Antibiotics resistance and mitigation strategies in healthcare settings: A scoping review
=========================================================================================

* O.O. Okeah
* V. Morrison
* J. Huws

## Abstract

**Background** According to the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), the EU records an estimated 3.2 million healthcare associated infections (HAIs) and an associated 37,000 deaths annually. A significant proportion of the HAIs burden is attributable to multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs). Infectious diseases remain top on the list of the leading causes of death globally with MDROs playing a significant role. Key amongst these organisms is *Clostridium difficile* and *Klebsiella pneumoniae* which belong to the broader group of ESKAPE pathogens.

**Aims** This review aimed at identifying literature on interventions targeting *Clostridium difficile* and *Klebsiella pneumoniae*, their key outcomes, and the extent to which behavioural theory has been applied in such interventions.

**Methods** This scoping review was undertaken and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. The specific databases searched included MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, and CINAHL. The process for screening articles and data extraction was undertaken in duplicate by two reviewers. A narrative synthesis of the results is provided.

**Results** The review included 34 studies (16 studies on *Clostridium difficile* and 18 articles focussed on *Klebsiella pneumoniae)*. The specific antimicrobial stewardship interventions identified include **E**ducation, **S**urveillance and **S**creening, **C**onsultations, **A**udits, **P**olicies and **P**rotocols, **E**nvironmental measures, **B**undles of care, **I**solation precautions, as well as **N**otifications and alerts systems (ESCAPE-BIN). The identified outcomes include antimicrobial use, resistance rates, risk reduction, adherence to contact precautions, hospital stay, and time savings. Only one study incorporated Kotter’s stages of behaviour change and recorded the second largest (75%) sustained reduction in antimicrobials use whereas the remainder of the studies were devoid of behavioural approaches. The highest improvement (95%) in adherence isolation precautions was reported by an intervention involving the use of an IPC bundle and an environmental cleaning protocol.

**Conclusion** This scoping review identified the available evidence on antimicrobial the mitigation strategies for *Clostridium difficile* and *Klebsiella pneumoniae* in healthcare settings as well as the key outcomes. There is need for further investigations on the feasibility of behaviour-based approaches in improving adherence of health workers to interventions targeting *Clostridium difficile* and *Klebsiella pneumoniae*.

## Introduction

Over the past centuries, infectious diseases have claimed millions of lives presenting a real threat to human existence 1. The discovery of antimicrobial agents during the 19th and 20th century reduced the morbidity and mortality associated with infections 2, and observations of Alexander Fleming on the effect of *Penicillium* on bacteria cultures birthed the era of anti-infective agents 3. In 1947, Waksman, coined the term “antibiotic” in reference to a chemical agent capable of destroying or inhibiting the growth of microorganisms 4. Progressively over the subsequent decades, clinicians recognised and employed antibiotics as an effective strategy for treating and eradicating pathogenic microorganisms.

As the use of antibiotics gained popularity worldwide with noted successes including the treatment of gram positive cocci with penicillin 3,5, a new threat namely antimicrobial resistance, emerged from the over-reliance on these life-saving therapeutic agents 6. More than 50% of antimicrobials’ use is deemed as either inappropriate or unnecessary and within the last two decades alone, the use of antimicrobial agents has risen by 65% with available evidence confirming this as a key driver of antimicrobial resistance 7. Coupled with the rapid human to human transmission of pathogens 8, infectious microorganisms have continued to undergo adaptive evolution rendering a wide range of antimicrobial agents ineffective 9–11. Consequently, infections such as tuberculosis have become even more potent as microorganisms continuously acquire resistance against previously effective antibiotics.

Today, infectious diseases remain top on the list of the leading causes of death globally based on recent statistics by the World Health Organization (WHO) 12. Even more worrying are the deaths attributable to multi-drug resistant microorganisms (MDROs) that have continued to increase over the past decade. A modelling analysis reported 33,000 deaths associated with resistant bacteria in Europe in 2015, representing a significant rise since 2007 13. Healthcare settings appear to have a higher risk for the human to human transmission of drug resistant pathogens. According to the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), the EU records an estimated 3.2 million healthcare associated infections (HAIs) and an associated 37,000 deaths annually 14. The burden of HAIs within the EU translates to an estimated 2.5 million DALYs, 16 million additional hospitalization days, and an annual economic burden of 7 billion euros 15,16. A significant proportion of the HAIs burden is attributable to multi-drug resistant pathogens 17

Some of the multi-drug resistant pathogens associated with HAIs include ***E****nterococcus faecium*, ***S****taphylococcus aureus*, ***K****lebsiella pneumoniae*, ***A****cinetobacter baumannii*, ***P****seudomonas aeruginosa, and* ***E****nterobacter spp* acronymically referred to as ESKAPE pathogens 18–21. In recent years, scientists have suggested the inclusion of *Clostridium (Clostridioides) difficile* also known as *C. diff* as a member of the ESKAPE pathogens and amending the acronym to **ESCAPE** pathogens 22. For purposes of this study, we focused our attention on the research undertaken on *Clostridium difficile* and *Klebsiella pneumoniae* in healthcare settings.

*Clostridium difficile* accounts for the largest proportion of hospital-acquired diarrhoea attributable to the overuse of broad spectrum antibiotics that alter the profile of intestinal flora and trigger *Clostridium difficile* infections (CDIs) 23. An European based study reported a 55% resistance rate of *Clostridium difficile* in isolates 23. There is a large body of evidence confirming the transmission of *C. diff* within hospital environments 24,25, hence, the importance of proactive steps for mitigation.

