You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Systematic review
Documenting the indication for antimicrobial prescribing: a scoping review
  1. Sharon Saini1,
  2. Valerie Leung2,3,
  3. Elizabeth Si1,
  4. Certina Ho1,4,
  5. Anne Cheung5,
  6. Dan Dalton6,
  7. Nick Daneman2,7,8,9,
  8. Kelly Grindrod10,
  9. Rita Ha11,
  10. Warren McIsaac12,13,
  11. Anjali Oberai14,15,
  12. Kevin Schwartz2,16,
  13. Anastasia Shiamptanis17,
  14. Bradley J Langford18
  1. 1 Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  2. 2 Public Health Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  3. 3 Michael Garron Hospital, Toronto East Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  4. 4 Institute for Safe Medication Practices, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  5. 5 West Park Healthcare Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  6. 6 CareRx, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  7. 7 Division of Infectious Diseases, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  8. 8 ICES, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  9. 9 Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  10. 10 University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
  11. 11 North York Family Health Team, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  12. 12 Sinai Health System, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  13. 13 Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  14. 14 Wawa Family Health Team, Wawa, Ontario, Canada
  15. 15 Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada
  16. 16 Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  17. 17 New Brunswick College of Pharmacists, Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada
  18. 18 Hotel Dieu Shaver Health and Rehabilitation Centre, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Dr Bradley J Langford, Infection Prevention and Control, Public Health Ontario, Toronto, Canada; brad.langford{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Background Documenting an indication when prescribing antimicrobials is considered best practice; however, a better understanding of the evidence is needed to support broader implementation of this practice.

Objectives We performed a scoping review to evaluate antimicrobial indication documentation as it pertains to its implementation, prevalence, accuracy and impact on clinical and utilisation outcomes in all patient populations.

Eligibility criteria Published and unpublished literature evaluating the documentation of an indication for antimicrobial prescribing.

Sources of evidence A search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts in addition to a review of the grey literature.

Charting and analysis Screening and extraction was performed by two independent reviewers. Studies were categorised inductively and results were presented descriptively.

Results We identified 123 peer-reviewed articles and grey literature documents for inclusion. Most studies took place in a hospital setting (109, 89%). The median prevalence of antimicrobial indication documentation was 75% (range 4%–100%). Studies evaluating the impact of indication documentation on prescribing and patient outcomes most commonly examined appropriateness and identified a benefit to prescribing or patient outcomes in 17 of 19 studies. Qualitative studies evaluating healthcare worker perspectives (n=10) noted the common barriers and facilitators to this practice.

Conclusion There is growing interest in the importance of documenting an indication when prescribing antimicrobials. While antimicrobial indication documentation is not uniformly implemented, several studies have shown that multipronged approaches can be used to improve this practice. Emerging evidence demonstrates that antimicrobial indication documentation is associated with improved prescribing and patient outcomes both in community and hospital settings. But setting-specific and larger trials are needed to provide a more robust evidence base for this practice.

  • medication safety
  • antibiotic management
  • general practice
  • healthcare quality improvement
  • implementation science

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2021-014582

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Key points

    What is already known on this topic

    • Documenting an indication when prescribing antimicrobials is considered best practice, but a thorough understanding of the evidence evaluating this approach is needed.

    What this study adds

    • Despite wide variability in antimicrobial indication documentation, there is growing interesting in the importance of this practice from an antimicrobial stewardship and patient safety perspective. Emerging evidence demonstrates that antimicrobial indication documentation, particularly on the prescription, may be associated with improved prescribing and patient outcomes.

    How this study might affect research, practice and/or policy

    • This scoping review provides a basis for future work on antimicrobial indication documentation, including an understanding of the barriers and facilitators to implementation. Considerations identified in our review may help guide high quality, prospective, setting-specific research to provide a more robust evidence base for this practice.

    Introduction

    The rise in antimicrobial resistance has prompted global stewardship initiatives to mitigate the impact of inappropriate use on this public health threat. One of the strategies that aims to improve antimicrobial use is proactively documenting the indication. When the indication (also known as the reason or purpose for use) is not included on the prescription, patients, pharmacists and other clinicians may be unaware of the reason the drug is prescribed. As such, it has been proposed that including the indication on the prescription is considered the ‘sixth right’ for the necessary components of a medication order, in addition to right patient, the right drug, the right dose, the right time and the right route.1

    Documenting the indication, specifically for antimicrobials, is considered best practice across all healthcare settings due to the potential benefits of preventing errors, improving communication, empowering patients, aiding in research and surveillance efforts and encouraging appropriate antimicrobial prescribing by clinicians.1–3 Several organisations, such as the US Centers for Disease Control and the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommend documentation of indication for antibiotics to support antimicrobial stewardship efforts.2 4 The indication documentation can facilitate other interventions including prospective audit and feedback5 and optimisation of postdischarge duration of therapy,6 which have been shown to improve antimicrobial use.

    Existing strategies that facilitate indication documentation include mandatory indications (where an indication is required to proceed with ordering a medication),7 accountable justification (where the prescriber is prompted to provide a justification for certain potentially inappropriate prescribing situations)8 and indication-based prescribing (where treatment options are presented based on prescriber-selected indication).9 However, an inventory of such strategies in the context of antimicrobial use and the evidence to support these approaches has not been fully elucidated. There are opportunities to better understand the scope of the literature on antimicrobial indication documentation and its potential impact on prescribing, utilisation and clinical outcomes. An assessment of the current status of the indication documentation literature and gaps in research may help to spur future efforts to implement and evaluate this antimicrobial stewardship strategy.

    We performed a scoping review to evaluate the evidence relating to antimicrobial indication documentation to better understand its implementation, prevalence, accuracy and impact on clinical and utilisation outcomes in any healthcare setting.

    Methods

    Protocol and registration

    This scoping review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR).10 The protocol for this scoping review was registered at the Center for Open Science (https://osf.io/ytvm5/).

    Eligibility criteria and information sources

    Published peer-reviewed literature (1946 to July 2021) and grey literature including conference abstracts in English language were eligible for inclusion. Conference proceedings were eligible given the broad aim of this scoping review to capture data from a wide variety of settings, recognising that, due to the quality improvement nature of this work, it may not always be published in peer reviewed journals. The following databases were searched on 6 July 2021: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts. Targeted searches of health department, pharmacy, infectious diseases, primary care and patient safety websites and conferences as well as broad Google searches using the concepts antibiotic, indication and prescription were applied to help identify additional relevant grey literature between 15 July and 13 August 2021.

    Any publication evaluating the implementation of, or outcomes associated with, indication documentation for antimicrobial prescribing to humans was eligible for inclusion. Documentation of indication either on the prescription or elsewhere in the patient’s health record was considered eligible. Although the ideal location for improved communication is on the prescription,1 we included a broader definition of documentation to include the health record in general since electronic health records are increasingly accessible to the healthcare team, patients and caregivers. A modification to the protocol was made to exclude studies describing indication documentation for all medications, given the volume of literature focusing exclusively on antimicrobial agents. We also excluded commentaries and narrative reviews.

    Search strategy

    Searches were conducted in collaboration with a medical librarian. General search concepts included: indication or reason or purpose for use or accountable justification and antimicrobial agents and medication prescription. The full published literature search strategy is available in online supplemental file A.

    Supplemental material

    Study screening

    Potentially eligible citations were imported into citation management software (Covidence, Melbourne Australia). We performed two-stage screening in duplicate by two authors (SS, BL): (1) screening of title and abstract for eligible studies (Kappa 0.64) and (2) screening of full text (Kappa 0.65) studies identified from title and abstract screening. A list of eligibility criteria was provided to reviewers to ensure consistency in selection. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus.

    Data items

    Data extraction was performed by a single author (SS) and cross-checked by a second author (BL). A standardised spreadsheet incorporating drop-down options was piloted on three studies and modified to incorporate variables for extraction. These variables included: study author; year; setting; region; study design; indication documentation details (where antimicrobial indication was documented including on the prescription or elsewhere in the health record, whether computerised provider order entry (CPOE) was used; format of documentation) intervention details (if any) and study outcomes.

    Quality appraisal

    Given the broad nature of this scoping review, including many potential study designs and objectives, a critical appraisal was not performed.

