Redding Laurel E, Muller Brandi M, Szymczak Julia E
Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Front Vet Sci. 2020 Sep 8;7:582. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00582. eCollection 2020.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
对抗菌药物使用(AMU)进行有力的测量和跟踪是管理干预措施的一个基本组成部分。将AMU指标反馈给个体临床医生是改变处方行为的常用方法。指标必须对临床医生有意义且易于理解。对于在美国医院环境中工作的兽医临床医生如何看待用于抗菌药物管理的AMU指标,我们知之甚少。为了确定医院兽医临床医生对抗菌药物使用指标的审核和反馈的态度、他们对不同AMU指标的看法以及他们对收到个性化处方报告的反应。对在美国东部两家医院工作的兽医进行了半结构化访谈。访谈引出了兽医学中对抗菌药物管理的看法。向受访者展示了一份个性化的AMU报告,该报告描述了他们相对于同行的处方模式,并要求他们做出回应。访谈进行了录音、转录,并使用带有矩阵的框架方法进行了分析。对34名兽医临床医生(22名小动物医生和12名大动物医生)进行了半结构化访谈。受访者总体上对这些报告持积极态度,并且有兴趣了解自己的处方与同行相比情况如何。许多受访者怀疑这些报告是否准确反映了他们处方决策的复杂性,并发现与动物每日剂量(ADDs)相关的指标令人困惑。只有13名(38.2%)受访者认为这些报告会改变他们使用抗菌药物的方式。当被问及如何优化报告的影响时,受访者建议提供关于AMU指标如何得出的更详细解释、在报告推出前进行教育、关于如何解释这些指标的指导,以及制定有意义的目标设定基准。这些发现提供了重要的见解,可用于设计针对兽医的AMU指标,作为管理干预措施的一部分,这些指标对临床医生有意义,并且更有可能促进合理处方。