The purpose of this systematic review was to identify trends in educational leadership and management (EDLM) knowledge production in the Arabian Gulf region, drawing on a database of 272 studies published in local (Arabic) journals over a 10-year period (2009–2018). The review focused on the geographic distribution of the literature, authorship trends, types of studies, research topics, research methods and data collection techniques. The study employed quantitative methods aimed at highlighting patterns of EDLM knowledge production rather than synthesising research findings. The study used the Arabic databases hosted by Dar Almandumah (EduSearch, EcoLink, IslamicInfo, AraBase, and Humanindex), in addition to the Shamaa database to identify relevant sources. The study found that the literature under investigation reflected many of the features characterising EDLM literatures from other developing countries, especially in terms of the types of studies, topical coverage and research methods. The most notable features included uneven geographic distribution, predominance of single-authored papers, absence of certain important topics, prevalence of empirical articles, and heavy reliance on quantitative research methods and data collection techniques. Recommendations were provided to improve future EDLM research in the region. The study supports findings from previous reviews of EDLM literature in the Arab region and highlights the need for more concerted efforts to enhance the quality and relevance of this literature to increase its ability to inform policy and practice.

Objective: To describe local experience in managing an outbreak of Candida auris in a tertiary-care setting. Methods: In response to emerging Candida auris, an outbreak investigation was conducted at our hospital between March 2018 and June 2019. Once a patient was confirmed to have Candida auris, screening of exposed patients and healthcare workers (HCWs) was conducted. Postexposure screening included those who had had direct contact with or shared the same unit or ward with a laboratory-confirmed case. In response to the increasing number of cases, new infection control measures were implemented. Results: In total, 23 primary patients were detected over 15 months. Postexposure screening identified 11 more cases, and all were patients. Furthermore, ~28.6% of patients probably caught infection in another hospital or in the community. Infection control measures were strictly implemented including hand hygiene, personal protective equipment, patient hygiene, environmental cleaning, cohorting of patients and HCWs, and avoiding the sharing of equipment. The wave reached a peak in April 2019, followed by a sharp decrease in May 2019 and complete clearance in June 2019. The case patients were equally distributed between intensive care units (51.4%) and wards (48.6%). More infections (62.9%) occurred than colonizations (37.1%). Urinary tract infection (42.9%) and candidemia (17.1%) were the main infections. In total, 7 patients (20.0%) died during hospitalization; among them, 6 (17.1%) died within 30 days of diagnosis. Conclusions: Active screening of exposed patients followed by strict infection control measures, including environmental cleaning, was successful in ending the outbreak. Preventing future outbreaks is challenging due to outside sources of infection and environmental resistance.

BackgroundMost septic patients managed by critical care response teams (CCRT) are prescribed antimicrobials. Nevertheless, data evaluating their appropriateness are lacking both locally and internationally. The objective was to assess antimicrobial use among septic and non-septic patients managed by CCRT.SettingCase-control design was used to compare septic (cases) and non-septic (controls) CCRT patients at tertiary care setting. The frequency of antimicrobial use was assessed before and after CCRT activation. The appropriateness of antimicrobial use was assessed at day four post-CCRT, based on standard recommendations, clinical assessment, and culture results.Main resultsA total of 157 cases and 158 controls were included. The average age was 61.1 ± 20.4 years, and 54.6% were males, with minor differences between groups. The use of any antimicrobial was 100.0% in cases and 87.3% in controls (p < 0.001). The use of meropenem (68.2% versus 34.8%, p < 0.001) and vancomycin (56.7% versus 25.9%, p < 0.001) were markedly higher in cases than controls. The overall appropriateness was significantly lower in cases than controls (50.7% versus 59.6%, p = 0.047). Individual appropriateness was lowest with meropenem (16.7%) and imipenem (25.0%), and highest with piperacillin/tazobactam (87.1%) and colistin (78.3%). Only 48.5% of antimicrobials prescribed by CCRT were de-escalated by a primary team within four days. Individual appropriateness and de-escalations were not different between groups.ConclusionsEmpiric use and inadequate de-escalation of broad-spectrum antimicrobials were major causes for inappropriate antimicrobial use in CCRT patients. Our findings highlight the necessity of urgent implementation of an antimicrobial stewardship program, including training and auditing of antimicrobial prescriptions.

No abstract