Norway has a low, but increasing prevalence of resistance and few antimicrobial stewardship initiatives. When developing stewardship interventions, an understanding of the determinants of antimicrobial prescribing is needed. We report on the first qualitative study investigating factors influencing doctors’ antimicrobial prescribing practices in Norwegian hospitals. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 Norwegian hospital doctors prescribing antimicrobials to adult patients. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis was applied to analyse the data. Colleagues, in particular infectious disease specialists, microbiology test results and the newly published national guideline on antimicrobials were identified as key factors influencing antimicrobial prescribing practices. Delayed availability was a barrier for the utilization of microbiology test results and increasing clinical experience overrides the influence of the national guideline. Patient assessment, informal training by experienced colleagues, and infectious disease specialists replacing managers in promoting prudent prescribing policies, also influenced prescribing practices. This study identified the following contextual factors that need to be addressed when developing antimicrobial stewardship programs in Norway: a common work practice for seeking collegial advice, logistics of microbiology test results, and formal leadership and systematic training on prudence. Other countries initiating stewardship programmes may benefit from performing a similar mapping of facilitators and barriers, to identify important stakeholders and organisational obstacles, before developing sustainable and tailored antimicrobial stewardship interventions.

Many countries are on the brink of establishing antibiotic stewardship programmes in hospitals nationwide. In a previous study we found that communication between microbiology laboratories and clinical units is a barrier to implementing efficient antibiotic stewardship programmes in Norway. We have now addressed the key communication barriers between microbiology laboratories and clinical units from a laboratory point of view. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 employees (managers, doctors and technicians) from six diverse Norwegian microbiological laboratories, representing all four regional health authorities. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was applied, identifying emergent themes, subthemes and corresponding descriptions. The main barrier to communication is disruption involving specimen logistics, information on request forms, verbal reporting of test results and information transfer between poorly integrated IT systems. Furthermore, communication is challenged by lack of insight into each other’s area of expertise and limited provision of laboratory services, leading to prolonged turnaround time, limited advisory services and restricted opening hours. Communication between microbiology laboratories and clinical units can be improved by a review of testing processes, educational programmes to increase insights into the other’s area of expertise, an evaluation of work tasks and expansion of rapid and point-of-care test services. Antibiotic stewardship programmes may serve as a valuable framework to establish these measures.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a threat to hospital patients. Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) can counteract AMR. To optimize ASPs, we need to understand what affects physicians’ antibiotic prescription from several contexts. In this study, we aimed to explore the factors affecting hospital physicians’ antibiotic choices in a low-resistance country to identify potential targets for future ASPs. We interviewed 14 physicians involved in antibiotic prescription in a Norwegian hospital. The interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis. The main factors affecting antibiotic prescription were a high work pressure, insufficient staff resources, and uncertainties regarding clinical decisions. Treatment expectations from patients and next of kin, benevolence towards the patients, suboptimal microbiological testing, and limited time for infectious disease specialists to offer advisory services also affected the antibiotic choices. Future ASP efforts should evaluate the system organization and prioritizations to address and manage potential time-pressure issues. To limit the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, improving microbiology testing and the routines for consultations with infectious disease specialists seems beneficial. We also identified a need among the prescribing physicians for a debate on ethical antibiotic questions.

Traditional inflammatory markers are generally unhelpful in discerning septic arthritis from inflammatory joint disease due to their lack of specificity. We wished to explore the discriminatory power of the novel inflammatory marker, Fc-gamma-receptor type 1, CD64, in patients presenting with acute arthritis. Patients were recruited prospectively in the time period June 2009 to December 2011. Thirty-six patients presenting with an acute flare of chronic rheumatic arthritis, 31 with crystal-induced arthritis and 23 with septic arthritis were included. Traditional inflammatory markers, CD64 and procalcitonin (PCT) were measured and their diagnostic abilities were compared. CD64 and PCT both demonstrated a specificity of 98%, but poor sensitivities of 59% and 52%, respectively. White blood cell count (WBC), and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) did not have significant discriminatory power, while C-reactive protein (CRP) proved to have the best diagnostic accuracy as measured by area under the ROC curve (AUC 0.92, 95% confidence-interval 0.87-0.98). Subgroup analysis excluding patients with septic arthritis without concurrent bacteremia, and likewise exclusion of the patients with septic arthritis caused by coagulase negative staphylococci, both improved the diagnostic accuracy of CD64 and PCT, but not of WBC and CRP. CD64 and PCT are highly specific for infectious disease, but they predominantly measure bacteremia. Their use in hospital practice has yet to be defined, and especially so in localized infections.

Effective use of microbiology test results may positively influence patient outcomes and limit the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics. However, studies indicate that their potential is not fully utilized. We investigated microbiology test ordering practices and the use of test results for antibiotic decision-making in hospitals. A multicentre cohort study was conducted during five months in 2014 in Medical departments across three hospitals in Western Norway. Patients treated with antibiotics for sepsis, urinary tract infections, skin and soft tissue infections, lower respiratory tract infections or acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were included in the analysis. Primary outcome measures were degree of microbiology test ordering, compliance with microbiology testing recommendations in the national antibiotic guideline and proportion of microbiology test results used to inform antibiotic treatment. Data was obtained from electronic- and paper medical records and charts and laboratory information systems. Of the 1731 patient admissions during the study period, mean compliance with microbiology testing recommendations in the antibiotic guideline was 89%, ranging from 81% in patients with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to 95% in patients with sepsis. Substantial additional testing was performed beyond the recommendations with 298/606 (49%) of patients with lower respiratory tract infections having urine cultures and 42/194 (22%) of patients with urinary tract infections having respiratory tests. Microbiology test results from one of the hospitals showed that 18% (120/672) of patient admissions had applicable test results, but only half of them were used for therapy guidance, i.e. in total, 9% (63/672) of patient admissions had test results informing prescription of antibiotic therapy. This study showed that despite a large number of microbiology test orders, only a limited number of tests informed antibiotic treatment. To ensure that microbiology tests are used optimally, there is a need to review the utility of existing microbiology tests, test ordering practices and use of test results through a more targeted and overarching approach.

Penicillin allergy is self-reported by 3–10% of patients admitted to hospital. The label is wrong in 90% of the cases and has severe health implications. Penicillin-delabeling can reverse the negative effects of the label, and pathways adapted to local practice are needed. No tools are available in Norway for penicillin delabeling outside an allergy clinic. To create and validate the first penicillin delabeling pathway applicable outside an allergy clinic in Norway. An interdisciplinary taskforce created a penicillin allergy delabeling program (PAD) adapted to the Norwegian health care system. This was validated in a prospective, single-center study. Very low-risk and low-risk patients underwent a direct oral penicillin challenge and high-risk patients were referred for allergologic evaluation. One-hundred forty-nine patients declaring penicillin allergy were included. Seventy-four (50%) were very-low- and low risk patients suitable for a direct oral penicillin challenge resulting in only 1 mild reaction. Sixty high-risk patients were eligible for an oral penicillin challenge after allergologic evaluation; 3 patients reacted non-severely. We have created and demonstrated feasibility of the first penicillin delabeling program (PAD) applicable in a hospital setting outside an allergy clinic in Norway. Our data suggest this is safe and beneficial, with 49% patients delabeled through a direct oral penicillin challenge, performed without any serious adverse events, and an overall 87% delabeling rate.