ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2024
Pilot study to evaluate the need and implementation of a multifaceted nurse-led antimicrobial stewardship intervention in residential aged care.
Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the need and feasibility of a nurse-led antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programme in two Australian residential aged care homes (RACHs) to inform a stepped-wedged, cluster randomized controlled trial (SW-cRCT). Methods: A mixed-methods pilot study of a nurse-led AMS programme was performed in two RACHs in Victoria, Australia (July-December 2019). The AMS programme comprised education, infection assessment and management guidelines, and documentation to support appropriate antimicrobial use in urinary, lower respiratory and skin/soft tissue infections. The programme was implemented over three phases: (i) pre-implementation education and integration (1 month); (ii) implementation of the intervention (3 months); and (iii) post-intervention evaluation (1 month). Baseline RACH and resident data and weekly infection and antimicrobial usage were collected and analysed descriptively to evaluate the need for AMS strategies. Feedback on intervention resources and implementation barriers were identified from semi-structured interviews, an online staff questionnaire and researcher field notes. Results: Six key barriers to implementation of the intervention were identified and used to refine the intervention: aged care staffing and capacity; access to education; resistance to practice change; role of staff in AMS; leadership and ownership of the intervention at the RACH and organization level; and family expectations. A total of 61 antimicrobials were prescribed for 40 residents over the 3 month intervention. Overall, 48% of antibiotics did not meet minimum criteria for appropriate initiation (respiratory: 73%; urinary: 54%; skin/soft tissue: 0%). Conclusions: Several barriers and opportunities to improve implementation of AMS in RACHs were identified. Findings were used to inform a revised intervention to be evaluated in a larger SW-cRCT.
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.