华盛顿州小型和混合型动物兽医抗菌药处方实践与管理。

IF 2.4 2区 农林科学 Q3 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Shannon Cassel, Hannah T Fenelon, Elizabeth Rott, Libby Blazes, Leah M Willess, Anna E Baines, Vickie Ramirez, Kelly Kauber, Peter Rabinowitz, Claire R Burbick, Erica R Fuhrmeister
{"title":"华盛顿州小型和混合型动物兽医抗菌药处方实践与管理。","authors":"Shannon Cassel, Hannah T Fenelon, Elizabeth Rott, Libby Blazes, Leah M Willess, Anna E Baines, Vickie Ramirez, Kelly Kauber, Peter Rabinowitz, Claire R Burbick, Erica R Fuhrmeister","doi":"10.1111/zph.13187","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Judicious antimicrobial use is essential for the continued treatment of infections in small and mixed animal veterinary medicine. To better support Washington (WA) State veterinarians in antimicrobial stewardship, we surveyed licensed small and mixed animal veterinarians and led group conversations regarding antimicrobial prescription practices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Survey questions included demographic information, factors influencing prescription practices and clinical cases. Responses were summarised and logistic regressions were performed to identify factors associated with antibiotic treatment choices. Group conversations, led by a licensed veterinarian, focused on resource gaps for veterinarians, management of clinical scenarios and interpretation of minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) and breakpoints. A systematic qualitative analysis of conversation transcripts identified key themes such as common barriers to stewardship.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 53 responses to clinical scenarios, veterinarians selected the most appropriate treatment choice, according to a veterinary microbiologist, 62% of the time. Variability was observed in culture and susceptibility practices and antibiotic choices. Survey respondents reported an influence of the client ability to medicate (92%), considerations of resistance (91%), client finances (75%) and availability of antimicrobials (75%) on their prescription decisions. There were no significant associations between opinions about contributing factors to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) or guidelines used and treatment choices in clinical scenarios. Among 15 veterinarians interviewed in group conversations, a systematic qualitative analysis of conversation transcripts revealed key themes, including reliance on human medicine as a resource and a lack of support for veterinarians in interpreting MICs and breakpoints.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The variability in veterinary antibiotic treatment decisions in this study suggests a need for further dissemination of standardised antimicrobial stewardship resources for veterinarians. Client-related challenges and the cost of culture and susceptibility are major barriers to stewardship. To address these barriers, it is necessary to provide standardised, easy-to-access guidance for veterinarians in interpreting MICs and breakpoints, as well as develop antimicrobial use resources for clients.</p>","PeriodicalId":24025,"journal":{"name":"Zoonoses and Public Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Antimicrobial Prescription Practices and Stewardship in Washington State Small and Mixed Animal Veterinary Medicine.\",\"authors\":\"Shannon Cassel, Hannah T Fenelon, Elizabeth Rott, Libby Blazes, Leah M Willess, Anna E Baines, Vickie Ramirez, Kelly Kauber, Peter Rabinowitz, Claire R Burbick, Erica R Fuhrmeister\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/zph.13187\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Judicious antimicrobial use is essential for the continued treatment of infections in small and mixed animal veterinary medicine. To better support Washington (WA) State veterinarians in antimicrobial stewardship, we surveyed licensed small and mixed animal veterinarians and led group conversations regarding antimicrobial prescription practices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Survey questions included demographic information, factors influencing prescription practices and clinical cases. Responses were summarised and logistic regressions were performed to identify factors associated with antibiotic treatment choices. Group conversations, led by a licensed veterinarian, focused on resource gaps for veterinarians, management of clinical scenarios and interpretation of minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) and breakpoints. A systematic qualitative analysis of conversation transcripts identified key themes such as common barriers to stewardship.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 53 responses to clinical scenarios, veterinarians selected the most appropriate treatment choice, according to a veterinary microbiologist, 62% of the time. Variability was observed in culture and susceptibility practices and antibiotic choices. Survey respondents reported an influence of the client ability to medicate (92%), considerations of resistance (91%), client finances (75%) and availability of antimicrobials (75%) on their prescription decisions. There were no significant associations between opinions about contributing factors to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) or guidelines used and treatment choices in clinical scenarios. Among 15 veterinarians interviewed in group conversations, a systematic qualitative analysis of conversation transcripts revealed key themes, including reliance on human medicine as a resource and a lack of support for veterinarians in interpreting MICs and breakpoints.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The variability in veterinary antibiotic treatment decisions in this study suggests a need for further dissemination of standardised antimicrobial stewardship resources for veterinarians. Client-related challenges and the cost of culture and susceptibility are major barriers to stewardship. To address these barriers, it is necessary to provide standardised, easy-to-access guidance for veterinarians in interpreting MICs and breakpoints, as well as develop antimicrobial use resources for clients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":24025,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zoonoses and Public Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zoonoses and Public Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/zph.13187\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zoonoses and Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/zph.13187","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:谨慎使用抗菌药物对于持续治疗小动物和混合动物兽医领域的感染至关重要。为了更好地支持华盛顿(WA)州兽医开展抗菌药物管理工作,我们对持有执照的小动物和混合动物兽医进行了调查,并就抗菌药物处方实践进行了小组讨论:调查问题包括人口统计学信息、影响处方实践的因素和临床病例。对回答进行汇总,并进行逻辑回归,以确定与抗生素治疗选择相关的因素。小组对话由一名执业兽医主持,重点讨论兽医的资源缺口、临床情景管理以及最低抑菌浓度 (MIC) 和断点的解释。通过对谈话记录进行系统的定性分析,确定了一些关键主题,如管理工作中的常见障碍:结果:在 53 个对临床情景的回答中,兽医根据兽医微生物学家的意见选择最合适治疗方案的比例为 62%。在培养和药敏试验以及抗生素选择方面存在差异。调查对象称,客户的用药能力(92%)、抗药性考虑因素(91%)、客户的经济状况(75%)和抗菌药物的可用性(75%)对他们的处方决定有影响。对抗菌药耐药性(AMR)诱因的看法或所使用的指南与临床情况下的治疗选择之间没有明显关联。在 15 位接受小组谈话的兽医中,对谈话记录进行的系统定性分析揭示了关键主题,包括依赖人类医学作为资源,以及兽医在解释 MIC 和断点时缺乏支持:本研究中兽医抗生素治疗决策的差异性表明,有必要进一步向兽医传播标准化的抗菌药物管理资源。与客户相关的挑战以及培养和药敏成本是抗菌药物管理的主要障碍。为解决这些障碍,有必要为兽医解释 MIC 和断点提供标准化、易于获取的指导,并为客户开发抗菌药物使用资源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Antimicrobial Prescription Practices and Stewardship in Washington State Small and Mixed Animal Veterinary Medicine.

