Similarities and differences in antimicrobial prescribing between major city hospitals and regional and remote hospitals in Australia

Abstract

Many regional and remote hospitals (RRHs) do not have the specialist services that usually support antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes in major city hospitals. It is not known if this is associated with higher rates of inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing. The aim of this study was to identify similarities and differences in antimicrobial prescribing patterns between major city hospitals and RRHs in Australia. The Australian Hospital National Antimicrobial Prescribing Survey (H-NAPS) datasets from 2014, 2015 and 2016 (totalling 47,876 antimicrobial prescriptions) were analysed. The antimicrobial prescribed, indications for use, documentation of indication, recording of a review date and assessment of the appropriateness of prescribing were evaluated. Overall, inappropriate prescribing of antimicrobials was higher in RRHs than in major city hospitals (24.0% vs. 22.1%; P<0.001). Compared with major city hospitals, inappropriate prescribing of ceftriaxone was higher in RRHs (33.9% vs. 27.6%; P<0.001), as was inappropriate prescribing for cellulitis (25.7% vs. 19.0%; P≤0.001). A higher rate of inappropriate prescribing was noted for some high-risk infections in RRHs compared with major city hospitals, including Gram-positive bacteraemia with sepsis (12.6% vs. 6.5%; P=0.004), empiric therapy for sepsis (26.0% vs. 12.0%; P<0.001) and endocarditis (8.2% vs. 2.7%; P=0.02). To the authors' knowledge, this is the largest study to date comparing antimicrobial prescribing of RRHs with major city hospitals. A key finding was that antimicrobial prescribing was more frequently inappropriate for some high-risk infections treated in RRHs. Targeted strategies that support appropriate antimicrobial prescribing in RRHs are required.

Keywords: Antimicrobial; Appropriateness; Hospital; Rural; Stewardship.