Background:Nudging in microbiology is an antimicrobial stewardship strategy to influence decision making through the strategic reporting of microbiology results while preserving prescriber autonomy. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify the evidence that demonstrates the effectiveness of nudging strategies in susceptibility result reporting to improve antimicrobial use.Methods:A search for studies in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and All EBM Reviews was conducted. All simulated and vignette studies were excluded. Two independent reviewers were used throughout screening and data extraction.Results:Of a total of 1,346 citations screened, 15 relevant studies were identified. Study types included pre- and postintervention (n = 10), retrospective cohort (n = 4), and a randomized controlled trial (n = 1). Most studies were performed in acute-care settings (n = 13), and the remainder were in primary care (n = 2). Most studies used a strategy to alter the default antibiotic choices on the antibiotic report. All studies reported at least 1 outcome of antimicrobial use: utilization (n = 9), appropriateness (n = 7), de-escalation (n = 2), and cost (n = 1). Moreover, 12 studies reported an overall benefit in antimicrobial use outcomes associated with nudging, and 4 studies evaluated the association of nudging strategy with subsequent antimicrobial resistance, with 2 studies noting overall improvement.Conclusions:The number of heterogeneous studies evaluating the impact of applying nudging strategies to susceptibility result reports is small; however, most strategies do show promise in altering prescriber’s antibiotic selection. Selective and cascade reporting of targeted agents in a hospital setting represent the majority of current research. Gaps and opportunities for future research identified from our scoping review include performing prospective randomized controlled trials and evaluating other approaches aside from selective reporting.

The overuse of antimicrobials in primary care can be linked to an increased risk of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria for individual patients. Although there are promising signs of the benefits associated with Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs (ASPs) in hospitals and long-term care settings, there is limited knowledge in primary care settings and how to implement ASPs in these settings is unclear. In this context, a qualitative study was undertaken to explore the perceptions of primary care prescribers of the usefulness, feasibility, and experiences associated with the implementation of a pilot community-focused ASP intervention in three primary care clinics. Qualitative interviews were conducted with primary care clinicians, including local ASP champions, prescribers, and other primary health care team members, while they participated in an ASP initiative within one of three primary care clinics. An iterative conventional content analyses approach was used to analyze the transcribed interviews. Themes emerged around the key enablers and barriers associated with ASP implementation. Study findings point to key insights relevant to the scalability of community ASP activities with primary care providers.

Objectives: Antimicrobial stewardship is advocated to reduce antimicrobial resistance in ICUs by reducing unnecessary antimicrobial consumption. Evidence has been limited to short, single-center studies. We evaluated whether antimicrobial stewardship in ICUs could reduce antimicrobial consumption and costs. Design: We conducted a phased, multisite cohort study of a quality improvement initiative. Setting: Antimicrobial stewardship was implemented in four academic ICUs in Toronto, Canada beginning in February 2009 and ending in July 2012. Patients: All patients admitted to each ICU from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2015, were included. Interventions: Antimicrobial stewardship was delivered using in-person coaching by pharmacists and physicians three to five times weekly, and supplemented with unit-based performance reports. Total monthly antimicrobial consumption (measured by defined daily doses/100 patient-days) and costs (Canadian dollars/100 patient-days) before and after antimicrobial stewardship implementation were measured. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 239,123 patient-days (57,195 patients) were analyzed, with 148,832 patient-days following introduction of antimicrobial stewardship. Antibacterial use decreased from 120.90 to 110.50 defined daily dose/100 patient-days following introduction of antimicrobial stewardship (adjusted intervention effect –12.12 defined daily dose/100 patient-days; 95% CI, –16.75 to –7.49; p < 0.001) and total antifungal use decreased from 30.53 to 27.37 defined daily doses/100 patient-days (adjusted intervention effect –3.16 defined daily dose/100 patient-days; 95% CI, –8.33 to 0.04; p = 0.05). Monthly antimicrobial costs decreased from $3195.56 to $1998.59 (adjusted intervention effect –$642.35; 95% CI, –$905.85 to –$378.84; p < 0.001) and total antifungal costs were unchanged from $1771.86 to $2027.54 (adjusted intervention effect –$355.27; 95% CI, –$837.88 to $127.33; p = 0.15). Mortality remained unchanged, with no consistent effects on antimicrobial resistance and candidemia. Conclusions: Antimicrobial stewardship in ICUs with coaching plus audit and feedback is associated with sustained improvements in antimicrobial consumption and cost. ICUs with high antimicrobial consumption or expenditure should consider implementing antimicrobial stewardship programs.