On the other hand, a recent surveillance report on HAIs by the National Healthcare Safety Network reported a 9% prevalence of *Klebsiella pneumoniae* amongst hospitalized adult patients 17 in European populations. This is a marginal increase considering a prior survey in the same population that reported an 8% prevalence of *Klebsiella pneumoniae* between 2011 and 2014 26. A similar trend is evident in European paediatric intensive care units that recorded a 9% prevalence of *Klebsiella pneumoniae* between 2011 to 2014 27

## Surveillance and resistance patterns

### Clostridium difficile

Various approaches are used in the surveillance of *Clostridium difficile* infections and resistance patterns. These methods include genomic analysis 28,29, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) ribotyping30–32, as well as molecular characterization of isolates33–36. Based on PCR-ribotyping, the resistant strains of *Clostridium difficile* examined by previous studies are mainly associated with ribotypes 012, 017, 018, 027, 053. 078, 176, and 630 37–43.

Literature on the resistance patterns of *Clostridium difficile* reveals reduced susceptibility of the bacteria to fluoroquinolones 40,44, Macrolide-Lincosamide-Streptogramin B (MSLB) antibiotics 31, erythromycin 45, clindamycin 46, moxifloxacin 47, rifampicin 48, rifamycin 49, metronidazole 50,51, cadazolid 52, linezolid 53, imipenem 38, vancomycin 54, 55, 56, and fidaxomicin 54. Studies have also shown that various factors contribute to *Clostridium difficile* resistance. These factors include wrong use of antibiotics 57, intestinal microbiota 58, overuse of antibiotics such as rifampicin in TB patients 48, immunosuppression 59,60, gut dysbiosis 61, and cancer treatment 61.

### Klebsiella pneumoniae

The risk factors for *Klebsiella pneumonia* resistance include hospitalization, recent antibiotics use, surgery, and renal failure 62,63 in adults whereas paediatric patients with a history of low birth weight, prolonged hospitalization, and prematurity are more susceptible to the resistant strains of *Klebsiella pneumoniae* 64. The surveillance methods for *Klebsiella pneumoniae* include Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS), Metagenomic Sequencing 65–68, isothermal DNA assays 69, and pulsed field gel electrophoresis 70.

There is demonstrable evidence of *Klebsiella pneumoniae* resistance against carbapenem, imipenem, meropenem, aminoglycosides, amoxicillin, amikacin, ampicillin/piperacillin, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, cefepime, colistin, nitrofurantoin, amikacin, aztreonam, ceftazidime, and tigecycline 71–80.

Some of the resistant strains of *Klebsiella pneumoniae* include the clones ST11, ST29, ST101, ST258, which is also less susceptible to chlorhexidine cleaning, ST307, ST347, ST607-K25, ST661, ST1224, ST2558, ST3006 66,81–86. Whereas, the genes associated with resistance in *Klebsiella pneumoniae* species include *bla*IMP-4, bla(OXA-48), OXA-33, TEM-1, and SHV-11, bla(KPC), bla(VIM), bla(NDM), wcaG, rmpA, intl1, blaCTX-M-15, qnrS1, qnrB1, aac(6’)-Ib, aac(6’)-Ib-cr, vagCD, *traT*, ccdAB, bla(CTX_M_1), bla(TEM), bia(OXA-1), *fyuA*, or cnf-1, and bla(SHV) 73,81,95,87–94

## Rationale

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) represents a public health emergency of global magnitude with the resultant mortality rate projected at 10 million fatalities by 2050 96. The cost of treating resistant microorganisms has also significantly risen with evidence from the United States revealing a twofold increase between 2002 and 2015 97. According to the World Health Organization, antimicrobial resistance is a preventable consequence of antibiotics’ misuse and overuse arising from a malfunctioned primary healthcare system 98. The overuse of antibiotics is largely a prescription behaviour problem as healthcare professionals easily prescribe broad spectrum antibiotics without confirmatory laboratory tests causing the over flaring of *Clostridium difficile*. According to an England based study, the proportion of inappropriate antibiotics prescriptions in primary care trusts ranges between 8% and 23% 99

There is an urgent need to reduce the burden of AMR through multi-level approaches aimed at curbing transmission of multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs), and optimizing the appropriate use of antibiotics. Although some efforts have been made to mitigate AMR 100 including antimicrobial policies, the problem seems to persist given the high rates of inappropriate prescriptions 99,101. Interventions for reducing transmission of MDROs have been encouraged and these are broadly categorized into horizontal measures and vertical measures 102. The horizontal measures include pathogen non-specific strategies such as hand hygiene and environmental cleaning employed in disrupting the transmission 102. The vertical measures are pathogen-specific and may include universal or targeted screening on admission for hospital care 103. Additional strategies such as developing new antibiotics and exploring the possibility of effective vaccines could also potentially resolve the AMR issue 8. Considering the potential implications, curbing the human-to-human transmission of pathogens and optimizing the use of antimicrobials appear to be practicable in most healthcare settings.