    Synthesis of results

    Studies were categorised by their main objectives. Interventions were classified according to the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care taxonomy, a standardised approach to categorising health systems interventions.11 We evaluated indication documentation with respect to the prevalence (how often the antimicrobial indication was included), accuracy (how well the indication matched the true diagnosis) and clarity (the interpretability, sufficiency or specificity of the indication). We also identified and inductively categorised approaches for indication documentation and grouped studies by themes in terms of strategies to measure and improve indication documentation. In order to better identify opportunities to improve antimicrobial indication documentation, barriers and facilitators data were classified according to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation (COM-B) model.12 The COM-B model proposes that there are three drivers of decision making: capability (knowledge, skills), opportunity (physical and social environment) and motivation (internal processes that influence decisions). In order to change a behaviour, one or more of these aspects must be identified and addressed. Results were presented descriptively in terms of numeric values and percentages including medians and ranges.

    Results

    Of 2113 studies screened, 183 were assessed for eligibility via full-text screening and 108 were included in the review. The most common reasons for study exclusion were that the study was not specific to antimicrobial agents (n=32), study did not address documentation of indication (n=22) and study was not retrievable (n=9). An additional 15 citations were identified from the grey literature search for a total of 123 publications (figure 1).13–135 Of the 123 studies, 64 were peer reviewed, 53 were conference proceedings and 6 were online documents (eg, reports).

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    PRISMA flow diagram.

    Most studies were retrospective (n=49) or cross-sectional (n=43) in design, followed by prospective studies (n=24), qualitative or mixed-methods (n=4) and randomised-controlled trials (n=3). Hospital setting was the most common (n=109), whereas community (n=13) and long-term care (n=1) were much less common.

    The majority of publications were from Europe (n=59), followed by North America (n=35), Oceania (n=15), Asia (n=8), Africa (n=5) and multiple regions (n=1). There was a substantial increase in publications over the period of study: pre-2010 (n=1); 2010–2019 (n=92); 2020–2021 (n=30).

    Most publications assessed indication documentation for antimicrobial agents as a broad category (n=103), fewer studies evaluated the more specific category of individual classes of antimicrobial agents (eg, restricted, targeted or broader spectrum classes of antimicrobial agents) (n=19).

    Publication objectives could be largely classified into one of four non-mutually exclusive categories: (1) measuring indication documentation including describing the prevalence and context of indication documentation (n=52) and assessing the accuracy and clarity of documented indication (n=14); (2) evaluating interventions to improve documentation prevalence and accuracy (n=33); (3) assessing the impact of indication documentation on clinical and utilisation outcomes (n=19) and (4) describing the barriers and enablers to indication documentation (n=10). Table 1 provides an overview of the types of strategies and studies used to evaluate antimicrobial indication documentation.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Classifying the literature on antimicrobial indication documentation

    Most studies evaluated the use of indication or reason for use; however, there were six studies that described the use of accountable justification (ie, where a rationale is required for potentially inappropriate prescribing such as antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infection),45 48 50 85 87 99 and two that used both indication and justification.98 119

    Prevalence and context of indication documentation

    Overall, 52 studies reported the prevalence of indication documentation.13–15 17 19 21 23 26–29 40 45–47 49 53 60 61 65 67 71 72 74 75 78 82 83 87 89 91 92 97 100–102 106 108 109 109 110 112 114 115 117 124–129 135 The median reported prevalence of indication documentation was 75%; however, there was a wide range across studies from 4% to 100% of antimicrobial orders with an indication documented, with an IQR of 51%–85%. This wide variation was seen in both community (median 60%, range 4%–86% prevalence, n=5 studies) and hospital settings (median 78%, range 10%–100%).

    Of the 52 studies reporting prevalence of indication documentation, 19 (36%) of the studies evaluated indication documentation by reviewing the electronic and/or paper prescription. In 12 (23%) studies, indication documentation was examined elsewhere in the health record (eg, progress notes). Seventeen (33%) studies did not specify the location of the indication documentation, and four studies (8%) evaluated documentation either in the prescription or elsewhere in the health record. Indication documentation was reported to be more prevalent when looking at the health record (median 79%, range 10%–100%) compared with the prescription itself (median 63%, range 4%–95%), although a wide range was seen across studies. Thirteen studies used an electronic order entry system to capture indication.

    Nine studies (17%) indicated there were local standards or policies describing the need for indication documentation.

    Accuracy and quality of indication documentation

    Accuracy of documentation

    There were 14 studies that assessed the accuracy of antimicrobial indication documentation (ie, how well the indication matched the true diagnosis).25 38 57 64 70 77 80 81 83 103 111 116 122 130 All studies took place in a hospital setting and all but one used electronic order entry to capture indication. Out of 142 551 prescriptions with an indication documented, 48 905 were considered accurate when compared with the gold standard of diagnosis as per chart review (n=11), diagnostic code (n=1), either diagnostic code or chart review (n=1) or unspecified method (n=1). The median reported indication accuracy was 78% (IQR: 74%–82%, range: 25%–100%).

    Clarity of documentation

    Seven studies evaluated the clarity (ie, interpretability, sufficiency or specificity) of indication documentation. One study found that out of 62 prescriptions that had an indication, only 47% were adequate based on audit standards, and the remaining provided indications that were not assessable or had insufficient information.84 The use of structured documentation (ie, drop-down/fixed options) as opposed to free-text entry of indication also varied between studies. Studies reported a wide range of use of a free text field, 4.6%–70%.32 61 80 81 122 132 Authors noted that free-text was often used when an indication could not be categorised based on the drop-down options available, when there was an alternate term for an indication, or for the purposes of more in-depth description of a patient’s presentation.132

    Evaluation of interventions to improve prevalence of indication documentation

    There were 32 studies18 20 22 30 33–37 39 41–44 58 59 62 63 66 68 69 86 88 93 96 105 107 113 120 123 131 134 that assessed interventions to increase the prevalence of antimicrobial indication documentation and one study that evaluated an intervention to improve indication accuracy.24 Most studies were in the hospital setting (n=30, 94%). The most common intervention was a combination of multiple strategies (n=11), followed by audit and feedback (n=8), health information systems (n=3), educational meetings (n=2), educational materials (n=2), reminders (n=1), continuous quality improvement (n=1), clinical practice guidelines (n=1) and other strategies (n=4). Sites that used a combination approach evaluated multiple strategies to influence indication documentation, including but not limited to: educational sessions; peer comparison (providing individualised data in comparison to the prescriber’s peer group); audit and feedback; quality improvement (Plan Do Study Act cycles); electronic order entry and accountable justification (online supplemental table 2). Most studies (n=27, 84%) were associated with an improvement in the frequency of antibiotic indication documentation (median absolute increase in documentation: 25%, IQR: 18%–44%, range −16% to 84%).

    Supplemental material

    Evaluation of interventions to improve accuracy of indication documentation

    One study aiming to improve indication accuracy was associated with a decrease in accuracy of indication selection after implementation of a drop-down menu for indication selection on an electronic order set.24 The authors indicated that prescribers intentionally selected inaccurate indications in order to bypass an approval process required for unapproved indications (a phenomenon the authors referred to as ‘gaming the system’).

    Impact of indication documentation on patient and prescribing outcomes

    Nineteen (19) studies evaluated the association between antimicrobial indication documentation and prescribing, utilisation and patient outcomes.32 50–52 55 56 63 73 76 79 85 90 94 99 104 119 121 129 133 Three studies were randomised controlled trials; the rest were observational studies. The three randomised controlled trials were part of the same research programme to evaluate accountable justification, along with other behaviourally informed interventions to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for respiratory infections in the community setting. The studies included a pilot cluster-RCT,99 a cluster-RCT85 and an assessment of sustainability 12 months after stopping the intervention.76 Fourteen studies (73.7%) were in the hospital setting, with the remaining in the community. Most studies evaluated the use of mandatory indications (n=7), prompted indications (eg, through the use of order sets, reminders, standards) (n=7) or accountable justification (n=5). Two studies evaluated the use of indication-based prescribing (where an indication is first selected, followed by an abbreviated list of medication choices based on the selected indication). These interventions were facilitated via changes to the electronic health record or prescribing process with or without other supportive interventions such as education (see online supplemental table 3).

    Half of these studies (n=10) evaluated appropriateness of the actual antimicrobial prescribing (eg, guideline concordant antibiotic selection) and six studies evaluated antimicrobial utilisation outcomes (eg, prescribing rate or antibiotic days of therapy). Other outcomes that were assessed included prescribing error rate (n=1), economic outcome (ie, cost-effectiveness) (n=1), adherence to restriction criteria (n=1) and patient outcome (ie, clinical success) (n=1).

