Key PointsQuestionWhat are the current surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis prescribing practices in Australia, and what factors are associated with their appropriateness?FindingsThis quality improvement study of 9351 surgical episodes found high rates of inappropriate procedural and postprocedural antimicrobial use across various hospital, patient, and surgical factors. The most common reason for inappropriate procedural use was incorrect timing, while duration greater than 24 hours was the most common reason for inappropriate postprocedural use.MeaningThese findings suggest that the identified hospital, patient, and surgical factors should be considered as targets for development of tailored interventions to ensure appropriateness of surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis prescriptions.

No abstract

Background The high burden of infectious disease and associated antimicrobial use likely contribute to the emergence of antimicrobial resistance in remote Australian Aboriginal communities. We aimed to develop and apply context-specific tools to audit antimicrobial use in the remote primary healthcare setting. Methods We adapted the General Practice version of the National Antimicrobial Prescribing Survey (GP NAPS) tool to audit antimicrobial use over 2–3 weeks in 15 remote primary healthcare clinics across the Kimberley region of Western Australia (03/2018–06/2018), Top End of the Northern Territory (08/2017–09/2017) and far north Queensland (05/2018–06/2018). At each clinic we reviewed consecutive clinic presentations until 30 presentations where antimicrobials had been used were included in the audit. Data recorded included the antimicrobials used, indications and treating health professional. We assessed the appropriateness of antimicrobial use and functionality of the tool. Results We audited the use of 668 antimicrobials. Skin and soft tissue infections were the dominant treatment indications (WA: 35%; NT: 29%; QLD: 40%). Compared with other settings in Australia, narrow spectrum antimicrobials like benzathine benzylpenicillin were commonly given and the appropriateness of use was high (WA: 91%; NT: 82%; QLD: 65%). While the audit was informative, non-integration with practice software made the process manually intensive. Conclusions Patterns of antimicrobial use in remote primary care are different from other settings in Australia. The adapted GP NAPS tool functioned well in this pilot study and has the potential for integration into clinical care. Regular stewardship audits would be facilitated by improved data extraction systems.