By focussing on *Clostridium difficile* and *Klebsiella pneumoniae*, we explored the widely researched topic of AMR with specific focus on the effectiveness of interventions targeting the drug resistant pathogens. Our preliminary exploration of literature retrieved three scoping reviews on antimicrobial misuse and interventions to address AMR. These scoping reviews had quite specific foci/targets and none addressed either *Clostridium difficile* or *Klebsiella pneumoniae*. The first scoping review 104 was limited to dentistry settings; the second 105 examined literature on knowledge, attitudes, and practices amongst community pharmacists and the third focussed on supply related interventions for reducing prescription of antibiotics in low-to-middle-income countries 100. To expand the breadth of these reviews, we therefore scoped recent evidence on interventions for reducing *Clostridium difficile* and *Klebsiella pneumoniae* transmissions within wide ranging healthcare settings. Notably, we examined the volume of research on antimicrobial stewardship interventions aimed at optimizing antimicrobial agents against *Clostridium difficile* and *Klebsiella pneumoniae*.

## Research objectives

This scoping review addresses the question “What is the breadth of the available literature on interventions for reducing *Clostridium difficile* and *Klebsiella pneumoniae* transmission in healthcare settings?” and has the following objectives:

1.  To identify existing literature on the interventions for reducing healthcare associated *C. difficile* and *Klebsiella pneumoniae* transmission.

2.  To describe the key outcomes for interventions targeting *Clostridium difficile* and *Klebsiella pneumoniae* in healthcare settings

3.  To assess the extent to which behavioural theory has been applied in interventions targeting *Clostridium difficile* and *Klebsiella pneumoniae* in healthcare settings

## Methods

Various methods exist for reviewing existing literature on research topics of interest namely systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and scoping reviews. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are generally more applicable in contexts where the research question is narrow and focussed whereas scoping reviews are most preferable with broader research questions 106 and where broadly mapping the literature for purposes of identifying main concepts, theoretical perspectives, available evidence, and gaps in literature is required 107 Considering the broad nature of the present topic namely antimicrobial stewardship interventions in healthcare settings, the scoping review approach was justified.

Arksey and O’Malley proposed a five-stage framework for undertaking scoping reviews 108. This staged approach is considered rigorous and enhances the transparency of the findings as sufficient detailing of the procedures employed at each stage allow for replication. The use of explicit approaches improves the reliability of the study and highlights the robustness of the employed methods 109. The stages for conducting a scoping review entail the identification of a research question, identifying applicable studies, selecting studies for review, data charting, and collation of results, summarising, and compilation of reports 108.

## Research protocol

Scoping review guidelines emphasize the importance of providing information regarding the protocol for purposes of improving transparency and minimising the risk for duplication 110. The protocol for this scoping review is available on Open Science Framework (OSF) registries via [https://osf.io/nk7wf](https://osf.io/nk7wf).

This scoping review was undertaken and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines 110. This approach integrates the five-stages proposed by Arksey and O’Malley with regard to the conduct of scoping reviews 108. Subsequently, members of the research team reviewed this protocol prior to its online registration.

## Eligibility criteria

The review included peer-reviewed quantitative and/ experimental studies that either focus on reducing healthcare associated transmission of *C. diff* and *Klebsiella pneumoniae*, or on optimizing the use of antibiotics in relation to the aforementioned pathogens. Studies involving human participants published in English over the last ten years were included in this scoping review. Outbreak investigations that did not report any outcomes on the transmission of *C. diff* or *K. pneumoniae* as were studies that explored new diagnostic devices or therapeutic interventions with no outcomes on the hospital transmission of *C. diff* or *Klebsiella pneumoniae*. Table 1 below summarizes the eligibility criteria that was used to screen the retrieved articles.

View this table:
[Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/11/2020.07.02.20144915/T1)

Table 1: Eligibility criteria

## Information sources

It is recommended that the search for existing literature should be undertaken comprehensively across various platforms in order to realise the purpose of a scoping review 108,110,111. For purposes of this review, the search for literature spanned across electronic databases accessible through the Bangor University library search engine, bibliographies, key journals, and websites for relevant organisations.

The specific databases searched included MEDLINE via EBSCO*host*, PubMed Open Access via NCBI, Web of Science Core Collection, and CINAHL Plus via EBSCO*host*. The institutional databases explored for literature search included the World Health Organisation, the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, as well as the National Institute for Health Research.

## Literature search

The search for sources was undertaken with the assistance of the Bangor University librarian. Appendix 1 provides details of the search strategy applied across the databases.

## Study selection

Two reviewers (BO and JH) independently applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria on the retrieved articles for inclusion in this review. Full articles for studies that provided a best fit to the central research question were retrieved and the reviewers read the full texts to determine their inclusion in the review. A mechanism for discussing disagreements with a third reviewer (VM) and consensus building was in place.

## Data charting

The data extraction form should be as comprehensive as possible for the charting of relevant data from the identified evidence sources 108,111. Existing guidelines also recommend detailing the process of developing, calibrating the charting form, the charting process, as well as the resolution of disagreements 110. It is also important to update the charting form iteratively with descriptions of any revisions for improved transparency.

The research team developed a form for abstracting data in order to capture all the relevant variables from the identified sources. The standardized form allowed for extraction of the main study characteristics as well as the specific metrics relevant to the central research question of this scoping review. The form was subjected to preliminary calibration to ensure its accuracy, consistency, and reliability.

The data items extracted from each study included the reference, the study type, the study objectives, population or setting, country, the intervention, intervention duration, healthcare workers involved, outcome measures or findings, and the conclusions of the study.

