Abstract
Background: Robust measurement and tracking of antimicrobial use (AMU) is a fundamental component of stewardship interventions. Feeding back AMU metrics to individual clinicians is a common approach to changing prescribing behavior. Metrics must be meaningful and comprehensible to clinicians. Little is known about how veterinary clinicians working in the United States (US) hospital setting think about AMU metrics for antimicrobial stewardship. Objective: To identify hospital-based veterinary clinicians' attitudes toward audit and feedback of AMU metrics, their perceptions of different AMU metrics, and their response to receiving an individualized prescribing report. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with veterinarians working at two hospitals in the Eastern US. Interviews elicited perceptions of antimicrobial stewardship in veterinary medicine. Respondents were shown a personalized AMU Report characterizing their prescribing patterns relative to their peers and were asked to respond. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using the framework method with matrices. Results: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 34 veterinary clinicians (22 small animal and 12 large animal). Respondents generally felt positive about the reports and were interested in seeing how their prescribing compared to that of their peers. Many respondents expressed doubt that the reports accurately captured the complexities of their prescribing decisions and found metrics associated with animal daily doses (ADDs) confusing. Only 13 (38.2%) respondents felt the reports would change how they used antimicrobials. When asked how the impact of the reports could be optimized, respondents recommended providing a more detailed explanation of how the AMU metrics were derived, education prior to report roll-out, guidance on how to interpret the metrics, and development of meaningful benchmarks for goal-setting. Conclusions: These findings provide important insight that can be used to design veterinary-specific AMU metrics as part of a stewardship intervention that are meaningful to clinicians and more likely to promote judicious prescribing.