Vol.69 No.5 September 2021
Current problems in hospital antimicrobial use surveillance -a questionnaire survey of hospital pharmacists in 2018
1)AMR Clinical Reference Center, Disease Control and Prevention Center, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, 1-21-1 Toyama, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan
2)Department of Clinical Pharmacoepidemiology, Kyoto Pharmaceutical University
3)Disease Control and Prevention Center, National Center for Global Health and Medicine
Abstract
Background: In 2016, the Japanese government's national action plan on antimicrobial resistance included the policy of developing a methodology for antimicrobial use (AMU) surveillance in hospitals. Nevertheless, the current situation of the methods used for AMU measurement in hospitals is not well known.
Methods: We conducted a web-based anonymized questionnaire survey of hospital pharmacists using the mailing list of the Japanese Society of Hospital Pharmacists and Infectious Diseases Association for Teaching and Education in Nippon. The questions pertained to the respondents' hospital backgrounds, the respondents' occupation, the number of respondents, the frequency and method of surveillance, whether the surveillance work was also conducted outside office hours, and utilization of the results of surveillance. The answers were separately assessed according to the standing of the hospital in infection prevention and control: additional reimbursement for infection prevention 1 (ARIP1), additional reimbursement for infection prevention 2 (ARIP2), and hospitals not claiming additional reimbursement for infection prevention (NARIP).
Results: In regard to the hospital background, 104, 49, and 14 respondents belonged to ARIP1, ARIP2, and NARIP, respectively. Pharmacists conducted the AMU surveillance in 98.8% of all hospitals, and a single pharmacist conducted AMU surveillance in 71.3% of all hospitals. The AMU surveillance was also conducted outside office hours in 54.8% of ARIP1, 44.9% of ARIP2, and 21.4% of NARIP. Approximately 31.7% of ARIP1, 34.7% of ARIP2, and 0% of NARIP denied claims data as the data source for AMU; 10.6% of ARIP1, 20.4% of ARIP2, and 35.7% of NARIP did not take advantage of the results of surveillance of AMU in hospital activities.
Conclusion: In most hospitals, a single pharmacist conducted the AMU surveillance, and the surveillance included out-of-office hours in almost a half of the hospitals. Some measures, such as spreading reuse of existing hospital data, are required to reduce the pharmacist's burden. As a fairly large number of hospitals did not incorporate the results of the AMU surveillance in hospital activities, provision of support to hospitals to properly use the results of AMU surveillance is needed, especially in ARIP2 and NARIP.
Key word
antimicrobial, antimicrobial resistance, questionnaire, surveillance
Received
February 17, 2021
Accepted
July 14, 2021
Jpn. J. Chemother. 69 (5): 376-382, 2021