## Results collation, summary, and report compilation

The guidelines for scoping reviews recommend that reviewers provide a comprehensive overview of the retrieved evidence 108. This involves organising the evidence based on the identified themes and giving a narrative account as opposed to synthesising the results. Scoping reviews are useful in mapping relevant concepts that underpin a phenomenon of interest while aggregating the existing evidence on the topic 110,111. The subsequent sections provide a narrative synthesis of the existing literature on AMS interventions for *C. diff* and *Klebsiella pneumoniae* as well as any apparent gaps in line with the central review question.

## Results

### Selection of sources of evidence

![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/08/11/2020.07.02.20144915/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/11/2020.07.02.20144915/F1)

Figure 1: PRISMA flow diagram

The search for literature across the identified databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, and Web of Science) retrieved 808 records whereas an additional six titles were identified through bibliographic searches. Following de-duplication, 613 titles were screened where 493 records were considered no to meet the inclusion criteria. The abstracts of the remaining 120 records were further screened leading to the exclusion of 44 articles. Full text reading was done for 76 articles leading to the exclusion of 42 articles and inclusion of 34 articles.

## Characteristics of selected studies

16 studies (see Table 2) focussed on *Clostridium difficile* 112,113,122–127,114–121 and 18 studies (see Table 3) focussed on *Klebsiella pneumoniae* 128,129,138–145,130–137. The studies varied in their designs with majority being quasi-experiments (31 articles). The other study designs included cohort studies (2 articles) and a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial (1 article). 27 of the studies were undertaken prospectively whereas 7 studies followed a retrospective approach.

View this table:
[Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/11/2020.07.02.20144915/T2)

Table 2: Clostridium difficile interventions

32.4% (11) of the studies were conducted in the United States of America 115,118,141,146,119-122,124,126,127,136 whereas two studies each are based in Canada 112,114 and Greece 135,137. Four of the retrieved studies are from Italy113,117,134,142 while Israel125,130,133 and China 129,139,140 had three studies each. Lastly, the selected articles included one study each from Japan 123, United Kingdom 116, South Africa, Denmark 131, Brazil 132, France 138, South Korea 143, Hungary 144, and the Netherlands 145.

Most of the studies (30 articles) were single site studies whereas four studies are multi-site experiments112,119,121,127. There were variations in the study populations with three studies on *Klebsiella pneumoniae* involving neonates in the neonatal intensive care unit140,141,144 whereas 31 studies involved adult subjects admitted for care within the hospital settings. All the studies on *Clostridium difficile* were based on adult populations probably due to the evidence supporting advanced age as a risk factor for CDIs while three interventions targeting *Klebsiella pneumonia* involved neonatal populations 140,141,144

## Synthesis of results

### Interventions

The interventions varied across the included studies and either targeted the use of antimicrobial agents or interrupting the transmission of *Clostridium difficile* and *Klebsiella pneumoniae* using additional IPC measures within the hospital environments. The duration of interventions varied across the studies from three weeks 141 up to six years 143. The interventions involved various cadres of professionals namely infectious disease (ID) experts113,114,124,125,139 consultants117,130,139,141,145 nurses 113,125,140,141,144,145,127,128,130,133,134,137–139, doctors116,123–125,137, physicians112,113,138,139,141,143,145,115,117,118,122,124,127,128,133, pharmacists 112,115–117,122,124–126, epidemiologists 125,128,136,141, laboratory personnel 133, microbiologists 124,133,138,141, and support staff (cleaners, caregivers, housekeepers, paramedics, porters, environmental officers) 125,127,130,134,141,144,145. Additional cadres involved include managers 116,141, infection control staff 118,123,127,128,130,133,134,140,141, unspecified clinicians/ medical personnel 118,119,138,142–144,120,121,123,132,134–137, quality improvement (QI) staff 124, patients 130, public health (PH) staff 133, and patient visitors 145. The bar graph below summarizes the proportions of studies that involved various health professionals.

![Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/08/11/2020.07.02.20144915/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/11/2020.07.02.20144915/F2)

Figure 2: Proportion of staff involvement across studies

Most of the interventions were multi-faceted involving the implementation of at least two strategies to achieve the intended outcomes as highlighted in Table 2. The strategies employed in interventions targeting *Clostridium difficile* included surveillance and/ or active screening 116,118,123 alerts and notifications 118,123,126, isolation precautions 118,123,125–127, environmental disinfection 121,125,127, audits and feedback 112,114,115,117,122–124 antimicrobial policies and/ protocols 113,116,122,126, care bundles 127, staff education 113,114,116,122,125, and specialised biocidal linen 119,120. Table 2 below outlines the combination of these interventions across the identified studies.

The commonest strategy targeting *Clostridium difficile* reported across seven studies involved the use of audits and feedback 112,114,115,117,122–124. This entailed reviewing the prescribed antibiotics by an antimicrobial pharmacist 112,114,115,117,122,124 or the infection control team 123 and providing feedback to the prescriber for further action. In some instances, the audits were undertaken offsite using electronic records systems 114,115 and teleconferences. Audits were also combined with staff education sessions organised on identified gaps aimed at optimising the use of antimicrobials 114,122. Some interventions combined the audits with restrictive antimicrobial policies and review of treatment protocols occasionally requiring approval prior to the use of a targeted antibiotic 122. Another intervention combined audits with screening patients and notifying physicians on detection of *C. difficile*, promptly isolating infected patients, and monitoring appropriate use of antibiotics with prompt feedback to the responsible doctors 123.

