dc.contributor.author
Pin, Martin
dc.contributor.author
Somasundaram, Rajan
dc.contributor.author
Wrede, Christian
dc.contributor.author
Schwab, Frank
dc.contributor.author
Gastmeier, Petra
dc.contributor.author
Hansen, Sonja
dc.date.accessioned
2023-11-06T15:06:14Z
dc.date.available
2023-11-06T15:06:14Z
dc.identifier.uri
https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/handle/fub188/41460
dc.identifier.uri
http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/refubium-41182
dc.description.abstract
Background: Rational use of antibiotics (AB) and infection prevention and control (IPC) are key measures for reducing antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in healthcare. Nonetheless, transferring evidence into clinical practice in emergency medicine has proven difficult. The extent to which structural requirements for implementing AMR control exist in German emergency departments (ED) was determined in a survey.
Methods: Aspects of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) and IPC implementation were surveyed within the German Association for Emergency Medicine (Deutsche Gesellschaft interdisziplinare Notfall- und Akutmedizin e.V, DGINA) in 2018. Data were collected using an anonymous online questionnaire on ED characteristics, ED-based-link personnel for IPC and AMS, education and training, process monitoring and specific requirements for AMS and IPC as availability of AMR data and alcohol-based hand rub (AHR) consumption data. Data were analysed descriptively.
Results: 66 EDs with in median [interquartile range (IQR)] of 30,900 [23,000; 40,000] patient visits participated in the survey. EDs' healthcare worker (HCW) received regular training on hand hygiene (HH) in 67% and on AMS in 20% of EDs. Surveillance of AHR consumption was performed by 73% EDs, surveillance of AB consumption by 64%. Regular audits on HH were performed in 39%. Training and audit activities, showed no significant variations according to EDs' organizational characteristics. HCWs received immediate feedback of HH performance in 29%, in 23% a regular structured feedback of HH was provided. ED-based physicians with (1) specific IPC responsibilities and training were available in 61%, with (2) AMS training and responsibility in 15%. 83% had ED based IPC link nurses with precise ICP responsibilities in place. Essentially resistance data existed at the hospital level (74%) rather than at ED- or regional level (15% and 14% respectively).
Conclusions: Management of AMR varies in German EDs, especially in accordance to hospital size and level of emergency care. IPC seems to receive more attention than AMS. Our data indicate the need for more implementation of regular IPC and AMS training in connection with monitoring and feedback in German EDs.
en
dc.rights.uri
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subject
Antimicrobial resistance
en
dc.subject
Antibiotic use
en
dc.subject
Infection prevention and control
en
dc.subject
Emergency department
en
dc.subject.ddc
600 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften::610 Medizin und Gesundheit::610 Medizin und Gesundheit
dc.title
Antimicrobial resistance control in the emergency department: a need for concrete improvement
dc.type
Wissenschaftlicher Artikel
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.articlenumber
94
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.doi
10.1186/s13756-022-01135-6
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.journaltitle
Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.number
1
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.originalpublishername
Springer Nature
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.volume
11
refubium.affiliation
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
refubium.funding
Springer Nature DEAL
refubium.resourceType.isindependentpub
no
dcterms.accessRights.openaire
open access
dc.relation.hascorrection
DOI: 10.1186/s13756-022-01168-x
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pmid
35804401
dcterms.isPartOf.eissn
2047-2994