Houda Bennani1, Laura Cornelsen2, Katharina D C Stärk1,3, Barbara Häsler1. 1. Veterinary Epidemiology, Economics and Public Health Group, Department of Pathobiology and Population Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, London, UK. 2. Department of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Bloomsbury, UK. 3. SAFOSO AG, Bern-Liebefeld, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surveillance of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is an essential component of any strategy to mitigate AMR and needs regular evaluation to ensure its effectiveness. A first step for any evaluation is to describe the system and context. In this study, we aimed to characterise and map the surveillance system for AMR and antimicrobial use (AMU) in the United Kingdom (UK) using a One Health (OH) approach and to identify integration points in the system. METHODS: To describe the surveillance system for AMR/AMU, international guidelines for establishing surveillance systems for AMR and AMU were used. A review of the literature was conducted to collect information on the different parameters identified. RESULTS: Multiple data collection systems exist for AMU and AMR in humans, animals and food. Each sector is responsible for the planning, implementation, analysis and reporting of its own surveillance for AMR and AMU. Some cross-sectoral collaborative activities exist such as the UK AMR contingency plan and the publication of UK OH reports; there are opportunities for further integration such as the harmonisation of data analyses methods and interpretation across sectors and the publication of joint surveillance reports. CONCLUSION: This overview of key stakeholders, data collection streams, reporting, linkages within and across sectors and international monitoring forms an important basis for future evaluation of the UK AMR/AMU surveillance system from a OH perspective.
BACKGROUND: Surveillance of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is an essential component of any strategy to mitigate AMR and needs regular evaluation to ensure its effectiveness. A first step for any evaluation is to describe the system and context. In this study, we aimed to characterise and map the surveillance system for AMR and antimicrobial use (AMU) in the United Kingdom (UK) using a One Health (OH) approach and to identify integration points in the system. METHODS: To describe the surveillance system for AMR/AMU, international guidelines for establishing surveillance systems for AMR and AMU were used. A review of the literature was conducted to collect information on the different parameters identified. RESULTS: Multiple data collection systems exist for AMU and AMR in humans, animals and food. Each sector is responsible for the planning, implementation, analysis and reporting of its own surveillance for AMR and AMU. Some cross-sectoral collaborative activities exist such as the UK AMR contingency plan and the publication of UK OH reports; there are opportunities for further integration such as the harmonisation of data analyses methods and interpretation across sectors and the publication of joint surveillance reports. CONCLUSION: This overview of key stakeholders, data collection streams, reporting, linkages within and across sectors and international monitoring forms an important basis for future evaluation of the UK AMR/AMU surveillance system from a OH perspective.