ArticleCJEM2026
Multicenter review of antimicrobial stewardship in the emergency department through pharmacist-led culture review and follow-up programs in Alberta.
Article in CJEM, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn some emergency departments (EDs), pharmacists review and follow-up on microbiological test results for recently discharged patients, intervening when empiric therapy is missing or inadequate to ensure appropriate antimicrobial use. Currently, this practice is not well described in Canada. Characterizing these ED pharmacist activities can help identify antimicrobial stewardship opportunities and allow for more tailored education and training.
objectivesThe primary objective of this study was to describe culture review and follow-up pharmacy practice in terms of antimicrobial stewardship interventions. Secondary objectives included describing the types of cultures being managed and the antimicrobials prescribed empirically and post-culture review.
methodsA retrospective chart review was conducted using pharmacist workload tracking documentation to identify patients with eligible cultures from six EDs in Alberta.
resultsThree hundred cultures were included in this study, and one hundred twenty-nine interventions (40.7% of all cultures reviewed) were performed by ED pharmacists. Initiation of therapy was the most common (33.3%), followed by tailoring therapy (21.7%). Urine cultures were predominant (55.7%), and the antibiotics most prescribed, empirically, and post-culture for urine, were cefixime (44%) and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (34%), respectively. Five patients with asymptomatic bacteriuria were treated with antibiotics. Five patients with skin and soft tissue infections were treated with dual oral antibiotics when culture and sensitivity results indicated monotherapy would have been sufficient. Eight extra days of cefixime therapy were prescribed due to unaccounted doses administered in the ED.
conclusionThis study highlights the critical role of ED pharmacists in culture review and follow-up activities and their contributions to antimicrobial stewardship. By characterizing culture review and follow-up practices, several opportunities for minimizing unnecessary antimicrobial use were identified. These findings will help inform the development of targeted education and training programs to help strengthen the stewardship capabilities of ED pharmacists and prescribers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40461926What 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.