Antimicrobial stewardship practices in Guatemala: communication, perceptions, and behaviors regarding antimicrobial prescribing

Résumé fourni par la source

Objective: To describe antimicrobial prescribing practices in 4 hospitals in Guatemala to guide the development of an ongoing antimicrobial stewardship (AS) project. Design: A cross-sectional mixed methodologies descriptive study design. Participants and setting: Practicing physicians from 4 hospitals (2 tertiary public hospitals and 2 specialty referral hospitals) within Guatemala City. Methods: All participants responded to a survey to ascertain 3 key areas of antimicrobial prescription practices: identify key players, communication among key players, and perceptions and behaviors regarding antimicrobial prescribing. A subset of respondents participated in semi-structured interviews to further explore experiences with AS team dynamics and communication. Results: = 79/110, 71.8%). Antimicrobial prescribing is led by physicians who are responsible for maintaining communication with infectious disease physicians. The limited role of the pharmacist and the more predominant role of the microbiologist in antimicrobial selection were notable despite similar levels of training. Efficient communication about prescribing was perceived primarily among physicians, although existing hierarchies within the healthcare system negatively influenced decision-making strategies. Participants reported difficulty in choosing an antibiotic and indicated a preference for broad-spectrum antimicrobial use. Conclusions: The existing structure between physicians in hospitals facilitates antimicrobial prescribing practices. However, optimization of antimicrobial use may occur if multidisciplinary teams participate in antimicrobial selection activities. The results of this study provide valuable insight and can be used as a starting point toward the implementation of effective AS strategies within Guatemala and other similar countries in Central America and the Caribbean.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.