    Of 19 studies, a benefit associated with indication documentation was identified in 17 studies, with 1 study reporting no change in antibiotic utilisation and 1 study reporting a decrease in appropriateness after stopping an accountable justification intervention. Benefits were reported for each strategy: mandatory indications, prompted indications and accountable justification, but heterogeneity in study design and outcomes measured precluded quantitative comparison. Across studies reporting appropriateness, the median increase in appropriateness reported was 19%, IQR: 13%–35%, range: 0.5%–56%) (see online supplemental table 3).

    Barriers and facilitators to antimicrobial indication documentation

    Ten studies evaluated the qualitative aspects of indication documentation through surveys (n=6), interviews (n=2) or an assessment by the authors evaluating the indication documentation process (n=2).24 25 31 35 54 61 86 89 95 118 Physicians were most commonly consulted (n=6), followed by other healthcare workers, such as microbiologists, physician assistants and nurse practitioners (n=3). Pharmacists were consulted in two studies and one study simply indicated healthcare workers were surveyed.

    These studies largely focused on barriers and facilitators to documenting the indication on the antimicrobial prescription. Whereas seven papers focused on all antimicrobials, three looked at a restricted list of antimicrobials specific to the institution. The most common barriers associated with documenting indication included uncertainty in diagnosis, time, logistical challenges and alert fatigue. Facilitators included awareness of stewardship, reduced errors, improved communication, use of reminders/prompts and electronic health systems (table 2).

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Classifying the barriers and facilitators to indication documentation, using the COM-B model for behaviour change

    Discussion

    This scoping review revealed a growing interest in evaluating and improving antimicrobial indication documentation; of the 123 publications that were included, 30 studies were recently published between 2020 and 2021. This recent interest in antimicrobial indication documentation may be related to the rising importance of antimicrobial stewardship along with more widespread implementation of CPOE. The literature describes a wide variation in practice of antimicrobial indication documentation, likely reflecting variability in prescribing and stewardship practices across facilities, healthcare settings and regions.

    The literature also described a variety of interventions to improve indication documentation with most studies using multipronged strategies; these strategies were generally associated an overall improvement in documentation prevalence. In addition, almost all studies that evaluated the impact of indication documentation on outcomes found a benefit with respect to patient, utilisation or prescribing outcomes including appropriateness.

    To advance our understanding of how strategies to improve antibiotic indication documentation can be more effectively integrated into clinical practice, we mapped barriers and facilitators identified in the literature using the COM-B Model for Behaviour Change. For example, overcoming barriers such as lack of time and logistical challenges that are associated with opportunity may require incentives, rewards and environmental restructuring (eg, electronic order entry, drop down menu). Alert fatigue may reduce prescribers’ capability and motivation to provide an indication. Thus, strategies to reduce alert fatigue by minimising interruptions and increasing the ease of indication documentation, may help facilitate this desired behaviour.136

    The results of this scoping review are consistent with findings in studies that evaluated medications in general which have shown that documenting indication results in similar improvements in prescribing outcomes.137–139 Similar barriers have also been identified: alert fatigue and prescribers overriding mandatory fields;140 time pressure141 and ambiguity in medication indications.142 An additional barrier is prescribers being hesitant to document indications due to concerns of patient privacy.141 143 For example, prescribers felt that documenting the indication on the prescription could increase patient anxiety or contribute to patients not accessing care (eg, for sexually transmitted infections), which could also be relevant to antibiotic prescriptions depending on the indication. This privacy concern was echoed by some patient participants as well.141 As such, there may be a few exceptions where indication is not documented due to the sensitive nature of the diagnosis.

    There is evidence that diagnoses can be strategically altered to improve perceived performance (eg, using a diagnosis of respiratory failure instead of pneumonia to increase hospital reimbursement).144 This potential unintended consequence, termed ‘gaming’ may require further evaluation in the context of providing an indication for antimicrobial prescribing, especially when appropriateness is being monitored.

    Despite these barriers, there is a general theme across all publications that indication documentation associated with prescribing is a best practice with numerous benefits to the quality of patient care1 9 which has been echoed by a recent scoping review evaluating the inclusion of the reason for use when sending prescriptions to pharmacists.145 Our findings help substantiate current recommendations and best practice statements from a number of jurisdictions and organisations that relate to documentation of indication for antimicrobial prescriptions.2 4 146 These entities frequently position this practice as a patient safety and/or antimicrobial stewardship strategy by highlighting the benefits of antimicrobial indication for assessment (facilitates patient-level evaluation of antibiotic use, eg, for prospective audit and feedback),2 3 147 continuity of care (facilitates communication about reason for use across providers and healthcare settings),3 147–149 surveillance (facilitates population-level evaluation of antibiotic use, eg, to explain antimicrobial use metrics),2 146 safety check (indication provides a second check, especially for sound-alike and look-alike drugs)150 151 and accountability (increases social accountability for prescribing by sharing indication with all team members).3

    While our scoping review included a large number of studies from both peer-reviewed and grey literature from different settings and regions, an important limitation is the generalisability of the studies to real world practice. For example, our estimate of a median of 75% prevalence of documentation may be attributed to publication bias and/or institutions having a greater interest in antimicrobial stewardship and/or ability to facilitate indication documentation, thus evaluating this practice. We did not perform a quality appraisal, and given that all but three studies were observational in nature, there is a high risk of bias. A further limitation is that a large number of studies did not specify where the indication was being documented; this is an important consideration as search through the patient records or medical charts to find the indication can be onerous and a barrier to antimicrobial stewardship efforts. Therefore, future initiatives should include further evaluation of local context (eg, policies and expectations related to indication documentation, electronic order entry) and accessibility of indication information for all members of the healthcare team. We provide a practical visual summary of our findings and opportunities for future research in online supplemental figure 1).

    Given the high degree of heterogeneity across studies, a meta-analysis pooling the results to estimate the overall impact of indication prescribing on prescribing and patient outcomes was not performed. Future high quality research is required to further understand the impact of this strategy on appropriateness in all healthcare settings. Additionally, there is a need for a larger number of randomised controlled trials and studies looking at additional outcomes such as patient experience, effectiveness of care and hospitalisations.

    Conclusion

    There is growing interest in the importance of documenting an indication when prescribing an antimicrobial agent. The frequency, accuracy and clarity of antimicrobial indication documentation is variable within and between different healthcare settings. Several studies have shown that multipronged approaches can be used to improve this practice, but there are key barriers including time pressures, alert fatigue and logistics associated with implementation. Emerging evidence demonstrates that antimicrobial indication documentation may be associated with improved prescribing and patient outcomes, but larger setting-specific prospective trials are needed to provide a more robust evidence base for this practice.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available on reasonable request.

    Ethics statements

    Patient consent for publication

    Ethics approval

    Not applicable.

