1. Introduction
Saudi Arabia is home to more than 10 million expatriates comprising more than 30% of the population, and an annual destination of more than 10 million people who travel from all parts of the world to Makkah and Medina for pilgrimage and Umrah [
1]. The country is experiencing soaring rates of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and emergence of rare and multidrug-resistant bacterial strains [
2,
3]. Because of the enormous potential of transmitting and globalising these novel multi-drug resistant strains, urgent action is needed to curb the rise of resistance rates and preserve the use of antimicrobials, which will soon cease to treat previously treatable infections [
3].
The high prevalence of antimicrobial resistance is attributed to various factors, the most prominent of which are the misuse of antimicrobials [
4,
5], and the lack of antimicrobial stewardship programmes (ASPs) to ensure their judicious use [
6,
7,
8]. ASPs are hospital-based programmes to improve antimicrobial use, optimise the treatment of infections and reduce adverse events associated with their use. These programmes can help increase infection cure rates, reduce treatment failures and increase the frequency of correct prescribing of antimicrobials for treatment and prophylaxis. They also significantly reduce hospital rates of
Clostridium difficile infections and antibiotic resistance [
9]. The Saudi Ministry of Health (MOH) devised a national antimicrobial stewardship plan in 2014 as part of the Arab Gulf regional strategy to reduce the threat of AMR, including the adoption and implementation of ASPs in MOH and private hospitals [
10].
While there is evidence suggesting the implementation of ASPs in various Saudi tertiary hospitals and medical cities [
6,
7,
11,
12,
13,
14], there has never been a national study to assess the status of ASPs implementation in MOH hospitals, and to explore the factors that may affect it. This is important as implementation of national policies, such as the Saudi antimicrobial stewardship plan, often varies between hospitals of different type, depending on resources, reputation, local leadership, etc. In fact, little is known about the adoption of ASPs in smaller hospitals, and regions outside of the capital Riyadh, and the big cities. Furthermore, the published studies on the adoption of ASPs in Saudi hospitals do not include insights from hospital administrators, who would normally be involved in adoption decisions. Senior management support has often been reported as key to facilitating the adoption of ASPs in hospitals [
15]. Exploring senior managers’ perspectives of implementing ASPs in hospitals would further clarify the factors that may facilitate or hinder implementation efforts. This study aims to explore the status of the adoption of ASPs in Saudi MOH hospitals, at a national level, and explore the factors that may affect their implementation. Knowledge of the status of and the factors that may affect ASP adoption at a national level may provide policymakers and commissioners with a better picture of the progress made and efforts needed to achieve the outcomes of the national antimicrobial stewardship plan.
3. Discussion
This study explores the level and the factors affecting the adoption and implementation of ASPs in Saudi hospitals. To our knowledge, this is the first study exploring the levels of ASP adoption in Saudi hospitals at a national level. Antimicrobial stewardship programmes are implemented only in 26% of Saudi MOH hospitals. Even though senior management does not object to implementing ASPs, the hospitals lack the knowledge, technological and staff resources to adopt and implement ASPs. Despite the low levels of ASPs implementation, Saudi hospitals exhibit a strong intention to adopt them. Perceived patients’ demand and legislation strongly influence the hospitals’ intention to adopt and implement ASPs.
A recent survey of the adoption of ASPs in Nigerian tertiary hospitals reported similarly low levels of ASP adoption (24–35%) [
17]. The levels of the adoption of ASPs in hospitals vary globally. the adoption of ASPs in US and European hospitals is amongst the highest in the world [
18,
19]. Elsewhere, despite the repetitive calls for better antimicrobial stewardship, the adoption of ASPs is still lagging behind, particularly in regions with a high burden of antimicrobial resistance, such as the Middle East [
6,
20]. Latin America [
21], and Sub-Saharan Africa [
22].
Saudi hospitals acknowledge the growing issue of antimicrobial resistance and the role of ASPs in tackling the issue. However, they do not know how to implement ASPs. This lack of knowledge is particularly exacerbated by the fact that adopting hospitals are not clearly setting example, since ASPs are not visible/ recognizable, and therefore, not generalisable and transferrable. Hospitals in Saudi Arabia which already found a way to implement ASPs could save other hospitals “the trouble of reinventing the wheel” through the dissemination of good practice [
23]. Future research could evaluate the implementation process and outcomes, and how ASPs, as an organisation intervention, can be generalisable and transferrable within the Saudi context.
