↓ Skip to main content

Monitoring, documenting and reporting the quality of antibiotic use in the Netherlands: a pilot study to establish a national antimicrobial stewardship registry

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Monitoring, documenting and reporting the quality of antibiotic use in the Netherlands: a pilot study to establish a national antimicrobial stewardship registry
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2673-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marvin AH Berrevoets, Jaap ten Oever, Tom Sprong, Reinier M van Hest, Ingeborg Groothuis, Inger van Heijl, Jeroen A Schouten, Marlies E Hulscher, Bart-Jan Kullberg

Abstract

The Dutch Working Party on Antibiotic Policy is developing a national antimicrobial stewardship registry. This registry will report both the quality of antibiotic use in hospitals in the Netherlands and the stewardship activities employed. It is currently unclear which aspects of the quality of antibiotic use are monitored by antimicrobial stewardship teams (A-teams) and can be used as indicators for the stewardship registry. In this pilot study we aimed to determine which stewardship objectives are eligible for the envisioned registry. We performed an observational pilot study among five Dutch hospitals. We assessed which of the 14 validated stewardship objectives (11 process of care recommendations and 3 structure of care recommendations) the A-teams monitored and documented in individual patients. They provided, where possible, data to compute quality indicator (QI) performance scores in line with recently developed QIs to measure appropriate antibiotic use in hospitalized adults for the period of January 2015 through December 2015 RESULTS: All hospitals had a local antibiotic guideline describing recommended antimicrobial use. All A-teams monitored the performance of bedside consultations in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and the prescription of restricted antimicrobials. Documentation and reporting were the best for the use of restricted antimicrobials: 80% of the A-teams could report data. Lack of time and the absence of an electronic medical record system enabling documentation during the daily work flow were the main barriers hindering documentation and reporting. Five out of 11 stewardship objectives were actively monitored by A-teams. Without extra effort, 4 A-teams could report on the quality of use of restricted antibiotics. Therefore, this aspect of antibiotic use should be the starting point of the national antimicrobial stewardship registry. Our registry is expected to become a powerful tool to evaluate progress and impact of antimicrobial stewardship programs in hospitals.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 105 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 11%
Researcher 10 10%
Other 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 31 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 4%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 34 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 August 2017.
All research outputs
#6,183,272
of 24,792,566 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1,910
of 8,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,138
of 321,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#33
of 169 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,792,566 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,329 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,429 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 169 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.