    References

    1. ↵
      2. Schiff GD ,
      3. Seoane-Vazquez E ,
      4. Wright A
      . Incorporating Indications into Medication Ordering--Time to Enter the Age of Reason. N Engl J Med 2016;375:306–9.doi:10.1056/NEJMp1603964 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27464201
      OpenUrlPubMed
    2. ↵
      1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
      . Antimicrobial stewardship quality standard, 2016. Available: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/qs121/resources/antimicrobial-stewardship-pdf-75545353537477 [Accessed 29 Sep 2021].
    3. ↵
      1. Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion (Public Health Ontario)
      . Antimicrobial Stewardship Strategy: Improved Antimicrobial Documentation. Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2016. Available: https://www.publichealthontario.ca/apps/asp-strategies/data/pdf/ASP_Strategy_Improved_Antimicrobial_Documentation.pdf [Accessed 30 Sep 2021].
    4. ↵
      2. Pollack LA ,
      3. Srinivasan A
      . Core elements of hospital antibiotic stewardship programs from the centers for disease control and prevention. Clin Infect Dis 2014;59 Suppl 3:S97–100.doi:10.1093/cid/ciu542 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25261548
      OpenUrlPubMed
    5. ↵
      2. Davey P ,
      3. Marwick CA ,
      4. Scott CL , et al
      . Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;2:CD003543.doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003543.pub4 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28178770
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    6. ↵
      2. Daniels LM ,
      3. Weber DJ
      . Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing at hospital discharge: a systematic review. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2021;42:96–9.doi:10.1017/ice.2020.367 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32867878
      OpenUrlPubMed
    7. ↵
      2. Eguale T ,
      3. Winslade N ,
      4. Hanley JA , et al
      . Enhancing pharmacosurveillance with systematic collection of treatment indication in electronic prescribing: a validation study in Canada. Drug Saf 2010;33:559–67.doi:10.2165/11534580-000000000-00000 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20553057
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    8. ↵
      2. Stevens J
      . Accountable Justifications and Peer Comparisons as Behavioral Economic Nudges to Improve Clinical Practice. In: Shah RK , Godambe SA , eds. Patient safety and quality improvement in healthcare. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021: 255–64.
    9. ↵
      2. Grissinger M
      . Is an Indication-Based prescribing system in our future? P T 2019;44:232–66.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31080329
      OpenUrlPubMed
    10. ↵
      2. Tricco AC ,
      3. Lillie E ,
      4. Zarin W , et al
      . PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018;169:467–73.doi:10.7326/M18-0850 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30178033
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    11. ↵
      2. Walter I ,
      3. Nutley S ,
      4. Davies H
      . Developing a taxonomy of interventions used to increase the impact of research. unpublished discussion paper. Scotland: Research Unit for Research Utilisation, Department of Management, University of St Andrews, 2003: 20070103. http://wwwstandrewsacuk/cppm/Taxonomydevelopmentpaper
    12. ↵
      2. Michie S ,
      3. van Stralen MM ,
      4. West R
      . The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci 2011;6:42.doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-42 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21513547
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    13. ↵
      2. Aabenhus R ,
      3. Hansen MP ,
      4. Siersma V , et al
      . Clinical indications for antibiotic use in Danish general practice: results from a nationwide electronic prescription database. Scand J Prim Health Care 2017;35:162–9.doi:10.1080/02813432.2017.1333321 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28585886
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    14. ↵
      2. Afriyie DK ,
      3. Sefah IA ,
      4. Sneddon J , et al
      . Antimicrobial point prevalence surveys in two Ghanaian hospitals: opportunities for antimicrobial stewardship. JAC Antimicrob Resist 2020;2:dlaa001.doi:10.1093/jacamr/dlaa001 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34222959
      OpenUrlPubMed
    15. ↵
      2. Al Matar M ,
      3. Enani M ,
      4. Binsaleh G , et al
      . Point prevalence survey of antibiotic use in 26 Saudi hospitals in 2016. J Infect Public Health 2019;12:77–82.doi:10.1016/j.jiph.2018.09.003 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30270148
      OpenUrlPubMed
    16. ↵
      2. Al-Taani GM ,
      3. Scott M ,
      4. Farren D , et al
      . Longitudinal point prevalence survey of antibacterial use in Northern Ireland using the European surveillance of antimicrobial consumption (ESAC) PPS and Global-PPS tool. Epidemiol Infect 2018;146:985–90.doi:10.1017/S095026881800095X pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29690946
      OpenUrlPubMed
    17. ↵
      2. Aldeyab MA ,
      3. Kearney MP ,
      4. McElnay JC , et al
      . A point prevalence survey of antibiotic use in four acute-care teaching hospitals utilizing the European surveillance of antimicrobial consumption (ESAC) audit tool. Epidemiol Infect 2012;140:1714–20.doi:10.1017/S095026881100241X pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22115422
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    18. ↵
      2. Allan PA ,
      3. Newman MJ ,
      4. Oehmen R , et al
      . The use of daily electronic prompts to help improve antimicrobial stewardship in a critical care unit. J Infect Prev 2016;17:179–84.doi:10.1177/1757177416645346 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28989477
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    19. ↵
      2. Arghode S ,
      3. Gupta R
      . New paediatric drug chart as a means of quality improvement for antibiotic stewardship. Pediatric Critical Care Medicine 2018;19:102.
      OpenUrl
    20. ↵
      2. Arnold M
      . An audit on antibiotic prescribing in general surgery. British Journal of Surgery 2020;107:107–8.
      OpenUrl
    21. ↵
      2. Ashiru DAI ,
      3. Lee R ,
      4. Benton J
      . Review of antibiotic usage over three years at a district general Hospital. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 2010;19:646.
    22. ↵
      2. Al Ashiru-Oredope D ,
      3. Richards M ,
      4. Giles J
      . Does an antimicrobial section on a drug chart influence prescribing? Clinical Pharmacist 2011;3:222.
      OpenUrl
    23. ↵
      1. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care
      . Third Australian report on antimicrobial use and resistance in human health, 2019. Available: https://consultations.health.gov.au/ohpd-health-protection-policy-branch/consultation-on-next-amr-strategy/user_uploads/aura-2019-report.pdf [Accessed 30 Sep 2021].
    24. ↵
      2. Baysari MT ,
      3. Del Gigante J ,
      4. Moran M , et al
      . Redesign of computerized decision support to improve antimicrobial prescribing. A controlled before-and-after study. Appl Clin Inform 2017;8:949–63.doi:10.4338/ACI2017040069 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28905978
      OpenUrlPubMed
    25. ↵
      2. Beardsley J ,
      3. Vestal M ,
      4. Rosario N , et al
      . Accuracy of and prescriber perceptions related to documenting antibiotic indications during order entry at an academic medical center. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2020;77:282–7.doi:10.1093/ajhp/zxz318 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31909417
      OpenUrlPubMed
    26. ↵
      2. Bennett NJ ,
      3. Imam N ,
      4. Ingram RJ , et al
      . Skin and soft tissue infections and current antimicrobial prescribing practices in Australian aged care residents. Epidemiol Infect 2019;147:e87.doi:10.1017/S0950268819000128 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30869059
      OpenUrlPubMed
    27. ↵
      2. Bishop JL ,
      3. Schulz TR ,
      4. Kong DCM , et al
      . Similarities and differences in antimicrobial prescribing between major City hospitals and regional and remote hospitals in Australia. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2019;53:171–6.doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2018.10.009 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30722961
      OpenUrlPubMed
    28. ↵
      2. Black E ,
      3. Neville H ,
      4. Losier M , et al
      . Antimicrobial use at acute care hospitals in nova Scotia: a point prevalence survey. Can J Hosp Pharm 2018;71:234–42.doi:10.4212/cjhp.v71i4.2825
      OpenUrl
    29. ↵
      2. Boreland S
      . Audit of the Trust’s quality account antibiotic indicators for correct use in paediatrics. Archives of Disease in Childhood Conference: 18th Neonatal and Paediatric Pharmacists Group, NPPG Annual Conference Liverpool United Kingdom Conference Publication, 2013:98.
    30. ↵
      2. Bowers TR ,
      3. Duffy EJ
      . Quality of antimicrobial prescribing improved by the introduction of ePrescribing at Auckland City Hospital. Health Informatics J 2020;26:2375–82.doi:10.1177/1460458220905163 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32077367
