136. Attitudes and Practices of Antimicrobial Resistance and Antimicrobial Stewardship at the Uganda Cancer Institute

Abstract Background As access to cancer treatment has increased in sub-Saharan Africa (sSA), infection-related complications are a growing concern. Little is known about infection management practices in this setting. Understanding the unique challenges to diagnosing and treating infections can inform the development of targeted strategies to improve infection management for cancer treatment programs throughout sSA. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey of doctors, nurses, and pharmacists at the Uganda Cancer Institute (UCI), a national cancer referral hospital in Kampala, Uganda. The 25-item survey was designed to assess staff knowledge of antimicrobial resistance and antimicrobial stewardship, investigate antibiotic decision-making practices, and identify barriers to diagnosing and treating infections. Results Of the 61 respondents, 25 (41%) were doctors, 7 (11%) were pharmacists, and 29 (48%) were nurses. In total, 98% (60/61) had heard of the term “antimicrobial resistance” and 84% (51/61) agreed that antimicrobial resistance is an important problem at UCI. Multiple factors were felt to contribute to antimicrobial resistance including the use of too many antibiotics, patient insistence on antibiotics, and poor patient adherence (Fig 1). While 72% (44/61) had heard of the term “antimicrobial stewardship”, only 25% (15/61) knew a lot about what it meant. Numerous factors were considered important to antibiotic decision-making including patient white blood cell count and severity of illness (Fig 2). Perceived barriers to infection diagnosis included the inability to obtain blood cultures and to regularly measure patient temperatures; perceived barriers to obtaining blood cultures included patient cost and availability of supplies (Fig 3). Figure 1. Factors that doctors, pharmacists, and nurses working at the Uganda Cancer Institute (UCI) perceive as contributing to antimicrobial resistance at the UCI. Percentages shown next to bars represent the combined total percentage of respondents reporting that the factor does not or usually does not contribute (left of bars, main chart), occasionally or frequently contributes (right of bars, main chart), or neither contributes nor does not contribute (right of neutral chart). Figure 2. Factors that doctors, pharmacists, and nurses working at the Uganda Cancer Institute consider to be important when choosing antibiotics to treat infections. Percentages shown next to bars represent the combined total percentage of respondents reporting that the factor is somewhat or very unimportant (left of bars, main chart), somewhat or very important (right of bars, main chart), or neither important nor unimportant (right of neutral chart). Figure 3. Factors that doctors, pharmacists, and nurses working at the Uganda Cancer Institute perceive as limiting the ability to diagnose infections and obtain blood cultures. Conclusion While most staff recognized the term “antimicrobial resistance” and identified this as a major local problem, fewer were familiar with the term “antimicrobial stewardship”. We identified numerous perceived barriers to infection diagnosis and treatment, including the ability to consistently measure temperatures and the cost of blood cultures. A multipronged approach is needed to improve staff knowledge of antimicrobial stewardship and to address the systematic barriers to infection management at UCI. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Background. As access to cancer treatment has increased in sub-Saharan Africa (sSA), infection-related complications are a growing concern. Little is known about infection management practices in this setting. Understanding the unique challenges to diagnosing and treating infections can inform the development of targeted strategies to improve infection management for cancer treatment programs throughout sSA.
Methods. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of doctors, nurses, and pharmacists at the Uganda Cancer Institute (UCI), a national cancer referral hospital in Kampala, Uganda. The 25-item survey was designed to assess staff knowledge of antimicrobial resistance and antimicrobial stewardship, investigate antibiotic decision-making practices, and identify barriers to diagnosing and treating infections.
Results. Of the 61 respondents, 25 (41%) were doctors, 7 (11%) were pharmacists, and 29 (48%) were nurses. In total, 98% (60/61) had heard of the term "antimicrobial resistance" and 84% (51/61) agreed that antimicrobial resistance is an important problem at UCI. Multiple factors were felt to contribute to antimicrobial resistance including the use of too many antibiotics, patient insistence on antibiotics, and poor patient adherence (Fig 1). While 72% (44/61) had heard of the term "antimicrobial stewardship", only 25% (15/61) knew a lot about what it meant. Numerous factors were considered important to antibiotic decision-making including patient white blood cell count and severity of illness (Fig 2). Perceived barriers to infection diagnosis included the inability to obtain blood cultures and to regularly measure patient temperatures; perceived barriers to obtaining blood cultures included patient cost and availability of supplies (Fig 3). Figure 1. Factors that doctors, pharmacists, and nurses working at the Uganda Cancer Institute (UCI) perceive as contributing to antimicrobial resistance at the UCI.
Percentages shown next to bars represent the combined total percentage of respondents reporting that the factor does not or usually does not contribute (left of bars, main chart), occasionally or frequently contributes (right of bars, main chart), or neither contributes nor does not contribute (right of neutral chart). Percentages shown next to bars represent the combined total percentage of respondents reporting that the factor is somewhat or very unimportant (left of bars, main chart), somewhat or very important (right of bars, main chart), or neither important nor unimportant (right of neutral chart). Figure 3. Factors that doctors, pharmacists, and nurses working at the Uganda Cancer Institute perceive as limiting the ability to diagnose infections and obtain blood cultures.

