4.4 Article

The State of Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs in California

期刊

INFECTION CONTROL AND HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 34, 期 4, 页码 379-384

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/669876

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE. To assess antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) and strategies in California general acute care hospitals and to describe the effect of state legislation (Senate Bill 739) requiring hospitals to develop processes for evaluating the judicious use of antimicrobials. DESIGN. Web-based survey of general acute care hospitals. PARTICIPANTS. All 422 general acute care hospital campuses in California were invited to participate. RESULTS. Responses from 223 (53%) of California's general acute care hospital campuses were included and were statistically representative of all acute care hospital campuses by region but not bed size or rurality. Community hospitals represented 73% of respondents. Fifty percent of hospitals described a current ASP and 30% reported planning an ASP; of these, 51% reported measuring outcomes. Twenty percent of hospitals reported no planned ASP or uncertainty whether an ASP existed and described barriers including staffing constraints (47%), lack of funding (42%), and lack of initiation of a formal proposal to start an ASP (42%). Of 135 responding hospitals, 22% reported that Senate Bill 739 influenced initiation of their ASP. CONCLUSIONS. Although many studies have been published that describe hospital-specific ASPs, most have been described within academic centers, and there are limited assessments of ASP strategies across hospital systems. Our study verifies that many ASPs exist in California, particularly in community settings where a scarcity of antimicrobial restriction was thought to exist. Additionally, Senate Bill 739 appears to have played a role in initiating many hospital ASPs, which supports the adoption of similar legislation in other states and nationally. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34(4):379-384

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据