      OpenUrlPubMed
    31. ↵
      2. Brennan J ,
      3. Brannigan T ,
      4. O’Connor C
      . An audit of antimicrobial prescribing habits among doctors in St columcille’s hospital, loughlinstown. Irish Journal of Medical Science 2012;181:S95.
    32. ↵
      2. Chan AJ ,
      3. Downing M ,
      4. Langford B
      . 189. evaluating the impact of mandatory indications on antibiotic utilization: a retrospective study. Open Forum Infect Dis 2018;5:S83–4.doi:10.1093/ofid/ofy210.202
      OpenUrl
    33. ↵
      2. Charani E ,
      3. Gharbi M ,
      4. Moore LSP , et al
      . Effect of adding a mobile health intervention to a multimodal antimicrobial stewardship programme across three teaching hospitals: an interrupted time series study. J Antimicrob Chemother 2017;72:1825–31.doi:10.1093/jac/dkx040 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28333297
      OpenUrlPubMed
    34. ↵
      2. Chatzopoulou D ,
      3. Jasani I ,
      4. Iosif E
      . The diagnosis and management of acute pancreatitis. A re-audit of compliance with national guidelines with focus on role of imaging and antibiotics therapy. British Journal of Surgery 2020;107:74.
    35. ↵
      2. Chaves NJ ,
      3. Ingram RJ ,
      4. MacIsaac CM , et al
      . Sticking to minimum standards: implementing antibiotic stewardship in intensive care. Intern Med J 2014;44:1180–7.doi:10.1111/imj.12539 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25070720
      OpenUrlPubMed
    36. ↵
      2. Chilton N ,
      3. Hughes J ,
      4. Prescott L
      . P01.15 improving the prescribing of antimicrobial medication in a secondary care mental health trust. Journal of Hospital Infection 2010;76:S14.doi:10.1016/S0195-6701(10)60046-1
    37. ↵
      2. Coll A ,
      3. Kinnear M ,
      4. Kinnear A
      . Design of antimicrobial stewardship care bundles on the high dependency unit. Int J Clin Pharm 2012;34:845–54.doi:10.1007/s11096-012-9680-9 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22864866
      OpenUrlPubMed
    38. ↵
      2. Conard N ,
      3. Thole K ,
      4. Tucker N
      . Accuracy of Provider-Selected antibiotic indications in an electronic medical record. southern Illinois university Edwardsville, 2020. Available: https://www.siue.edu/pharmacy/current-students/pdf/impact/Conard_Noah.pdf [Accessed 30 Sep 2020].
    39. ↵
      2. Cooley N ,
      3. Panesar P ,
      4. Gilchrist M
      . ASPEN©-Antimicrobial stewardship practices in the NHS (North London). Clinical Microbiology and Infection 2012;18:247.
      OpenUrl
    40. ↵
      2. Cotta MO ,
      3. Robertson MS ,
      4. Upjohn LM , et al
      . Using periodic point-prevalence surveys to assess appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing in Australian private hospitals. Intern Med J 2014;44:240–6.doi:10.1111/imj.12353 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24372683
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    41. ↵
      2. Cunney R ,
      3. Kirrane-Scott M ,
      4. Rafferty A , et al
      . 'Start smart': using front-line ownership to improve the quality of empiric antibiotic prescribing in a paediatric Hospital. BMJ Open Qual 2019;8:e000445.doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2018-000445 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31523725
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    42. ↵
      2. Davis GN ,
      3. Nikolov V ,
      4. Edwards P
      . Antimicrobial stewardship and its impact on patient safety for acute surgical admissions in a DGH-a closed loop audit based on the Standards of start smart then focus all Wales initiative. British Journal of Surgery 2019;106:118.
    43. ↵
      2. De Terline D ,
      3. Hue B ,
      4. Meynard JL
      . Assessment of pharmaceutical intervention to improve the quality of antibiotics prescribing. European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy 2014;21:A191.
      OpenUrl
    44. ↵
      2. Doukas FF ,
      3. Cheong E ,
      4. McKew G
      . Antimicrobial stewardship audit and feedback rounds: moving beyond the restricted antibiotic list and the impact of electronic systems. Intern Med J 2020:imj.14979.
    45. ↵
      2. Elliott RM ,
      3. Burrell AR ,
      4. Harrigan PW , et al
      . Antimicrobial prescription patterns and ventilator associated pneumonia: findings from a 10-site prospective audit. BMC Res Notes 2018;11:769.doi:10.1186/s13104-018-3878-4 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30373649
      OpenUrlPubMed
    46. ↵
      2. Fanny V ,
      3. Sneyers B ,
      4. Yombi JC
      . Appropriate prescribing of piperacillin-tazobactam in a teaching hospital. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy 2013;35:990.
    47. ↵
      2. Fitzgerald GP ,
      3. Jackson A
      . Antimicrobial use in MUH cork: a point prevalence study. Irish Journal of Medical Science 2015;184:S252–3.
      OpenUrl
    48. ↵
      2. Friedberg MW ,
      3. Hirshman S ,
      4. Doctor JN
      . Clinicians’ justifications for antibiotic prescribing: A new type of quality measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2015;30:S122–3.
      OpenUrl
    49. ↵
      2. Gardiner SJ ,
      3. Basevi AB ,
      4. Hamilton NL
      . Point prevalence surveys of antimicrobial use in adult inpatients at Canterbury district health board hospitals. N Z Med J 2020;133:18–33.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    50. ↵
      2. Gong CL ,
      3. Zangwill KM ,
      4. Hay JW , et al
      . Behavioral economics interventions to improve outpatient antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Gen Intern Med 2019;34:846–54.doi:10.1007/s11606-018-4467-x pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29740788
      OpenUrlPubMed
    51. ↵
      2. Goss FR ,
      3. Bookman K ,
      4. Barron M , et al
      . Improved antibiotic prescribing using indication-based clinical decision support in the emergency department. J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open 2020;1:214–21.doi:10.1002/emp2.12029 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33000036
      OpenUrlPubMed
    52. ↵
      2. Gunn LR ,
      3. Tunney R ,
      4. Kelly K
      . Nonmodal clinical decision support and antimicrobial restriction effects on rates of fluoroquinolone use in uncomplicated infections. Appl Clin Inform 2018;9:149–55.doi:10.1055/s-0038-1626726 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29490408
      OpenUrlPubMed
    53. ↵
      2. Haagensen MLW ,
      3. Worm-Hansen J ,
      4. Havndrup MH , et al
      . Does a new guideline influence the prescribing of antibiotics by physicians in Denmark? International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy 2015;37:204.
    54. ↵
      2. Hand KS ,
      3. Cumming D ,
      4. Hopkins S , et al
      . Electronic prescribing system design priorities for antimicrobial stewardship: a cross-sectional survey of 142 UK infection specialists. J Antimicrob Chemother 2017;72:1206–16.doi:10.1093/jac/dkw524 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27999065
      OpenUrlPubMed
    55. ↵
      2. Hansen B
      . 685: impact of pharmacy intervention on restricted antimicrobial prescribing patterns. Crit Care Med 2021;49:337.doi:10.1097/01.ccm.0000728628.12753.62
    56. ↵
      2. Haynes K ,
      3. Linkin DR ,
      4. Fishman NO , et al
      . Effectiveness of an information technology intervention to improve prophylactic antibacterial use in the postoperative period. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011;18:164–8.doi:10.1136/jamia.2009.002998 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21262922
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    57. ↵
      2. Heil EL ,
      3. Pineles L ,
      4. Mathur P , et al
      . Accuracy of Provider-Selected indications for antibiotic orders. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:111–3.doi:10.1017/ice.2017.277 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29345611
      OpenUrlPubMed
    58. ↵
      2. Howard P ,
      3. Smith H ,
      4. Child R , et al
      . Introduction of an education, audit and feedback programme to improve the recording of clinical indication and duration on antimicrobial prescriptions. J Infect 2011;63:e96–7.doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2011.04.164
      OpenUrl
    59. ↵
      1. Infectious Diseases Institute – Makerere University
      . Shared learning 2020: prescribing and stewardship, 2020. Available: https://antibioticguardian.com/sharedlearning/prescribing-and-stewardship/ [Accessed cited 2021 Sep 30].
    60. ↵
      2. James R ,
      3. Upjohn L ,
      4. Cotta M , et al
      . Measuring antimicrobial prescribing quality in Australian hospitals: development and evaluation of a national antimicrobial prescribing survey tool. J Antimicrob Chemother 2015;70:1912–8.doi:10.1093/jac/dkv047 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25724986
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    61. ↵
      2. Javaid W ,
      3. Cavanaugh S ,
      4. Lupone C , et al
      . Fixed vs. Free-text documentation of indication for antibiotic orders. Open Forum Infect Dis 2017;4:S325–6.doi:10.1093/ofid/ofx163.769
      OpenUrl
    62. ↵
      2. Johnston DN ,
      3. Keshtkar F ,
      4. Campbell W