Introduction: Judicious antimicrobial use is essential for the continued treatment of infections in small and mixed animal veterinary medicine. To better support Washington (WA) State veterinarians in antimicrobial stewardship, we surveyed licensed small and mixed animal veterinarians and led group conversations regarding antimicrobial prescription practices.

Methods: Survey questions included demographic information, factors influencing prescription practices and clinical cases. Responses were summarised and logistic regressions were performed to identify factors associated with antibiotic treatment choices. Group conversations, led by a licensed veterinarian, focused on resource gaps for veterinarians, management of clinical scenarios and interpretation of minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) and breakpoints. A systematic qualitative analysis of conversation transcripts identified key themes such as common barriers to stewardship.

Results: Among 53 responses to clinical scenarios, veterinarians selected the most appropriate treatment choice, according to a veterinary microbiologist, 62% of the time. Variability was observed in culture and susceptibility practices and antibiotic choices. Survey respondents reported an influence of the client ability to medicate (92%), considerations of resistance (91%), client finances (75%) and availability of antimicrobials (75%) on their prescription decisions. There were no significant associations between opinions about contributing factors to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) or guidelines used and treatment choices in clinical scenarios. Among 15 veterinarians interviewed in group conversations, a systematic qualitative analysis of conversation transcripts revealed key themes, including reliance on human medicine as a resource and a lack of support for veterinarians in interpreting MICs and breakpoints.

Conclusions: The variability in veterinary antibiotic treatment decisions in this study suggests a need for further dissemination of standardised antimicrobial stewardship resources for veterinarians. Client-related challenges and the cost of culture and susceptibility are major barriers to stewardship. To address these barriers, it is necessary to provide standardised, easy-to-access guidance for veterinarians in interpreting MICs and breakpoints, as well as develop antimicrobial use resources for clients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Zoonoses and Public Health
Zoonoses and Public Health 医学-传染病学
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
4.20%
发文量
115
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Zoonoses and Public Health brings together veterinary and human health researchers and policy-makers by providing a venue for publishing integrated and global approaches to zoonoses and public health. The Editors will consider papers that focus on timely collaborative and multi-disciplinary research in zoonoses and public health. This journal provides rapid publication of original papers, reviews, and potential discussion papers embracing this collaborative spirit. Papers should advance the scientific knowledge of the sources, transmission, prevention and control of zoonoses and be authored by scientists with expertise in areas such as microbiology, virology, parasitology and epidemiology. Articles that incorporate recent data into new methods, applications, or approaches (e.g. statistical modeling) which enhance public health are strongly encouraged.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信