There has been dramatic change in antibiotic use in English hospitals. Data from 2004 and 2009 show that the focus on reducing fluoroquinolone and second- and third-generation cephalosporin use seems to have been heeded in NHS secondary care, and has been associated with a substantial decline in hospital Clostridium difficile rates. However, there has been a substantial increase in use of co-amoxiclav, carbapenems and piperacillin/tazobactam. In primary care, antibiotic prescribing fell markedly from 1995 to 2000, but has since risen steadily to levels seen in the early 1990s. There remains a 2-fold variation in antimicrobial prescribing among English General Practices. In 2010, the NHS Atlas of Variation documented a 3-fold variation in the prescription of quinolones and an 18-fold variation in cephalosporins by Primary Care Trusts across England. There is a clear need to improve antimicrobial prescribing. This paper describes the development of new antimicrobial stewardship programmes for primary care and hospitals by the Department of Health's Advisory Committee on Antimicrobial Resistance and Healthcare Associated Infection: Antimicrobial Stewardship in Primary Care Initiative. The secondary care programme promotes the rapid prescription of the right antibiotic at the right dose at the right time, followed by active review for all patients still on antibiotics 48 h after admission. The five options available are to stop, switch to oral, continue and review again, change (if possible to a narrower spectrum) or move to outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy. A range of audit and outcome tools has been developed, but to maintain optimal antimicrobial usage, monitoring of local and national quantitative and qualitative data on prescribing and consumption is required, linked to the development of key performance indicators in primary, secondary and tertiary care.

Antimicrobial stewardship is one of the strategic objectives of the WHO global action plan on antimicrobial resistance. This paper sought to review the extent of implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programmes (ASPs) in African countries and the reported outcomes. We searched five electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane library, African Journal Online, CINAHL and Google scholar for papers published between 1990 and March 2019. We combined the names of countries in the five regions of Africa with antimicrobial stewardship terms. Studies of any design, employing any stewardship strategies were included. The quality of included studies was assessed using the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) quality assessment tool for before and after studies. Of 1752 titles identified, 13 studies met the criteria for inclusion. Seven of the studies were conducted in South Africa, three in Kenya and one each in Sudan, Tanzania and Egypt. Eleven studies were of high quality with low risk of bias. The included studies mainly assessed the outcome using process measures and these were associated with improved compliance with antibiotic guidelines, appropriateness of prescribing, reduction in antibiotic use and cost savings. Decrease in rate of surgical site infections and nonsignificant change in mortality and 30-day readmission rate were reported in two studies respectively. Findings of this review show the paucity of data on implementation of ASPs in African countries. Although the continent is faced with challenges which impact on effective implementation of ASPs, the successes reported in the included studies show that other African countries can implement these programmes.

Everyone prescribing antibiotics should consider both their clinical and public health responsibilities. The objective should be to provide optimal patient care while at the same time seeking to minimize selective pressure that may result in the emergence and spread of antibiotic resistance. To this end, in 2008 the European Centre for Disease Control initiated the annual European Antibiotic Awareness Day (EAAD) to take place on 18 November, when Europe-wide activities are undertaken to highlight the critical importance of prudent antibiotic prescribing. This year activities in England will focus on the optimal management of infections in secondary care, and will have two inter-related aims. The first is to improve the quality of the initial decision to prescribe an antibiotic (including making an informed choice of empirical drug and dose) in particular ensuring rapid prescribing and administration in presumed sepsis. This is deliberately combined with a second focus on the critical importance of formally reviewing antibiotic therapy at 48 h, based on the patient's clinical response and the availability of microbiology test results. This should lead to a clear decision to stop, switch to oral, switch to outpatient antibiotic therapy (OPAT) or change antibiotic, if possible to a narrower spectrum. The EAAD campaign in England will highlight the need to ‘Start Smart—Then Focus’. The aim is that patients receiving antibiotics should receive the right drug at the right time at the right dose for the right duration.

Background: While several studies have assessed knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of the public, physicians and medical students in a number of EU/EEA countries with respect to antibiotic use and antibiotic resistance, there is a paucity of literature for other healthcare workers. This survey aimed to fill this gap. Methods: A 43-item online questionnaire was developed, validated and pilot-tested through a modified Delphi consensus process involving 87 Project Advisory Group (PAG) members, including national representatives and members of European health professional groups. The survey was distributed by the PAG and via social media to healthcare workers in 30 EU/EEA countries. Results: Respondents (n = 18,365) from 30 EU/EEA countries participated. Knowledge of antibiotics and antibiotic use was higher (97%) than knowledge of development and spread of antibiotic resistance (75%). Sixty percent of respondents stated they had received information on avoiding unnecessary prescribing, administering or dispensing of antibiotics. Among respondents who prescribed, administered or dispensed antibiotics, 55% had provided advice on prudent antibiotic use or management of infections to patients, but only 17% had given resources (leaflets or pamphlets). For community and hospital prescribers, fear of patient deterioration or complications was the most frequent reason (43%) for prescribing antibiotics that were considered unnecessary. Community prescribers were almost twice as likely as hospital prescribers to prescribe antibiotics due to time constraints or to maintain patient relationships. Conclusion: It is important to move from raising awareness about prudent antibiotic use and antibiotic resistance among healthcare workers to designing antimicrobial stewardship interventions aimed at changing relevant behaviours.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) remains an important global public health issue with antimicrobial misuse and overuse being one of the main drivers. The Global Point Prevalence Survey (G-PPS) of Antimicrobial Consumption and Resistance assesses the prevalence and the quality of antimicrobial prescriptions across hospitals globally. G-PPS was carried out at 17 hospitals across Ghana, Uganda, Zambia and Tanzania. The overall prevalence of antimicrobial use was 50% (30–57%), with most antibiotics prescribed belonging to the WHO ‘Access’ and ‘Watch’ categories. No ‘Reserve’ category of antibiotics was prescribed across the study sites while antimicrobials belonging to the ‘Not Recommended’ group were prescribed infrequently. Antimicrobials were most often prescribed for prophylaxis for obstetric or gynaecological surgery, making up between 12 and 18% of total prescriptions across all countries. The most prescribed therapeutic subgroup of antimicrobials was ‘Antibacterials for systemic use’. As a result of the programme, PPS data are now readily available for the first time in the hospitals, strengthening the global commitment to improved antimicrobial surveillance. Antimicrobial stewardship interventions developed included the formation of AMS committees, the provision of training and the preparation of new AMS guidelines. Other common interventions included the presentation of findings to clinicians for increased awareness, and the promotion of a multi-disciplinary approach to successful AMS programmes. Repeat PPS would be necessary to continually monitor the impact of interventions implemented. Broader participation is also encouraged to strengthen the evidence base.

Throughout the SARS‐CoV‐2 (COVID‐19) global pandemic, pharmacists were rarely mentioned as essential frontline health care providers by the news media, the public, or politicians. Around the world, pharmacists are working on the frontlines of health care every day providing essential health care services during the pandemic. Pharmacists are medication experts providing patient care in a variety of settings including hospitals, clinics, community pharmacies, long‐term care, physician offices, and national and public health. In this paper, we describe how pharmacists from high and low‐middle income countries contributed to essential patient care and well‐being of the public during the COVID‐19 pandemic. While the news media, the public, and politicians often overlooked pharmacists as essential frontline health care providers, we hope that this list of contributions by pharmacists from nine countries in this article can help to change this perspective.