      . The effect of re-audit and education on antibiotic prescribing practice at Causeway Hospital, Northern Ireland. Ir J Med Sci 2019;188:1149–53.doi:10.1007/s11845-019-01995-9 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30810949
      OpenUrlPubMed
    63. ↵
      2. Jones T ,
      3. Jones C ,
      4. MacIsaac C
      . Long term compliance with a simple initiative to assist antimicrobial prescribing in intensive care: are standards maintained 5-years on? Journal of the Intensive Care Society 2019;20:38–9.
      OpenUrl
    64. ↵
      2. Khadem T ,
      3. Bariola JR
      . 191. accuracy of clinical indications for use when ordering antibiotics for cystitis in community hospitals. Open Forum Infectious Diseases 2018;5:S84.doi:10.1093/ofid/ofy210.204
      OpenUrl
    65. ↵
      2. Khan F ,
      3. Garcia-Arias V ,
      4. Amigo C
      . An audit of antimicrobial stewardship compliance with national and local recommendations for antimicrobial prescribing. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice 2014;22:91.
    66. ↵
      2. Kirrane M ,
      3. Cunney R
      . CP-089 ‘Start smart’: Improving the quality of empiric antimicrobial prescribing in a tertiary children’s hospital setting. European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy 2016;23:A39.1–A39.doi:10.1136/ejhpharm-2016-000875.89
      OpenUrl
    67. ↵
      2. Korinteli I ,
      3. Pauwels I ,
      4. Versporten A
      . The global point prevalence survey of antimicrobial consumption and resistance (Global-PPS): 2015, 2017 and 2018 results of antibiotic prescribing for pneumonia in Georgia. Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control Conference: 5th International Conference on Prevention and Infection Control, ICPIC, 2019:8.
    68. ↵
      2. Lamba V ,
      3. D'souza S ,
      4. Carafa C , et al
      . Standardizing the approach to late onset sepsis in neonates through antimicrobial stewardship: a quality improvement initiative. J Perinatol 2020;40:1433–40.doi:10.1038/s41372-019-0577-5 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31907396
      OpenUrlPubMed
    69. ↵
      2. Lee A ,
      3. Kelly M ,
      4. Maden C , et al
      . 71 Electronic Prescribing Promotes Antimicrobial Stewardship In Surgery: A Closed-Loop Audit. Br J Surg 2021;108:ii90.doi:10.1093/bjs/znab134.359
    70. ↵
      2. Lee T ,
      3. McCoy C ,
      4. Mahoney MV
      . Quality assessment of process measures in antimicrobial stewardship: concordance of cefepime indication without automatic prospective approval in computerized provider order entry. Open Forum Infect Dis 2017;4:S270.doi:10.1093/ofid/ofx163.597
      OpenUrl
    71. ↵
      2. Lee-A-Ping K ,
      3. Peters J ,
      4. Saeed K
      . Quantification of antimicrobial prescribing practices within Hampshire hospitals NHS Foundation trust. International Public Health Journal 2019;11:431–40.
      OpenUrl
    72. ↵
      2. Lefebvre M-A ,
      3. Versporten A ,
      4. Carrier M , et al
      . 1135. The 2018 global point prevalence survey of antimicrobial consumption and resistance: pediatric results from 26 Canadian hospitals. Open Forum Infect Dis 2019;6:S404.doi:10.1093/ofid/ofz360.999
      OpenUrl
    73. ↵
      2. Liang H-Y ,
      3. Chen I-L ,
      4. Tang H-J , et al
      . The establishment of antibiotic management and review mechanisms in outpatient clinic to effectively enhance the percentage of rational utilization of antibiotics. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 2015;48:S128.doi:10.1016/j.jmii.2015.02.451
    74. ↵
      2. Lillis Y ,
      3. Beary E ,
      4. Chadwick G
      . An audit of antimicrobial prescribing in an acute medical inpatient setting. Irish Journal of Medical Science 2015;184:S302–3.
      OpenUrl
    75. ↵
      2. Limato R ,
      3. Nelwan EJ ,
      4. Mudia M , et al
      . A multicentre point prevalence survey of patterns and quality of antibiotic prescribing in Indonesian hospitals. JAC Antimicrob Resist 2021;3:dlab047.doi:10.1093/jacamr/dlab047 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33937773
      OpenUrlPubMed
    76. ↵
      2. Linder JA ,
      3. Meeker D ,
      4. Fox CR , et al
      . Effects of behavioral interventions on inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in primary care 12 months after stopping interventions. JAMA 2017;318:1391.doi:10.1001/jama.2017.11152 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29049577
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    77. ↵
      2. Livengood SJ ,
      3. Jones TM ,
      4. Moehring RW , et al
      . 598. Correlation of international classification of diseases (ICD) codes to initial provider-selected antibiotic indications in hospitalized adult patients within the Duke antimicrobial stewardship outreach network (DASON). Open Forum Infect Dis 2020;7:S362.doi:10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.792
      OpenUrl
    78. ↵
      2. Malundo AFG ,
      3. Palabrica FAR ,
      4. Berba RP
      . Point prevalence survey of antimicrobial use in a tertiary teaching hospital in the Philippines. Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control Conference: 5th International Conference on Prevention and Infection Control, ICPIC, 2019:8.
    79. ↵
      2. Beth Marshall M ,
      3. Levine Z ,
      4. Johnson L
      . Reduction in antibiotic consumption upon implementation of antibiotic indication requirement. Open Forum Infect Dis 2017;4:S483.doi:10.1093/ofid/ofx163.1242
      OpenUrl
    80. ↵
      2. Mary B ,
      3. Huang J ,
      4. Neville N , et al
      . 1021. accuracy of Provider-Selected antibiotic indications at point of order entry compared with electronic health record documentation. Open Forum Infect Dis 2019;6:S359–60.doi:10.1093/ofid/ofz360.885
      OpenUrl
    81. ↵
      2. McCoy D ,
      3. Sebti R ,
      4. Kuyumjian AG
      . An evaluation of selected indications and appropriateness of Ampicillin/Sulbactam, an unrestricted antimicrobial, at a single center. P T 2017;42:189–94.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28250702
      OpenUrlPubMed
    82. ↵
      2. McGarrity O ,
      3. Robson C
      . P33 antimicrobial prescribing point prevalence study at a paediatric tertiary/quaternary centre. Archives of Disease in Childhood Conference 2019;105:e23–4.
      OpenUrl
    83. ↵
      2. McKittrick M ,
      3. Silbartie S ,
      4. Egan B
      . Compliance to antibiotic prescription regulation by medical practitioners in an acute hospital in the West of Ireland. Irish Journal of Medical Science 2017;186:S251.
    84. ↵
      2. McMackin T ,
      3. McNicholas S ,
      4. Boyle G
      . Investigating the duration and indications of antimicrobial prescriptions: a clinical audit. Irish Journal of Medical Science 2020;189:S21.
    85. ↵
      2. Meeker D ,
      3. Linder JA ,
      4. Fox CR , et al
      . Effect of behavioral interventions on inappropriate antibiotic prescribing among primary care practices: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2016;315:562.doi:10.1001/jama.2016.0275 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26864410
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    86. ↵
      2. Metcalfe J ,
      3. Lam A ,
      4. Lam SSH , et al
      . Impact of the introduction of computerised physician order entry (CPOE) on the surveillance of restricted antimicrobials and compliance with policy. Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research 2017;47:200–6.doi:10.1002/jppr.1227
      OpenUrl
    87. ↵
      2. Mohamed R ,
      3. Wall J ,
      4. Arumainathan R , et al
      . Assessing antibiotic stewardship using the surgical site infection prevention bundle. Br J Hosp Med 2018;79:643–7.doi:10.12968/hmed.2018.79.11.643 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30418827
      OpenUrlPubMed
    88. ↵
      2. Moore A ,
      3. Rahman A ,
      4. Tipper C
      . Providing individualised feedback to improve the rates of prescription errors. Archives of Disease in Childhood 2020;105:A50–1.
      OpenUrl
    89. ↵
      2. Mostaghim M ,
      3. Snelling T ,
      4. Katf H , et al
      . Paediatric antimicrobial stewardship and safe prescribing: an assessment of medical staff knowledge and behaviour. Pharm Pract 2018;16:1198.doi:10.18549/PharmPract.2018.02.1198 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30023032
      OpenUrlPubMed
    90. ↵
      2. Nash CB ,
      3. Bhagat PH ,
      4. Bartlett AH
      . Indication-Based antimicrobial Derestriction: ceftazidime Derestriction for febrile neutropenia. Open Forum Infectious Diseases 2015;2:1452.doi:10.1093/ofid/ofv133.1005
      OpenUrl
    91. ↵
      2. Nasr Z ,
      3. Babiker A ,
      4. Elbasheer M , et al
      . Practice implications of an antimicrobial stewardship intervention in a tertiary care teaching Hospital, Qatar. East Mediterr Health J 2019;25:172–80.doi:10.26719/emhj.18.026 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31054227
      OpenUrlPubMed
    92. ↵
      1. Public Health Wales
      . National point prevalence survey of healthcare associated infection, device usage and antimicrobial prescribing, 2017. 2018. Available: https://www.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/documents/888/Wales2017PPSReportFinal%28b%29.pdf [Accessed 29 Sep 2021].
    93. ↵
      2. Neels AJ ,
      3. Bloch AE ,
      4. Gwini SM , et al
      . The effectiveness of a simple antimicrobial stewardship intervention in general practice in Australia: a pilot study. BMC Infect Dis 2020;20:586.doi:10.1186/s12879-020-05309-8 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32767968