Additional interventions with a component of staff education included bedside infectious diseases consultation 113, restrictive antimicrobial policies and protocols 113,116,125, and contact precautions 125. Bedside consultations involved a part-time infectious diseases expert reviewing patients on antibiotic treatment three times a week and discussing the same with attending physicians 113. This was coupled with revising antimicrobial treatment protocols and educating staff on reducing the inappropriate use of antimicrobials 113. The second intervention involved educating prescribers coupled with restriction and eventual abolishment of two broad-spectrum antibiotics namely ceftriaxone and ciprofloxacin from wards 116. Lastly, an intervention undertaken in a geriatric hospital involved educating all healthcare workers on isolation precautions and environmental disinfection as well as policies restricting the use of antibiotics 125.

Isolation precautions were also incorporated in other interventions including a multi-site collaborative intervention involving an infection prevention bundle to encourage adherence to contact precautions and an environmental cleaning protocol 127. The isolation precautions included nursing patients in a single room, hand washing at recommended times, and the use of appropriate personal protective equipment namely gloves, and disposable aprons. Environmental decontamination entailed the use of appropriate decontamination agents to clean the patient environment and reduce the presence of *Clostridium difficile*. A single centre study combined isolation precautions with a computer generated real time notification system for toxigenic *C. difficile* results and a treatment protocol using vancomycin only or vancomycin and metronidazole 126. The final study on isolation precautions also incorporated an automated system that tracked *C. difficile* results and triggered alerts on the patient’s electronic records as well as automatically ordering for the appropriate isolation precautions thus aiding the healthcare personnel’s actions 118.

Three standalone interventions targeted modifying the hospital environment and reduce the bioavailability of *Clostridium difficile* 119–121. A multisite randomised controlled trial employed four disinfection strategies for environmental cleaning following the discharge of *C. difficile* and other MDROs patients 121. These strategies included standard disinfection with an ammonium solution or 10% hypochlorite (bleach), standard disinfection with ultraviolet (UV) light or bleach with UV light, bleach only, or UV light with bleach 121. Lastly, two quasi-experiments involved replacing hospital linen with coper oxide impregnated bedsheets, pillow cases, washcloths, and towels 119,120. This is because of copper’s biocidal activity on some drug resistant bacteria including *Clostridium difficile*.

Interventions targeting the containment or reduced transmission of *Klebsiella pneumoniae* included surveillance and/ or active screening 128,129,141,142,144,145,133–140, alerts and notifications 128,130,131,133,135,136, isolation precautions 128,130,141,142,144,133–140, environmental decontamination 130,134,136,137,139–141, antimicrobial audits and feedback 131,133,137,141, specialist consultations 134, antimicrobial policies and/ or protocols 128,131,132,144, care bundles 139, and staff and/ or patient education 130,131,137,141,142.

View this table:
[Table 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/11/2020.07.02.20144915/T3)

Table 3: Klebsiella pneumoniae interventions

The commonest strategy targeting *Klebsiella pneumoniae* appears to be surveillance or active screening and cultures to detect the presence of *K. pneumoniae*. One surveillance intervention involved the use of a flagging system for suspected patients at the emergency department, cohorting cases, sampling cultures from healthcare hands of personnel and the environment, and a policy restricting use of carbapenems 128. Another multisite intervention combined routine screening of patients with mandatory isolation of confirmed cases including having dedicated staff looking after patients coupled with a requirement to notify all carbapenem resistant cases to public health authorities 133. Similarly, a surveillance intervention in a 250-bed general hospital required adherence to isolation precautions and compulsory notification of public health authorities on identified cases 135.

An outbreak containment intervention in an ICU setting employed active screening of patients, disinfection of the environment and respiratory equipment, and isolation precautions. One standalone intervention investigated the effectiveness of active screening of patients on the detection of *Klebsiella pneumoniae* in an ICU setting 129 while another study tracked sporadic hospital outbreaks using whole genome sequencing 145. An observational study relied on rectal swabs for the active surveillance of *Klebsiella pneumoniae* in a cancer centre and a tertiary hospital 136. Subsequently, the confirmed cases were promptly isolated requiring healthcare personnel’s adherence to contact precautions and environmental cleaning protocols 136. Other surveillance intervention similarly effected isolation precautions for confirmed cases 138 combined with either environmental cleaning protocols, staff education, adherence audits, or a bathing protocol 137,138,140–142,144. An intervention based in an Israeli medical centre rolled out isolation guidelines in combination with staff education, environmental cleaning protocols supported with a computerized system for flagging CRKP cases 130. A multi-disciplinary intervention in a 510-bed Danish university hospital employed Kotter’s eight stages of change by delivering staff training and use of notification systems to enhance isolation precautions, and appropriate use of antimicrobial agents 131. An antimicrobial stewardship intervention in a Brazilian tertiary care hospital examined the effectiveness of a restrictive antimicrobial policy on the use of carbapenems 132. Lastly, a south-Korean based study in a 900-bed tertiary university hospital examined the examined the effectiveness of enhanced contact isolation precautions on CRKP incidence. This was delivered through staff education, auditing prescriptions and discontinuing inappropriate antibiotics within 72 hours, and strict adherence to contact precautions including hand hygiene, single use gowns, and gloves.

