Objectives: To mitigate the spread of COVID-19, a nationwide restriction for all visitors of residents of long-term care facilities including nursing homes (NHs) was established in the Netherlands. The aim of this study was an exploration of dilemmas experienced by elderly care physicians (ECPs) as a result of the COVID-19 driven restrictive visiting policy. Setting and Participants: ECPs working in Dutch NHs. Methods: A qualitative exploratory study was performed using an open-ended questionnaire. A thematic analysis was applied. Data were collected between April 17 and May 10, 2020. Results: Seventy-six ECPs answered the questionnaire describing a total of 114 cases in which they experienced a dilemma. Thematic analysis revealed 4 major themes: (1) The need for balancing safety for all through infection prevention measures versus quality of life of the individual residents and their loved ones; (2) The challenge of assessing the dying phase and how the allowed exception to the strict visitor restriction in the dying phase could be implemented; (3) The profound emotional impact on ECPs; (4) Many alternatives for visits highlight the wish to compensate for the absence of face-to-face contact opportunities. Many alternatives for visits highlight the wish to compensate for the absence of face-toface opportunities but given the diversity of NH residents, alternatives were often only suitable for some of them. Conclusions and Implications: ECPs reported that the restrictive visitor policy deeply impacts NHs residents, their loved ones, and care professionals. The dilemmas encountered as a result of the policy highlight the wish by ECPs to offer solutions tailored to the individual residents. We identified an overview of aspects to consider when drafting future visiting policies for NHs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A large variety of patient-related determinants impact antibiotic use. The most easily 'modifiable' determinants concern patient-doctor interactions, treatment characteristics and knowledge. Data from the inpatient setting and low- and middle-income countries were underrepresented. Further studies should develop and test interventions that take these determinants into account with the ultimate aim of improving responsible use of antibiotics.

BackgroundConducted as part of the Driving Reinvestment in Research and Development and Responsible Antibiotic Use (DRIVE-AB) project, this study aimed to identify key elements for a global definition of responsible antibiotic use based on diverse stakeholder input.MethodsA three-step RAND-modified Delphi method was applied. First, a systematic review of antibiotic stewardship literature and relevant organization web sites identified definitions and synonyms of responsible use. Identified elements of definitions were presented by questionnaire to a multidisciplinary international stakeholder panel for appraisal of their relevance. Finally, questionnaire results were discussed in a consensus meeting.ResultsThe systematic review and the web site search identified 17 synonyms (e.g. appropriate, correct) and 22 potential elements to include in a definition of responsible use. Elements were grouped into patient-level (e.g. Indication, Documentation) or societal-level elements (e.g. Education, Future Effectiveness). Forty-eight stakeholders with diverse backgrounds [medical community, public health, patients, antibiotic research and development (R&D), regulators, governments] from 18 countries across all continents participated in the questionnaire. Based on relevance scores, 21 elements were retained, 9 were rephrased and 1 was added. Together, the 22 elements and associated best-practice descriptions comprise an exhaustive list of elements to be considered when defining responsible use.ConclusionsCombination of concepts from the literature and stakeholder opinion led to an international multidisciplinary consensus on a global definition of responsible antibiotic use. The widely diverging perspectives of stakeholders providing input should ensure the comprehensiveness and relevance of the definition for both individual patients and society. An aspirational goal would be to address all elements.

BackgroundQuantifying antibiotic use is an essential element of antibiotic stewardship since it allows comparison between different settings and time windows, and measurement of the impact of interventions. However, quantity metrics (QMs) and methods have not been standardized.ObjectivesTo propose a set of QMs for antibiotic use in inpatients (IQMs) that are accepted globally by professionals in a range of disciplines. The study was conducted within the Driving Reinvestment in Research and Development and Responsible Antibiotic Use (DRIVE-AB) project.MethodsA systematic literature review using MEDLINE identified articles on measuring inpatient antibiotic use, published up to 29 January 2015. A consensually selected list of national and international web sites was screened for additional IQMs. IQMs were classified according to the type of numerator used and presented to a multidisciplinary panel of stakeholders. A RAND-modified Delphi consensus procedure, which consisted of two online questionnaires and a face-to-face meeting, was performed.ResultsThe systematic literature review and web site search identified 168 eligible articles from which an initial list of 20 IQMs, composed of 20 different numerators and associated denominators was developed. The consensus procedure resulted in a final set of 12 IQMs. Among this final set, DDDs per 100(0) patient-days and days of therapy per patient-days were most frequently found in the review. The panel recommended that antibiotic use should be expressed in at least two metrics simultaneously.ConclusionsOur consensus procedure identified a set of IQMs that we propose as an evidence-based global standard.