      OpenUrlPubMed
    94. ↵
      2. Nomura Y ,
      3. Garcia M ,
      4. Child J , et al
      . Effect of provider-selected order indications on appropriateness of antimicrobial orders in a pediatric hospital. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2018;75:213–21.doi:10.2146/ajhp160557 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29436467
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    95. ↵
      2. Olaoye O ,
      3. Tuck C ,
      4. Khor WP , et al
      . Improving access to antimicrobial prescribing guidelines in 4 African countries: development and pilot implementation of an APP and cross-sectional assessment of attitudes and behaviour survey of healthcare workers and patients. Antibiotics 2020;9:1–14.doi:10.3390/antibiotics9090555 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32872419
      OpenUrlPubMed
    96. ↵
      2. Oshun PO ,
      3. Roberts AA ,
      4. Osuagwu CS , et al
      . Roll out of a successful antimicrobial stewardship programme in Lagos university teaching hospital Nigeria using the Global-Point prevalence survey. African Journal of Clinical and Experimental Microbiology 2021;22:260–72.doi:10.4314/ajcem.v22i2.19
      OpenUrl
    97. ↵
      2. Pagava K ,
      3. Korinteli I ,
      4. Versporten A
      . The global point prevalence survey of antimicrobial consumption and resistance (GLOBAL-PPS): results of antimicrobial prescribing in paediatric units in Georgia. European Journal of Pediatrics 2019;178:1714–5.
      OpenUrl
    98. ↵
      2. Palos C ,
      3. Bispo A ,
      4. Rodrigues P
      . Optimizing antimicrobial prescription through e-health: setting, dosing, timing and stewardship. Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control Conference: 3rd International Conference on Prevention and Infection Control, ICPIC, 2015:4.
    99. ↵
      2. Persell SD ,
      3. Linder JA ,
      4. Friedberg MW
      . Behavioral economics-informed interventions to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing: a pilot cluster randomized trial. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2014;29:S40–1.
      OpenUrl
    100. ↵
      2. Heginbothom M ,
      3. Evans L ,
      4. Howe R
      . Point prevalence surveys of antimicrobial prescribing in acute hospitals in Wales 2013-2017. Public Health Wales, 2017: 888. http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/documents/888/AcuteHospitalsQualityMeasuresreportfor2013-2017AntimicrobialPPSv2a.pdf
    101. ↵
      2. Prakash S ,
      3. Wilson A ,
      4. Warrier AR , et al
      . 2019. multicentric antimicrobial point prevalence survey in four tertiary care hospitals in southern India. Open Forum Infect Dis 2019;6:S677–8.doi:10.1093/ofid/ofz360.1699
      OpenUrl
    102. ↵
      2. Rachina S ,
      3. Belkova Y ,
      4. Kozlov R , et al
      . Longitudinal point prevalence survey of antimicrobial consumption in Russian hospitals: results of the global-PPS project. Antibiotics 2020;9:446–12.doi:10.3390/antibiotics9080446 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32722484
      OpenUrlPubMed
    103. ↵
      2. Ratliff A
      . Association between infection type and antibiotic indication selected during order entry. JACCP 2020;3:229–30.
      OpenUrl
    104. ↵
      2. Reyes C ,
      3. Johnson M ,
      4. Castillo E
      . Impact of an antimicrobial stewardship protocol on appropriateness of meropenem use in a community hospital. Open Forum Infectious Diseases Conference: ID Week, 2016:3.
    105. ↵
      2. Roberts E ,
      3. Dawoud DM ,
      4. Hughes DA , et al
      . Evaluation of a consultant audit and feedback programme to improve the quality of antimicrobial prescribing in acute medical admissions. Int J Pharm Pract 2015;23:333–9.doi:10.1111/ijpp.12173 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25628111
      OpenUrlPubMed
    106. ↵
      2. Robson SE ,
      3. Cockburn A ,
      4. Sneddon J , et al
      . Optimizing carbapenem use through a national quality improvement programme. J Antimicrob Chemother 2018;73:2223–30.doi:10.1093/jac/dky171 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29800290
      OpenUrlPubMed
    107. ↵
      2. Rojoa D ,
      3. Kochhar S
      . Quality improvement-the use of a microbiology proforma for adequate documentation enabling good antibiotic stewardship. British Journal of Surgery 2019;106:86–7.
      OpenUrl
    108. ↵
      2. Rokkas S ,
      3. Wells L
      . 462 Empirical Antibiotic Prescribing in General Surgical Patients. Br J Surg 2021;108:ii106.doi:10.1093/bjs/znab134.427
      OpenUrl
    109. ↵
      2. Vaudrey K
      . Antibiotic point prevalence audit results. United Kingdom: Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals, 2017. https://secure.rlbuht.nhs.uk/sites/Antibiotic/SiteAssets/SitePages/AntimicrobialStewardship/Results20172018/April2017Report.pdf. (cited 2021 Sep 29).
    110. ↵
      2. Salazar A ,
      3. Karmiy SJ ,
      4. Forsythe KJ , et al
      . How often do prescribers include indications in drug orders? Analysis of 4 million outpatient prescriptions. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2019;76:970–9.doi:10.1093/ajhp/zxz082 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31361884
      OpenUrlPubMed
    111. ↵
      2. Scardina T ,
      3. Stach L ,
      4. Sun S , et al
      . Documentation of indications: agreement between order entry and clinical notes and effect on time to antibiotic administration. J Pharm Pract 2022;35:13–19.doi:10.1177/0897190020938225 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32643519
      OpenUrlPubMed
    112. ↵
      2. Schneider S ,
      3. Zweigner J ,
      4. Schwab F
      . Antimicrobial prescription behavior in 16 German intensive care units: room for improvement in pneumonia therapy. Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control Conference: 3rd International Conference on Prevention and Infection Control, ICPIC, 2015:4.
    113. ↵
      2. Seaton RA ,
      3. Nathwani D ,
      4. Phillips G
      . Clinical record keeping in patients receiving antibiotics in hospital. Health Bull 1999;57:128–33.
      OpenUrl
    114. ↵
      2. Singh SK ,
      3. Sengupta S ,
      4. Antony R , et al
      . Variations in antibiotic use across India: multi-centre study through global point prevalence survey. J Hosp Infect 2019;103:280–3.doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2019.05.014 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31170422
      OpenUrlPubMed
    115. ↵
      2. Sneddon J ,
      3. Nathwani D ,
      4. Patton A , et al
      . Development of national prescribing indicators for antimicrobials to support reduction in Clostridium difficile infection. J Infect 2011;63:e54–5.doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2011.04.102
      OpenUrl
    116. ↵
      2. Sola-Bonada N ,
      3. Valls-Montal C ,
      4. Vilaro-Pujals J
      . Evaluation of restricted antibiotic use and indication through a computerized program to promote their correct use. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy 2013;35:925.
    117. ↵
      2. Soontornpas C ,
      3. Soontornpas R ,
      4. Nuntasaen T
      . Complying with control measure for antimicrobial prescribing in hospital, 2015. Available: https://he01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/IJPS/article/view/32470/27702 [Accessed 29 Sep 2021].
    118. ↵
      2. Stakenborg JPG ,
      3. de Bont EGPM ,
      4. Peetoom KKB , et al
      . Medication management of febrile children: a qualitative study on pharmacy employees' experiences. Int J Clin Pharm 2016;38:1200–9.doi:10.1007/s11096-016-0353-y pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27450505
      OpenUrlPubMed
    119. ↵
      2. Stocker M ,
      3. Ferrao E ,
      4. Banya W , et al
      . Antibiotic surveillance on a paediatric intensive care unit: easy attainable strategy at low costs and resources. BMC Pediatr 2012;12:196.doi:10.1186/1471-2431-12-196 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23259701
      OpenUrlPubMed
    120. ↵
      2. Surat G ,
      3. Vogel U ,
      4. Wiegering A , et al
      . Defining the scope of antimicrobial stewardship interventions on the prescription quality of antibiotics for surgical intra-abdominal infections. Antibiotics 2021;10:73.doi:10.3390/antibiotics10010073 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33466628
      OpenUrlPubMed
    121. ↵
      2. Thakkar K ,
      3. Gilchrist M ,
      4. Dickinson E , et al
      . A quality improvement programme to increase compliance with an anti-infective prescribing policy. J Antimicrob Chemother 2011;66:1916–20.doi:10.1093/jac/dkr207 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21642650
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    122. ↵
      2. Timmons V ,
      3. Townsend J ,
      4. McKenzie R , et al
      . An evaluation of provider-chosen antibiotic indications as a targeted antimicrobial stewardship intervention. Am J Infect Control 2018;46:1174–9.doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2018.03.021 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29861148
      OpenUrlPubMed
    123. ↵
      2. Triantafillou M ,
      3. Cargill J
      . Antimicrobial prescribing guidelines and improved prescribing practice: a clinical audit conducted in the Leeds teaching hospital trust. J Infect 2011;63:e10–11.doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2011.04.033