Conclusion.
While most staff recognized the term "antimicrobial resistance" and identified this as a major local problem, fewer were familiar with the term "antimicrobial stewardship". We identified numerous perceived barriers to infection diagnosis and treatment, including the ability to consistently measure temperatures and the cost of blood cultures. A multipronged approach is needed to improve staff knowledge of antimicrobial stewardship and to address the systematic barriers to infection management at UCI. Background. Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) aim to improve appropriate antimicrobial use. Post-operative antibiotics are generally not necessary, especially those without surgical site infections risk factors (e.g. obesity). Few studies have described the impact of ASP interventions on patient outcomes especially in unique populations such as obstetrics. This study aims to evaluate the impact of ASP interventions on post-elective caesarean (eLSCS) oral antibiotic prophylaxis use and patient outcomes including SSI rates.

Impact of Antimicrobial Stewardship Interventions on Post-Elective Caesarean Antibiotic Prophylaxis and Surgical Site Infections
Methods. This pre-post quasi-experimental study was conducted over 9 months (2 months pre-and 7 months post-intervention) in all women admitted for eLSCS in our institution. Interventions included eLSCS surgical prophylaxis guideline dissemination, where a single antibiotic dose within 60 minutes before skin incision was recommended. Post-eLSCS oral antibiotics was actively discouraged in those without SSI risk factors. This was followed by ASP intervention notes (phase 1) for 3 months, and an additional phone call to the ward team for the next 7 months (phase 2). Phase 3 (next 6 months) constituted speaking to the operating consultant. The primary outcome was post-operative oral antibiotics prescription rates. Secondary outcomes included rates of 30-day post-operative SSI.
Conclusion. ASP interventions can reduce post-eLSCS antibiotic prophylaxis rates without adversely impacting patient safety.
Disclosures. All Authors: No reported disclosures Background. Implementation of antimicrobial stewardship (AS) interventions in the emergency department (ED) has been associated with improved patient outcomes. One potentially promising AS strategy is the implementation of an ED-specific, evidence-based antimicrobial order set. In this study, we aimed to examine the impact of implementing an ED-specific order set (EDOS) on the appropriateness of empiric antimicrobial therapy.

Implementation of an Antimicrobial Stewardship Order Set in the
Methods. We conducted a pre-post quasi experimental study on 160 adult patients presenting to the ED with suspected or confirmed common infections at our quaternary healthcare facility. The EDOS was implemented in December 2020, providing evidence-based recommendations for the management of common infectious diseases. Data was collected between September 2019 and March 2020 for the pre-EDOS implementation group and between January 2021 and April 2021 for the post-EDOS implementation group.
Pregnant women and patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection were excluded. Data were analyzed using two-sample T-test and mixed effects logistic regression. The primary study outcome was the appropriateness of antimicrobials selected, and the secondary outcomes were clinical and microbiologic cure, length of hospital stay, Clostridioides difficile infection, and the number of changes in antimicrobial therapy on transition to inpatient setting.
Results. A total of 100 ED patients pre-EDOS implementation and 60 patients post-EDOS implementation were compared. At baseline, patients in the post-EDOS group were older (59.83±20.30 years vs. 50.17±19.97 years, P=0.0037). A higher number of patients in the post-EDOS group had a history of multiple comorbidities (76.67% vs. 54%, P=0.0039). There was a higher rate of appropriate antimicrobial use in the post-EDOS group as compared to the pre-EDOS group (88.3% vs. 50%, P< 0.001). Longer hospital stays were observed in the post-EDOS group (P=0.0005). Clinical cure was similar between the two groups (96.6% vs. 94%, P=0.4568).

Conclusion.
In our study, we observed higher rates of appropriate antimicrobial selection after implementation of an EDOS. Use of an EDOS may represent a valuable AS intervention to guide appropriate antimicrobial prescribing in the ED, and larger studies are needed to confirm those findings. Disclosures.