Search

Background:Fluoroquinolones (FQs) and extended-spectrum cephalosporins (ESCs) are associated with higher risk of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). Decreasing the unnecessary use of FQs and ESCs is a goal of antimicrobial stewardship. Understanding how prescribers perceive the risks and benefits of FQs and ESCs is needed.Methods:We conducted interviews with clinicians from 4 hospitals. Interviews elicited respondent perceptions about the risk of ESCs, FQs, and CDI. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a flexible coding approach.Results:Interviews were conducted with 64 respondents (38 physicians, 7 nurses, 6 advance practice providers, and 13 pharmacists). ESCs and FQs were perceived to have many benefits, including infrequent dosing, breadth of coverage, and greater patient adherence after hospital discharge. Prescribers stated that it was easy to make decisions about these drugs, so they were especially appealing to use in the context of time pressures. They described having difficulty discontinuing these drugs when prescribed by others due to inertia and fear. Prescribers were skeptical about targeting specific drugs as a stewardship approach and felt that the risk of a negative outcome from under treatment of a suspected bacterial infection was a higher priority than the prevention of CDI.Conclusions:Prescribers in this study perceived many advantages to using ESCs and FQs, especially under conditions of time pressure and uncertainty. In making decisions about these drugs, prescribers balance risk and benefit, and they believed that the risk of CDI was acceptable in compared with the risk of undertreatment.

Fluoroquinolones (FQs) and extended-spectrum cephalosporins (ESCs) are associated with higher risk of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). Decreasing the unnecessary use of FQs and ESCs is a goal of antimicrobial stewardship. Understanding how prescribers perceive the risks and benefits of FQs and ESCs is needed.We conducted interviews with clinicians from 4 hospitals. Interviews elicited respondent perceptions about the risk of ESCs, FQs, and CDI. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a flexible coding approach.Interviews were conducted with 64 respondents (38 physicians, 7 nurses, 6 advance practice providers, and 13 pharmacists). ESCs and FQs were perceived to have many benefits, including infrequent dosing, breadth of coverage, and greater patient adherence after hospital discharge. Prescribers stated that it was easy to make decisions about these drugs, so they were especially appealing to use in the context of time pressures. They described having difficulty discontinuing these drugs when prescribed by others due to inertia and fear. Prescribers were skeptical about targeting specific drugs as a stewardship approach and felt that the risk of a negative outcome from under treatment of a suspected bacterial infection was a higher priority than the prevention of CDI.Prescribers in this study perceived many advantages to using ESCs and FQs, especially under conditions of time pressure and uncertainty. In making decisions about these drugs, prescribers balance risk and benefit, and they believed that the risk of CDI was acceptable in compared with the risk of undertreatment.

Background: Robust measurement and tracking of antimicrobial use (AMU) is a fundamental component of stewardship interventions. Feeding back AMU metrics to individual clinicians is a common approach to changing prescribing behavior. Metrics must be meaningful and comprehensible to clinicians. Little is known about how veterinary clinicians working in the United States (US) hospital setting think about AMU metrics for antimicrobial stewardship. Objective: To identify hospital-based veterinary clinicians' attitudes toward audit and feedback of AMU metrics, their perceptions of different AMU metrics, and their response to receiving an individualized prescribing report. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with veterinarians working at two hospitals in the Eastern US. Interviews elicited perceptions of antimicrobial stewardship in veterinary medicine. Respondents were shown a personalized AMU Report characterizing their prescribing patterns relative to their peers and were asked to respond. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using the framework method with matrices. Results: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 34 veterinary clinicians (22 small animal and 12 large animal). Respondents generally felt positive about the reports and were interested in seeing how their prescribing compared to that of their peers. Many respondents expressed doubt that the reports accurately captured the complexities of their prescribing decisions and found metrics associated with animal daily doses (ADDs) confusing. Only 13 (38.2%) respondents felt the reports would change how they used antimicrobials. When asked how the impact of the reports could be optimized, respondents recommended providing a more detailed explanation of how the AMU metrics were derived, education prior to report roll-out, guidance on how to interpret the metrics, and development of meaningful benchmarks for goal-setting. Conclusions: These findings provide important insight that can be used to design veterinary-specific AMU metrics as part of a stewardship intervention that are meaningful to clinicians and more likely to promote judicious prescribing.

Background: Evidence-based hospital antimicrobial stewardship interventions, such as postprescription review with feedback, prior authorization, and handshake stewardship, involve communication between stewards and frontline prescribers. Hierarchy, asymmetric responsibility, prescribing etiquette, and autonomy can obstruct high-quality communication in stewardship. Little is known about the strategies that stewards use to overcome these barriers. The objective of this study was to identify how stewards navigate communication challenges when interacting with prescribers. Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with antimicrobial stewards recruited from hospitals across the United States. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a flexible coding approach and the framework method. Social identity theory and role theory were used to interpret framework matrices. Results: Interviews were conducted with 58 antimicrobial stewards (25 physicians and 33 pharmacists) from 10 hospitals (4 academic medical centers, 4 community hospitals, and 2 children’s hospitals). Respondents who felt empowered in their interactions with prescribers explicitly adopted a social identity that conceptualized stewards and prescribers as being on the “same team” with shared goals (in-group orientation). Drawing on the meaning conferred via this social role identity, respondents engaged in communication strategies to build and maintain common bonds with prescribers. These strategies included moderating language to minimize defensive recommendations when delivering stewardship recommendations, aligning the goals of stewardship with the goals of the clinical team, communicating with prescribers about things other than stewardship, compromising for the sake of future interactions, and engaging in strategic face-to-face interaction. Respondents who felt less empowered in their interactions thought of themselves as outsiders to the clinical team and experienced a heightened sense of “us versus them” mentality with the perception that stewards primarily serve a gate-keeping function (ie, outgroup orientation). These respondents expressed deference to hierarchy, a reluctance to engage in face-to-face interaction, a feeling of cynicism about the impact of stewardship, and a sense of low professional accomplishment within the role. Respondents who exhibited an in-group orientation were more likely than those who did not to describe the positive impact of stewardship mentors or colleagues on their social role identity. Conclusions: The way antimicrobial stewards perceive their role and identity within the social context of their healthcare organization influences how they approach communication with prescribers. Social role identity in stewardship is shaped by the influence of mentors and colleagues, indicating the importance of supportive relationships for the development of steward skill and confidence.Funding: NoDisclosures: None