      OpenUrl
    124. ↵
      2. Ubhi H ,
      3. Patel M ,
      4. Ludwig L
      . How well do outpatient prescriptions adhere to good antimicrobial stewardship? Arch Dis Child 2016;101:e2.39–e2.doi:10.1136/archdischild-2016-311535.44 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27540225
      OpenUrlPubMed
    125. ↵
      2. Ugwu O ,
      3. Cheng L
      . 700 Audit on Antibiotic Prescriptions in Neuro-Rehabilitation Wards (C2 And L1) Of Salford Royal Foundation Trust. British Journal of Surgery 2021;108:ii82.doi:10.1093/bjs/znab134.317
      OpenUrl
    126. ↵
      2. Umeokonkwo CD ,
      3. Oduyebo OO ,
      4. Fadeyi A , et al
      . Point prevalence survey of antimicrobial consumption and resistance: 2015-2018 longitudinal survey results from Nigeria. African Journal of Clinical and Experimental Microbiology 2021;22:252–9.doi:10.4314/ajcem.v22i2.18
      OpenUrl
    127. ↵
      2. Vaillant F ,
      3. Sneyers B ,
      4. Yombi JC
      . Inappropriate prescribing of piperacillin-tazobactam in a Belgian teaching hospital. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy 2012;34:793.
    128. ↵
      2. Versporten A ,
      3. Pauwels I ,
      4. Le Page S
      . Healthcare-Associated infections: results of the 2017 and 2018 global point prevalence survey of antimicrobial consumption and resistance (Global-PPS). Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control Conference: 5th International Conference on Prevention and Infection Control, ICPIC, 2019:8.
    129. ↵
      2. Wagner JL ,
      3. Carreno JJ ,
      4. Kenney RM , et al
      . Antimicrobial stewardship metrics that matter. Infect Dis Clin Pract 2020;28:89–93.doi:10.1097/IPC.0000000000000832
      OpenUrl
    130. ↵
      2. Wang N ,
      3. Neuner E ,
      4. Pallotta A , et al
      . Validation and evaluation of antimicrobial orders indication for use. Open Forum Infect Dis 2017;4:S258–9.doi:10.1093/ofid/ofx163.564
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    131. ↵
      1. West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust
      . Shared learning 2020: prescribing and stewardship, 2020. Available: https://antibioticguardian.com/sharedlearning/prescribing-and-stewardship/ [Accessed cited 2021 Sep 29].
    132. ↵
      2. Williams MC ,
      3. Obermeier H ,
      4. Hurst AL , et al
      . Hospital-Wide description of clinical indications for pediatric anti-infective use. Clin Ther 2019;41:1605–11.doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2019.05.008 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31196642
      OpenUrlPubMed
    133. ↵
      2. Wirtz AL ,
      3. Burns AN ,
      4. Lee BR , et al
      . Effectiveness and safety of mandatory antimicrobial indications and durations and a pharmacist-driven 48-hour time-out in a pediatric hospital. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2020;77:614–21.doi:10.1093/ajhp/zxaa029 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32236453
      OpenUrlPubMed
    134. ↵
      2. Yeo JM
      . Antimicrobial stewardship: improving antibiotic prescribing practice in a respiratory ward. BMJ Qual Improv Rep 2016;5:u206491.w3570.doi:10.1136/bmjquality.u206491.w3570
      OpenUrl
    135. ↵
      2. Zaffar S ,
      3. Fletcher P
      . An audit of the paediatric empiric anti-infective guidelines and anti-infective drug dose table for children. Arch Dis Child 2016;101:e2.7–e2.doi:10.1136/archdischild-2016-311535.15 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27540193
      OpenUrlPubMed
    136. ↵
      2. Hussain MI ,
      3. Reynolds TL ,
      4. Zheng K
      . Medication safety alert fatigue may be reduced via interaction design and clinical role tailoring: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2019;26:1141–9.doi:10.1093/jamia/ocz095 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31206159
      OpenUrlPubMed
    137. ↵
      2. Howell RR ,
      3. Jones KW
      . Prescription-writing errors and markers: the value of knowing the diagnosis. Fam Med 1993;25:104–6.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8458537
      OpenUrlPubMed
    138. ↵
      2. Ho J ,
      3. Wrzesniewski CE ,
      4. Hasson NK
      . Integrating patient-centric indications into the prescribing process: experience at a tertiary academic medical center. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2020;77:S26–33.doi:10.1093/ajhp/zxaa065 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32426831
      OpenUrlPubMed
    139. ↵
      2. Garabedian PM ,
      3. Wright A ,
      4. Newbury I , et al
      . Comparison of a prototype for Indications-Based prescribing with 2 commercial prescribing systems. JAMA Netw Open 2019;2:e191514.doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.1514 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30924903
      OpenUrlPubMed
    140. ↵
      2. Al-Khani S ,
      3. Moharram A ,
      4. Aljadhey H
      . Factors contributing to the identification and prevention of incorrect drug prescribing errors in outpatient setting. Saudi Pharm J 2014;22:429–32.doi:10.1016/j.jsps.2013.11.003 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25473331
      OpenUrlPubMed
    141. ↵
      2. Garada M ,
      3. McLachlan AJ ,
      4. Schiff GD , et al
      . What do Australian consumers, pharmacists and prescribers think about documenting indications on prescriptions and dispensed medicines labels?: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 2017;17:734.doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2704-3 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29141618
      OpenUrlPubMed
    142. ↵
      2. Baysari M ,
      3. Del Gigante J ,
      4. Moran M , et al
      . Mandatory Medication Indications in Electronic Systems - The Prescriber Perspective. Stud Health Technol Inform 2019;265:95–100.doi:10.3233/SHTI190145 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31431583
      OpenUrlPubMed
    143. ↵
      2. Whaley C ,
      3. Bancsi A ,
      4. Ho JM-W , et al
      . Prescribers' perspectives on including reason for use information on prescriptions and medication labels: a qualitative thematic analysis. BMC Health Serv Res 2021;21:89.doi:10.1186/s12913-021-06103-1 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33499869
      OpenUrlPubMed
    144. ↵
      2. Sjoding MW ,
      3. Iwashyna TJ ,
      4. Dimick JB , et al
      . Gaming hospital-level pneumonia 30-day mortality and readmission measures by legitimate changes to diagnostic coding. Crit Care Med 2015;43:989–95.doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000000862 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25746747
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    145. ↵
      2. Mercer K ,
      3. Carter C ,
      4. Burns C , et al
      . Including the reason for use on prescriptions sent to pharmacists: Scoping review. JMIR Hum Factors 2021;8:e22325.doi:10.2196/22325 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34842545
      OpenUrlPubMed
    146. ↵
      1. World Health Organization
      . Antimicrobial stewardship programmes in health-care facilities in low- and middle-income countries: a who practical toolkit. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2019: 71. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/329404
    147. ↵
      1. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care
      . Antimicrobial stewardship: 6a-Documentation of reason for prescribing antibiotics, 2016. Available: https://meteor.aihw.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/612224 [Accessed 30 Sep 2021].
    148. ↵
      1. Health Standards Organization
      . Leading practices -Antimicrobial stewardship – indication prompt for antimicrobial orders, 2021. Available: https://healthstandards.org/leading-practice/antimicrobial-stewardship-indication-prompt-antimicrobial-orders/ [Accessed 30 Sep 2021].
    149. ↵
      1. Health Services Executive Ireland
      . “Start Smart” Empiric Antibiotic Prescribing Clinical Audit Tool, 2017. Available: https://www.hse.ie/eng/about/who/qid/nationalsafetyprogrammes/hcaiamr/sstf-antibiotic-clinical-audit-guide-sept-2017.pdf [Accessed 30 Sep 2021].
    150. ↵
      1. National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention
      . Recommendations to enhance accuracy of Prescription/Medication order writing, 2014. Available: https://www.nccmerp.org/recommendations-enhance-accuracy-prescription-writing
    151. ↵
      2. Billstein-Leber M ,
      3. Carrillo CJD ,
      4. Cassano AT , et al
      . ASHP guidelines on preventing medication errors in hospitals. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2018;75:1493–517.doi:10.2146/ajhp170811 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30257844
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @Anjaliwawa, @BRxAD

    • Contributors SS, VL and BJL contributed to conceptualisation of the project. All authors contributed to methodology. SS, VL, ES and BJL contributed to data curation. BL performed the formal analysis. SS and BJL wrote the original draft. All authors contributed to review and editing of manuscript. BJL is the guarantor of this study.

    • Funding This scoping review was carried out as part of the authors’ routine work.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

    Linked Articles