ObjectivesQuality indicators (QIs) assessing the appropriateness of antibiotic use are essential to identify targets for improvement and guide antibiotic stewardship interventions. The aim of this study was to develop a set of QIs for the outpatient setting from a global perspective.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed by searching MEDLINE and relevant web sites in order to retrieve a list of QIs. These indicators were extracted from published trials, guidelines, literature reviews or consensus procedures. This evidence-based set of QIs was evaluated by a multidisciplinary, international group of stakeholders using a RAND-modified Delphi procedure, using two online questionnaires and a face-to-face meeting between them. Stakeholders appraised the QIs’ relevance using a nine-point Likert scale. This work is part of the DRIVE-AB project.ResultsThe systematic literature review identified 43 unique QIs, from 54 studies and seven web sites. Twenty-five stakeholders from 14 countries participated in the consensus procedure. Ultimately, 32 QIs were retained, with a high level of agreement. The set of QIs included structure, process and outcome indicators, targeting both high- and middle- to low-income settings. Most indicators focused on general practice, addressing the common indications for antibiotic use in the community (particularly urinary and respiratory tract infections), and the organization of healthcare facilities. Twelve indicators specifically addressed outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT).ConclusionsWe identified a set of 32 outpatient QIs to measure the appropriateness of antibiotic use. These QIs can be used to identify targets for improvement and to evaluate the effects of antibiotic stewardship interventions.

BackgroundThis study was conducted as part of the Driving Reinvestment in Research and Development and Responsible Antibiotic Use (DRIVE-AB) project and aimed to develop generic quality indicators (QIs) for responsible antibiotic use in the inpatient setting.MethodsA RAND-modified Delphi method was applied. First, QIs were identified by a systematic review. A complementary search was performed on web sites of relevant organizations. Duplicates were removed and disease and patient-specific QIs were combined into generic indicators. The relevance of these QIs was appraised by a multidisciplinary international stakeholder panel through two questionnaires and an in-between consensus meeting.ResultsThe systematic review retrieved 70 potential generic QIs. The QIs were appraised by 25 international stakeholders with diverse backgrounds (medical community, public health, patients, antibiotic research and development, regulators, governments). Ultimately, 51 QIs were selected in consensus. QIs with the highest relevance score included: (i) an antibiotic plan should be documented in the medical record at the start of the antibiotic treatment; (ii) the results of bacteriological susceptibility testing should be documented in the medical record; (iii) the local guidelines should correspond to the national guidelines but should be adapted based on local resistance patterns; (iv) an antibiotic stewardship programme should be in place at the healthcare facility; and (v) allergy status should be taken into account when antibiotics are prescribed.ConclusionsThis systematic and stepwise method combining evidence from literature and stakeholder opinion led to multidisciplinary international consensus on generic inpatient QIs that can be used globally to assess the quality of antibiotic use.

ObjectivesVariation in antibiotic use may reflect inappropriate use. We aimed to systematically describe the variation in measures for antibiotic use among settings or providers. This study was conducted as part of the innovative medicines initiative (IMI)-funded international project DRIVE-AB.MethodsWe searched for studies published in MEDLINE from January 2004 to January 2015 reporting variation in measures for systemic antibiotic use (e.g. DDDs) in inpatient and outpatient settings. The ratio between a study’s reported maximum and minimum values of a given measure [maximum:minimum ratio (MMR)] was calculated as a measure of variation. Similar measures were grouped into categories and when possible the overall median ratio and IQR were calculated.ResultsOne hundred and forty-three studies were included, of which 85 (59.4%) were conducted in Europe and 12 (8.4%) in low- to middle-income countries. Most studies described the variation in the quantity of antibiotic use in the inpatient setting (81/143, 56.6%), especially among hospitals (41/81, 50.6%). The most frequent measure was DDDs with different denominators, reported in 23/81 (28.4%) inpatient studies and in 28/62 (45.2%) outpatient studies. For this measure, we found a median MMR of 3.7 (IQR 2.6–5.0) in 4 studies reporting antibiotic use in ICUs in DDDs/1000 patient-days and a median MMR of 2.3 (IQR 1.5–3.2) in 18 studies reporting outpatient antibiotic use in DDDs/1000 inhabitant-days. Substantial variation was also identified in other measures.ConclusionsOur review confirms the large variation in antibiotic use even across similar settings and providers. Data from low- and middle-income countries are under-represented. Further studies should try to better elucidate reasons for the observed variation to facilitate interventions that reduce unwarranted practice variation. In addition, the heterogeneity of reported measures clearly shows that there is need for standardization.

BackgroundThe international Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) project DRIVE-AB (Driving Reinvestment in Research and Development and Responsible Antibiotic Use) aims to develop a global definition of ‘responsible’ antibiotic use.ObjectivesTo identify consensually validated quantity metrics for antibiotic use in the outpatient setting.MethodsFirst, outpatient quantity metrics (OQMs) were identified by a systematic search of literature and web sites published until 12 December 2014. Identified OQMs were evaluated by a multidisciplinary, international stakeholder panel using a RAND-modified Delphi procedure. Two online questionnaires and a face-to-face meeting between them were conducted to assess OQM relevance for measuring the quantity of antibiotic use on a nine-point Likert scale, to add comments or to propose new metrics.ResultsA total of 597 articles were screened, 177 studies met criteria for full-text screening and 138 were finally included. Twenty different OQMs were identified and appraised by 23 stakeholders. During the first survey, 14 OQMs were excluded and 6 qualified for discussion. During the face-to-face meeting, 10 stakeholders retained five OQMs and suggestions were made considering context and combination of metrics. The final set of metrics included defined daily doses, treatments/courses and prescriptions per defined population, treatments/courses and prescriptions per defined number of physician contacts and seasonal variation of total antibiotic use.ConclusionsA small set of consensually validated metrics to assess the quantity of antibiotic use in the outpatient setting was obtained, enabling (inter)national comparisons. The OQMs will help build a global conceptual framework for responsible antibiotic use.