### Outcomes

The key outcome measures reported across the studies included consumption of targeted antimicrobials and/ or associated costs 112,113,132,114–117,122,123,128,131, incidence of *Clostridium difficile* 112,113,123–125,127,114–117,119–122 or incidence and/ resistance rates of *Klebsiella pneumoniae* 128,129,144,130–134,137,139,143 as well as risk on other HCAIs 114,121,123,127,130,137,139. Additional outcomes included containment of an outbreak of the targeted organisms 135,136,138,140–142,145, adherence to isolation precautions 114,120,127,134–136,140,143,144, time savings 118,126, hospital stay 144, and mortality 113.

The use of antibiotics was measured in daily defined doses (DDD) per patient population before and after the intervention112–114,116,117,122,123. Occasionally, some interventions reported on the proportionate changes on the costs of antibiotics 114,117,124 as well as resistance rates. The risk measures for either *C. difficile* or *K. pneumoniae* as well as other HCAIs reported in number of cases per population before and after the intervention and converted to absolute risk (%). Another outcome measure reported by some studies was the proportionate reduction in treatment times, hours saved by healthcare workers per number of admissions, or proportionate reduction in the duration of hospital stay. Adherence to isolation precautions was measured based on the proportion of staff members that complied with hand hygiene guidelines, use of disposable aprons and gloves, and environmental cleaning. Lastly, mortality outcomes related to the number of deaths attributed to either *Clostridium difficile* or *Klebsiella pneumoniae*. The outcome measures for *Clostridium difficile* and *Klebsiella pneumoniae* interventions are summarised in Table 4 and Table 5 respectively.

View this table:
[Table 4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/11/2020.07.02.20144915/T4)

Table 4: Summary of outcomes for Clostridium difficile interventions

View this table:
[Table 5:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/11/2020.07.02.20144915/T5)

Table 5: Summary of outcomes for Klebsiella pneumoniae interventions

### Clostridium difficile

#### Antimicrobial use

Seven studies reported variations in the consumption of antimicrobial agents following the stewardship interventions 112,114,115,117,122–124. The changes in antimicrobial use are reported in daily defined doses per 1000 patient days (DDD/1000PDs). Reduced use of antimicrobials ranged between 6.58 DDDs/1000 PDs and 310 DDDs/1000 PDs.

The largest absolute reduction in antimicrobial use of 310 DDs/1000PDs was reported from an intervention that involved audits and feedback systems 112. However, this reduction was the least in proportionate terms (11%) compared to the largest proportional reduction in antimicrobials use of 79% after an intervention involving restrictive antimicrobial policies and staff education 116.

In terms of antimicrobial costs, the largest reduction in expenditure (54%) was reported from intervention involving half-hour monthly staff education sessions and audits of prescribed antibiotics using a structured electronic checklist 114. 679 patients from two internal medicine units in a tertiary care hospital were observed over an 18 months period 114. One study reported a 52% improvement in antimicrobial streamlining after undertaking weekly reviews of prescribed antibiotics combined with remote consultations with an infectious diseases pharmacist through teleconferencing 124. The latter study was conducted in a 141-bed community hospital over 13 months 124. None of the *C. difficile* targeting interventions reported on the resistance rates for specific antimicrobial agents following their implementation.

#### Risk for CDIs, other HCAIs, and associated mortality

Fourteen studies reported the impact of the interventions on the risk for CDIs or other healthcare associated infections 112,113,123–125,127,114–117,119–122. The highest overall reduction of 83% in absolute risk for CDIs was reported from a 12-months audits and feedback intervention involving physicians and pharmacists and pharmacists in a 212-bed Massachusetts hospital 115. On the other hand, a 24-months multisite intervention amongst leukemia patients involving audits and feedbacks 112 reported no impact on the risk of CDIs and associated mortality. Similarly, a second 24-months cross-sectional study involving geriatric patients from two Israeli hospitals that entailed staff education, environmental disinfection, and isolation precautions had no impact on CDIs 125.

Regarding the effect of CDI interventions on other HCAIs, an antimicrobial stewardship intervention in a 150-bed spinal injury hospital involving bedside infectious diseases consultation, staff education, and antimicrobial policies reported a 25% absolute risk reduction for other HCAIs 113. This is also the only study that reported on CDI associated mortality whereby no differences were observed between the experimental and control groups 113. A multisite RCT investigating the effectiveness of four environmental disinfection strategies reported no effect on the risk of other HCAIs 121. A third study assessing the impact of intensified IPC precautions on MDROs implemented over twelve months in a 409-bed Japanese tertiary hospital simply indicated there was a reduction in the risk of other HCAIs 123.

Two studies involving the use of biocidal linen impregnated with copper oxide reported contradictory findings which could be partly due to the differences in study settings. The first study involved six hospitals in both urban and rural settings with 1019 beds in total implemented over eight months (568,397 patient days) and reported a 51% reduction in the risk for CDIs 119. The second study was undertaken in a single long-term care hospital over 27 months (29,342 patient days) reported an 87% increase in the risk of CDIs 120. In the latter study, the researchers also acknowledged that study participants were never blinded possibly leading to the deterioration of contact precautions specifically hand hygiene that reduced by 6% 120.

