Search

Abstract Background Minimizing harm from antimicrobials requires use of the narrowest spectrum drug, at an effective dose for the minimum effective duration. Many prescribers are not currently following these guidelines. To address suboptimal antimicrobial use, the underlying reasons must be understood. Objectives To identify factors influencing choices of antimicrobial drug, dose, and duration for companion animals. Subjects Twenty‐two veterinarians treating companion animals in Australia. Diversity of participants was deliberately sought. Methods Semistructured interviews were conducted online. Two case studies were discussed, and then a range of broader questions was posed. Transcripts were analyzed thematically, using an inductive approach. Results Few participants chose guideline‐concordant management for the case studies. Prescribing choices were influenced by a complex array of factors associated with the clinical case, pet owner, drug, veterinarian, veterinary colleagues, and external factors. Key factors driving broad‐spectrum antimicrobial use included a sense of safety, habit, ease of administering the drug (especially in cats), pharmaceutical marketing, and the self‐perpetuating dispensary cycle. Many participants were concerned about antimicrobial resistance, but insufficiently informed about how to minimize this risk. Several participants believed that longer duration of treatment and ensuring patients finish a predetermined course would decrease the risk of antimicrobial resistance and improve clinical outcomes. Conclusions and Clinical Importance Veterinarians are engaged with the concept of antimicrobial stewardship, but face numerous practical barriers and require more information. In particular, improved education is needed on enhancing patient safety by minimizing both spectrum of activity and duration of treatment, and dispelling myths about “finishing the course.”

In Australia, antimicrobials are given an importance rating by the Australian Strategic and Technical Advisory Group on antimicrobial resistance. High importance antimicrobials are those essential for the treatment or prevention of infections in humans, where there are few or no treatment alternatives. In this study we consulted with experts from across human and animal health using the Delphi consensus-building process to establish the circumstances under which antimicrobials with high importance to human health could be used in animals in Australia. We used three rounds of online surveys. Group responses were provided to participants in each subsequent round to facilitate convergence of opinion. Consensus was defined as 80 % or more of respondents selecting the same option for a question. By the end of the third round, consensus was achieved on eight items. This included the use of high importance antimicrobials being appropriate if culture and sensitivity testing indicated the organism was resistant to low- and medium-rated antimicrobials that could be used to treat the case. If any high-importance antimicrobials are prescribed for animals there was also agreement that a clear indication for this use and justification for antimicrobial choice must be recorded in the medical history, along with the dose rate, route of administration, the duration and the time point for review of the condition and associated antimicrobial therapy.Appropriateness of use of high importance antimicrobials in critically ill animals where culture and sensitivity results are not available is still undefined. Further work is also required to establish which particular organisation should be notified of the use of high importance antimicrobials not registered for use in animals. The Delphi process was valuable in facilitating consensus amongst international experts from a broad range of health backgrounds and experience.

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.