ArticleCureus2019
Attitudes and Perceptions amongst Critical Care Physicians towards Handshake Antimicrobial Stewardship Rounds.
Article in Cureus, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of ICU physicians on antimicrobial use and resistance: a scoping review.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2026Review
- Self-reported knowledge attitude and practice of healthcare professionals in the management of infection and antimicrobial stewardship: a systematic review.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2025Review
- Article
- In-person prospective audit and feedback on an oncology ward: development of an immunocompromised antimicrobial stewardship program.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2024Article
- Mixed methods evaluation of handshake antimicrobial stewardship on adult inpatient medicine floors.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2023Article
- Development and implementation of "handshake rounds": An antibiotic stewardship intervention for hospitalized adult patients with hematologic malignancies.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2023Article
- The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the antimicrobial stewardship pharmacist workforce: A multicenter survey.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2022Article
- Antimicrobial stewardship: Attitudes and practices of healthcare providers in selected health facilities in Uganda.PloS one · 2022Article
- Physician experiences implementing antimicrobial stewardship rounds in pediatric hospital medicine: An exploratory, qualitative study.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2021Article
- Current Status of Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs in São Paulo Hospitals.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rationale In an era of antimicrobial resistance, antimicrobial stewardship programs are tasked with reducing inappropriate use of antimicrobials in community and hospital settings. Intensive care units are unique, high-stakes environments where high usage of broad-spectrum antimicrobials is often seen. Handshake stewardship has emerged as an effective mode of prospective audit and feedback to help optimize antimicrobial usage, emphasizing an in-person approach to providing feedback. Objectives Six months following the implementation of handshake stewardship rounds in our intensive care unit, we performed a cross-sectional survey of critical care physicians to assess their attitudes and perceptions towards handshake stewardship rounds and preferred mode of delivery of antimicrobial stewardship prospective audit and feedback strategies. Methods A web-based survey was distributed to 22 critical care physicians working in our hospital and responses were collected over a two-week period. Measurements and Main Results Most critical care physicians believe that handshake stewardship rounds improve the quality of patient care (85.7%) and few believe that handshake stewardship rounds are an ineffective use of their time (14.3%). The majority of critical care physicians believe formal, scheduled rounds with face-to-face verbal interaction are very useful compared to providing written suggestions in the absence of face-to-face interaction (71.4% vs 0%). Conclusions Based upon our survey results, handshake stewardship is valued amongst the majority of critical care physicians. Antimicrobial stewardship prospective audit and feedback strategies emphasizing face-to-face interaction are favored amongst critical care physicians.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.