#### Adherence to isolation precautions

The highest improvement (95%) in adherence to isolation precautions was reported by a 22-months multisite (35 hospitals) intervention involving the use of an infection prevention bundle with isolation precautions and an environmental cleaning protocol 127. On the other hand, an intervention involving the use of biocidal linen impregnated with copper oxide reported a 6% reduction in adherence to isolation precautions 120 as previously discussed.

#### Time savings

Two studies reported outcomes related to time savings 118,126. The first intervention involved treatment protocols for *C. difficile*, real-time computerized notifications of toxigenix *C. difficile results*, and isolation precautions. This was undertaken in a 433-bed adults medical center and recorded a 64% reduction in time prior to the initiation of appropriate antibiotics treatment 126. The second study involving active surveillance, an alert system, and isolation precautions in a 410-bed hospital treating trauma, burns, and cancer patients reported a 43% reduction in care hours per 1000 admissions 118. There were no studies on *C. difficile* that assessed whether the interventions affected the length of hospital stay.

### Klebsiella pneumoniae

#### Antimicrobials use

Three studies reported on antimicrobial use with regards to *Klebsiella pneumoniae* interventions 128,139,140. One study involving a flagging system for confirmed cases, isolation precautions, and a carbapenems restriction policy in a 1000-bed tertiary university hospital simply indicated there was a reduction in the use of meropenem 128. The second study employed Kotter’s stages of change in a multi-disciplinary intervention involving staff education, notifications on prescription of restricted antibiotics and antimicrobial protocols in a 510-bed Danish hospital recorded a 75% reduction in the use of targeted antibiotics 131. The last study involving restrictive antimicrobial policies reported a 21% (12.9 DDDs/1000 PDs) reduction in the use of targeted antimicrobial agents 132. Four (22%) studies reported on the resistance rates for specific antibiotics associated with *K. pneumoniae resistance* either as a reduction 129,143 or no effect 132,136 on the resistance rates with no absolute figures on the same. No intervention was associated with a reciprocal increase in the antibiotics resistance rates of *Klebsiella pneumoniae*.

#### Risk for Klebsiella pneumoniae, other HCAIs, and associated mortality

Seven studies reported on containment of Klebsiella pneumoniae outbreaks with no outcomes on the residual risk for the bacteria 135,136,138,140–142,145. Two interventions involving active surveillance through screening 129 and staff education combined with isolation precautions 143 reported a reduction in the resistant rates of Klebsiella pneumoniae. The first intervention was conducted over 14 months in an ICU setting in China 129 while the second intervention was undertaken in a 900-bed tertiary hospital in South Korea 143. A 24-months intervention in a tertiary hospital (200 beds) involving restriction of group 2 carbapenems for gram negative bacteria recorded no changes in the resistance rates of Klebsiella 132

Regarding the absolute risk of Klebsiella pneumoniae, the largest risk reduction (97%) the 36-months hospital wide intervention described above aimed at eradicating carbapenem resistant *Klebsiella pneumoniae* (CRKP) 128. This intervention involved physicians, epidemiologists, nurses, and the infection control team. The lowest reported reduction in the absolute risk of *Klebsiella pneumoniae* was from a 17-months multi-faceted intervention that entailed active surveillance, isolation precautions, audits and feedback, environmental cleaning, and staff education 137

Another intervention involving staff education, isolation, environmental cleaning, computerized flagging of cases reported a 55% reduction in other HCAIs 130 while a second intervention comprising of screening, isolation, environmental disinfection, and care bundles reported an 84% reduction in other HCAIs over a 48 months period 139. On the other hand, one study reported a 59% rise in the risk of other HCAIs following an intervention that involved screening, isolation, environmental decontamination, audits, and education over a 17 months duration 137. The intervention involved 601 patients retrospectively and 250 patients prospectively in the solid organ transplant (SOT) department. The increase in the incidence of other carbapenem resistant organisms was attributed to the intrahospital transfer of carriers to the SOT department and the subsequent transfer of post-surgical patients to the ICU where they were allegedly colonized by bacteria 137. There are no studies that reported on the impact of interventions on mortality associated with *Klebsiella pneumoniae* in healthcare settings.

#### Hospital stay and adherence to contact precautions

Only one study recorded outcomes associated with hospital stay whereby there was a 15% reduction in the hospitalization duration that was also associated with 29% increase in adherence with contact precautions 144. This three-months intervention involved 355 patients in a 17-bed neonatal intensive care unit in Hungary 144. Another six years intervention involving staff education also reported a 35% improvement in adherence to contact precautions 143. Lastly, four additional studies also reported an improvement in adherence to contact precautions although this was not reported in numerical values 134–136,140.

## Discussion

### Summary of evidence

In this scoping review, we identified studies on antimicrobial stewardship interventions for *Clostridium difficile* and *Klebsiella pneumoniae* in healthcare settings published between 2010 and 2019. The first set of interventions focussed on optimal use of antimicrobial agents and included restrictive antimicrobial policies and treatment protocols, specialists’ consultations, notifications and alert systems, as well as audits and feedback (also referred to as academic detailing). The second set of interventions aimed at curbing the healthcare associated transmission of *Clostridium difficile* and *Klebsiella pneumoniae* included surveillance and active screening, isolation precautions, environmental disinfection, use of care bundles, and education of staff and or patients. There was an additional intervention specific to *Clostridium difficile* namely the use of biocidal linen impregnated with copper oxide which can be grouped as part of the environmental modification measures.

