Alice E Barsoumian1, Amanda L Roth2, Steffanie L Solberg3, Ashley S Hanhurst4, Tamara S Funari5, Helen Crouch6, Christopher Florez7, Clinton K Murray8. 1. Infectious Disease Service, Department of Medicine, Brooke Army Medical Center, 3551 Roger Brooke Drive, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234. 2. U.S. Army Medical Materiel Development Activity, 1430 Veterans Drive, Fort Detrick, MD 21702. 3. United States Air Forces Central Command, Command Surgeon Cell, 524 Shaw Drive, Suite B-15, Shaw Air Force Base, SC 29152. 4. Main Operating Room, Department of Surgical Services, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, 8901 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20889. 5. U.S. Central Command HQ, Surgeon Division, 7115 South Boundary Blvd., MacDill AFB, FL 33621. 6. Infection Prevention and Control, Quality and Safety Center, U.S. Army Medical Command Headquarters, 2748 Worth Rd. STE 26, JBSA Ft Sam Houston, TX 78234. 7. United States Air Force Infection Prevention Consultant to the Surgeon General, 3488 Garden Avenue, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234. 8. 1st Area Medical Laboratory, 6745 Plum Point Drive, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Up to 34% of combat trauma injuries are complicated by infection with multidrug-resistant organisms. Overutilization of antibiotics has been linked to increased multidrug-resistant organisms in combat-injured patients. Antimicrobial stewardship efforts at deployed medical treatment facilities have been intermittently reported; however; a comprehensive assessment of antimicrobial stewardship practices has not been performed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey tool was modified to include detailed questions on antimicrobial stewardship practices at medical treatment facilities. A Joint Service, multidisciplinary team conducted on-site assessments and interviews to assess the status of antimicrobial stewardship best practices, with particular emphasis on antibiotic prophylaxis in combat injured, in the U.S. Central Command operational theaters. Limitations to implementing stewardship to the national standards were explored thematically. RESULTS: Nine Role 1, 2, and 3 medical facilities representing the range of care were assessed on-site. A total of 67% of the sites reported a formal antimicrobial stewardship program and 56% of the sites had an assigned head of antimicrobial stewardship. No military personnel in theater received training on antimicrobial stewardship and laboratory assets were limited. Personnel at these sites largely had access to Joint Trauma System guidelines describing antimicrobial prophylaxis for combat injured (89%), yet infrequently received feedback on their implementation and adherence to these guidelines (11%). CONCLUSIONS: Antimicrobial stewardship programs in theater are in the early stages of development in theater. Areas identified for improvement are access to expertise, development of a focus on high-impact lines of effort, laboratory support, and the culture of antimicrobial prescribing. Risks can be mitigated through theater level formalization of efforts, expert mentoring through telehealth, and a focus on implementation and adherence and feedback to national guidelines. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Association of Military Surgeons of the United States 2019.
INTRODUCTION: Up to 34% of combat trauma injuries are complicated by infection with multidrug-resistant organisms. Overutilization of antibiotics has been linked to increased multidrug-resistant organisms in combat-injured patients. Antimicrobial stewardship efforts at deployed medical treatment facilities have been intermittently reported; however; a comprehensive assessment of antimicrobial stewardship practices has not been performed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey tool was modified to include detailed questions on antimicrobial stewardship practices at medical treatment facilities. A Joint Service, multidisciplinary team conducted on-site assessments and interviews to assess the status of antimicrobial stewardship best practices, with particular emphasis on antibiotic prophylaxis in combat injured, in the U.S. Central Command operational theaters. Limitations to implementing stewardship to the national standards were explored thematically. RESULTS: Nine Role 1, 2, and 3 medical facilities representing the range of care were assessed on-site. A total of 67% of the sites reported a formal antimicrobial stewardship program and 56% of the sites had an assigned head of antimicrobial stewardship. No military personnel in theater received training on antimicrobial stewardship and laboratory assets were limited. Personnel at these sites largely had access to Joint Trauma System guidelines describing antimicrobial prophylaxis for combat injured (89%), yet infrequently received feedback on their implementation and adherence to these guidelines (11%). CONCLUSIONS: Antimicrobial stewardship programs in theater are in the early stages of development in theater. Areas identified for improvement are access to expertise, development of a focus on high-impact lines of effort, laboratory support, and the culture of antimicrobial prescribing. Risks can be mitigated through theater level formalization of efforts, expert mentoring through telehealth, and a focus on implementation and adherence and feedback to national guidelines. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Association of Military Surgeons of the United States 2019.
Authors: John L Kiley; Katrin Mende; Miriam L Beckius; Susan J Kaiser; M Leigh Carson; Dan Lu; Timothy J Whitman; Joseph L Petfield; David R Tribble; Dana M Blyth Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-08-02 Impact factor: 3.240