), antifungal stewardship (70%), critical care (23%) and IV to oral switch therapy (83%). Only 9% of hospitals included guidance on the maximum six key AMS sections identified. HAP definitions varied widely across hospitals with some classifying by time to onset and some classifying by severity or complexity. The largest proportion of HAP guidelines based classification on severity/complexity (n = 69/119, 58%). By contrast, definitions in CAP guidelines were uniform.

Conclusions: The high heterogeneity in HAP classification identified suggests inconsistency of practice in identifying thresholds for HAP in the UK. This complicates HAP management and AMS practices. To address HAP in alignment with AMS principles, a comprehensive strategy that prioritizes uniform clinical definitions and thresholds should be developed.