Adopting and implementing ASPs in hospitals is a complex endeavor, requiring financial and human resources [
23] as well as technology resources [
24]. Confirming our previously reported barriers [
7], the surveyed hospitals reported lack of necessary knowledge, technology and human resources to adopt ASPs. These barriers have also been reported in other contexts; Kapadia et al. reported that the lack of integration of IT resources into daily workflow can hinder ASP implementation [
25]. However, in Nova Scotia hospitals, the efficient use of information technology can improve antimicrobial stewardship practices [
26]. Lack of funding remains a commonly reported obstacle to ASPs adoption; Beovic et al. international survey found that only a minority of countries had dedicated ASPs funding [
27]. However, the major barrier to ASP adoption across continents and healthcare settings is the lack of ASPs teams and ID specialists [
18]. Alternative ASP implementation models have been suggested to address this challenge [
28,
29,
30]. Senior management in Saudi hospitals is supportive of the adoption of ASPs and implementation; this is a key facilitator, as reported in Maki et al.’s feasibility study [
31], to ensure resource allocation, and ASP monitoring and evaluation. Senior managers’ support needs to extend beyond the “no objection to implementation” stance, to actively secure the necessary funds, skills and expertise to implement ASPs. Future research could qualitatively explore how the adoption of ASPs barriers have been addressed in hospitals with similar context.
The intention of Saudi hospitals to adopt and implement ASPs is not affected by the (lack of) ASP teams, senior management support, organisation readiness, trialability and usefulness, as these were reported to affect the actual adoption and implementation process. The intention of Saudi hospitals is strongly influenced by the strict enforcement of legislation and perceived patients demands/expectation. We previously reported that the lack of enforcement of policies and guidelines from the MoH and hospital administration remains a significant barrier to ASP adoption and implementation [
7]. This barrier has also been highlighted in Maki et al.’s 2020 study [
31]. MOH hospitals are clearly expecting the MOH to enforce the adoption, implementation and regular monitoring of ASPs in its hospitals. Legislation mandating ASPs implementation is key to improving implementation rates, and subsequently, appropriate antimicrobials’ use [
32]. The MOH could set up a hospital accreditation system, to mandate hospitals to implement ASPs and report on their key performance indicators. Saudi hospitals are already familiar with accreditation requirements as a few seek the Joint Commission International accreditation, which mandates ASP implementation. Future research could explore policymakers and hospital CEOs perspectives on implementing ASPs in hospitals and how organisations like the MOH could collaborate with stakeholders to improve the rates of ASPs adoption in hospitals and other healthcare settings.
Patient demand as a significant motivator for the adoption of ASPs in hospitals is a complex factor [
33]—in our study, this relates to the hospital’s image/reputation. Top-performing/advanced hospitals tend to have ASPs in place [
34]. In Saudi hospitals, the hospital respondents perceive ASPs as part of patient care [
35]. They also consider adopting and implementing ASPs an advanced practice that will convince patients they are being treated in a top-ranking hospital, and receiving high-quality service; this, in turn increases the patients’ satisfaction and trust in the hospital and the clinicians working there. Saudi hospitals adopting ASPs provide better patients’ antimicrobial stewardship education than non-adopters [
36]. However, patients (globally) remain marginally involved in hospitals’ adoption and implementation of ASPs [
34] despite being “the receiver” of ASPs outcomes. Future research could explore how patients could be engaged in the adoption of ASPs and implementation process, and how this engagement could be translated into measurable programme outcomes.
3.1. Research Implications
The findings of this study provide practical implications to healthcare professionals, hospital administrators and policymakers. First, legislation mandating the adoption of ASPs and adherence to ASPs policies and guidance is crucial to improving antimicrobials’ use in hospitals and reducing the burden of antimicrobial resistance. The MOH needs to actively support and oversee hospitals’ implementation of ASPs, and the reporting and monitoring of ASP outcomes as key performance indicators of care quality. This will enable hospitals and the MOH to assess if ASPs are delivering their intended benefits, and devise plans to address any shortcomings. Second, ASP implementation tools need to be developed with input from MOH, lead infectious disease specialists, hospital pharmacy and microbiology departments. Hospitals with established ASPs should share implementation processes and outcomes with hospitals in the region and nationally. Alternative ASP models should be explored to optimize the use of limited infectious disease expertise and microbiology facilities, perhaps through setting regional antimicrobial stewardship hubs where resources are accessible and shared across multiple hospitals. Third, Saudi hospitals should harness the advantages of information technology to improve antimicrobial prescribing practices, monitoring of antimicrobials’ use and tracking of outcomes of ASPs. This will enable benchmarking of performance against regional and national performance, and highlight areas requiring improvement.
3.2. Research Limitations
Several potential limitations must be considered when interpreting the findings of this study. First, this study only assesses the levels of ASP adoption in hospitals, and does not report on the outcomes of these programmes. Future research could explore ASP reported outcomes such as impact on antimicrobial usage, and rates of antimicrobial resistance. Second, we received a low response from CEOs and medical directors, and their responses only covered the status of ASP implementation, availability of ASP team members and the hospital’s intention to implement ASPs. Since they represent an important link between policy and practice, future research could explore their input on further factors that could influence ASPs implementation. Third, this study focused on MOH hospitals. It will be interesting to compare our findings with private hospitals’ adoption of ASPs. Fourth, the study collected cross-sectional descriptive data to illustrate the current status of the adoption of ASPs in hospitals and the factors perceived to hinder greater adoption. Future studies could collect longitudinal data to determine causal links between factors and outcomes more explicitly. Although our sample size was adequate, the findings might vary with larger samples.