Assessing the impact of the Global Point Prevalence Survey of Antimicrobial Consumption and Resistance (Global-PPS) on hospital antimicrobial stewardship programmes: results of a worldwide survey

Abstract

Background: The Global Point Prevalence Survey of Antimicrobial Consumption and Resistance (Global-PPS) provides a methodology to support hospitals worldwide in collecting antimicrobial use data. We aim to evaluate the impact of the Global-PPS on local antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes and assess health care professionals' educational needs and barriers for implementing AMS. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was disseminated within the Global-PPS network. The target audience consisted of hospital healthcare workers, involved in local surveillance of antimicrobial consumption and resistance. This included contacts from hospitals that already participated in the Global-PPS or were planning to do so. The survey contained 24 questions that addressed the hospital's AMS activities, experiences conducting the PPS, as well as the learning needs and barriers for implementing AMS. Results: A total of 248 hospitals from 74 countries participated in the survey, of which 192 had already conducted the PPS at least once. The survey response rate was estimated at 25%. In 96.9% of these 192 hospitals, Global-PPS participation had led to the identification of problems related to antimicrobial prescribing. In 69.3% at least one of the hospital's AMS components was initiated as a result of Global-PPS findings. The level of AMS implementation varied across regions. Up to 43.1% of all hospitals had a formal antimicrobial stewardship strategy, ranging from 10.8% in Africa to 60.9% in Northern America. Learning needs of hospitals in high-income countries and in low-and middle-income countries were largely similar and included general topics (e.g. 'optimising antibiotic treatment'), but also PPS-related topics (e.g. 'translating PPS results into meaningful interventions'). The main barriers to implementing AMS programmes were a lack of time (52.7%), knowledge on good prescribing practices (42.0%), and dedicated funding (39.9%). Hospitals in LMIC more often reported unavailability of prescribing guidelines, insufficient laboratory capacity and suboptimal use of the available laboratory services.