Search

Veterinarians sometimes prescribe antimicrobials even when they know or suspect that they are unnecessary. The drivers of this behaviour must be understood to design effective antimicrobial stewardship interventions. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 veterinarians who treated companion animals in Australia. The Theory of Planned Behaviour was used to organise interview themes, focusing on a decision to withhold antimicrobial therapy in the absence of a clear indication. Many background factors influenced antimicrobial-withholding decisions, including the veterinarian's communication skills, general attitudes towards antimicrobial resistance (AMR), habits and energy levels. Client awareness of AMR and the veterinarian-client relationship were also important. Beliefs about the consequences of withholding antimicrobials (behavioural beliefs) were dominated by fears of the animal's condition deteriorating and of failing to meet client expectations. These fears, weighed against the seemingly distant consequences of AMR, were major barriers to withholding antimicrobials. Normative beliefs were primarily focused on the expected approval (or disapproval) of the client and of other veterinarians. Control beliefs about the difficulty of withholding antimicrobials centred around client factors, most importantly, their capacity to adequately monitor their animal, to pay for further investigations, or to undertake non-antimicrobial management, such as wound care, at home. The use of antimicrobials by companion animal veterinarians in the absence of a clear indication is often powerfully driven by behavioural beliefs, chiefly, fears of clinical deterioration and of failing to meet client expectations.

The timely implementation of antimicrobial stewardship interventions could delay or prevent the development of higher levels of antimicrobial resistance in the future. In food-producing animals in Australia, high-importance antimicrobials, as rated by the Australian Strategic and Technical Advisory Group (ASTAG), include virginiamycin and third-generation cephalosporins (in individual pigs or cattle). The use of high-importance antimicrobials in companion animals is more widespread and less regulated. There is no national antimicrobial use surveillance system for animals in Australia. Consequently, there is a gap in the knowledge about reasonable use across all sectors of veterinary practice. This study explored attitudes towards the use in veterinary medicine of antimicrobials with high importance to human health, and determined levels of agreement about the introduction of restrictions or other conditions on this use. An online survey was distributed via social media and email from June to December 2020 to veterinarians working in Australia. Of the 278 respondents working in clinical practice, 49% had heard of the ASTAG rating system, and 22% used a traffic light system for antimicrobial importance in their practice. Overall, 61% of participants disagreed that veterinarians should be able to prescribe high-importance antimicrobials without restrictions. If there were to be restrictions, there was most agreement amongst all respondents for only restricting high-importance antimicrobials (73%). There is a need for education, guidance, and practical support for veterinarians for prescribing high-importance antimicrobials alongside any restrictions.