We propose the abbreviation ESCAPE-BIN (**E**ducation, **S**urveillance/**S**creening, **C**onsultations, **A**udits, **P**olicies and **P**rotocols, **E**nvironmental measures, **B**undles of care, **I**solation, and **N**otifications or alerts) to denote these cross-cutting interventions for disrupting the transmission cycle of *Clostridium difficile* and *Klebsiella pneumoniae* in healthcare settings. As discussed previously discussed in this paper, *Clostridium difficile* and *Klebsiella pneumoniae* belong to the wider group of ESKAPE pathogens with common modes of patient-to-patient transmission in healthcare settings such as contact transmission by healthcare workers. The findings above also show that interventions targeting either *Clostridium difficile* and *Klebsiella pneumoniae* have a significant impact on the health care associated risk of other ESKAPE pathogens with similar modes of transmission. As such, strategies like improving adherence to contact precautions targeting any of the organisms could potentially reduce the spread of other pathogens within the same setting. The acronym **ESCAPE-BIN** may therefore be applicable in denoting these interventions for limiting the healthcare transmission of ESKAPE pathogens.

Our review found that most interventions targeting *Clostridium difficile* tend to integrate a component of restrictive antimicrobial policies or treatment protocols. On the other hand, interventions targeting *Klebsiella pneumoniae* mainly incorporated screening, isolation precautions, or environmental disinfection as core strategies. This is also evident in the key outcomes as reported from interventions targeting the two organisms based on the reviewed studies. The identified key outcomes included antimicrobial use, resistance rates, risk reduction, adherence to contact precautions, hospital stay, and time savings. Based on the findings above, it is notable that majority (56%) of the interventions targeting *Clostridium difficile* aimed at reducing the use of antimicrobial agents. This is consistent with available evidence that demonstrates the inappropriate use of antimicrobial agents as a key risk factor for CDIs. Recent studies have shown that reducing the prescription of antimicrobials in outpatient settings can potentially reduce the incidence of CDIs in both healthcare and community settings 147,148. On the other hand, only 16% of the interventions targeting *Klebsiella pneumoniae* reported an impact on the use of antimicrobial agents as summarised in the findings above.

The impact of the interventions on the risk of infection was reported across the reviewed studies except for seven (39%) studies on *K. pneumoniae* that only focused on outbreak containment. Notably, the largest (97%) reduction in the absolute risk for acquiring the aforementioned organisms was reported from a multifaceted intervention targeting *Klebsiella pneumoniae* that involved surveillance, contact precautions, isolation, notification systems, and antimicrobial policies 128. In addition, the researchers also observed that interventions targeting *Klebsiella pneumoniae* generally appear to impact more on the risk of other HCAIs when compared with interventions targeting *Clostridium difficile*. An intervention involving surveillance, contact precautions, care bundles, and environmental decontamination recorded the highest reduction in absolute risk for other HCAIs 139. This could possibly be due to their main focus on modifying behaviours of healthcare personnel as opposed to primarily prescription behaviours as the case is evident with *Clostridium difficile* interventions.

Although most of the interventions required changes in the behaviours of healthcare personnel in breaking the transmission cycle of targeted microorganisms, there was limited evidence on the application of behaviour-based strategies to realise this objective. Only asingle study incorporated Kotter’s stages of behaviour change131 and recorded the second largest (75%) sustained reduction in antimicrobials use over a three years period whereas the remainder of the studies were devoid of behavioural approaches.

Traditionally, health interventions such as promoting handwashing have largely relied on educational strategies to modify people’s behaviours with no attention to the underlying factors that influence people’s behaviours. On the contrary, it has become increasingly evident that providing education alone is less efficacious and does not guarantee positive behaviour change 149. This argument is further reinforced by recent evidence that demonstrates the potential effectiveness of behavioural approaches for improved outcomes from health interventions 149–151. As such the apparent limited application of behavioural theory in the studies reviewed under this scoping review represents a gap that warrants further exploration.

We also observed that physicians were the most involved cadre of health professionals in interventions targeting healthcare transmission of *Clostridium difficile* and *Klebsiella pneumoniae*. Almost half of the interventions in the present study involved physicians which was slightly higher than nurses (44%) whereas support staff including care workers participated in nearly one third of the interventions. In healthcare settings, physicians are amongst the least proportionate healthcare workers and their contact with patients may be less frequent compared to nurses and carers looking after patients round the clock. Consequently, it is also worth exploring whether proportionate variations in the cadres involved the above-mentioned interventions influence the key outcomes.

Finally, this review established a paucity of evidence on the application of care bundles and specialist consultations in mitigating the healthcare associated transmission of *Clostridium difficile* and *Klebsiella pneumoniae*. In addition, there was limited evidence on the effect of interventions on adherence to antimicrobial treatment protocols as well as isolation and contact precautions targeting the *Clostridium difficile* and *Klebsiella pneumoniae*.

### Limitations

There are some limitations to this scoping review. In the first place, the study population and settings of included articles were very diverse and no adjustments were undertaken to account for these differences. Secondly, the researchers did not take into account the duration of the specific interventions undertaken to mitigate *Clostridium difficile* and *Klebsiella pneumoniae* in healthcare settings. Lastly, quality assessment was not undertaken for the included studies because the main purpose of this review was basically mapping out potential sources of evidence on the topic of interest.

### Conclusions

Antimicrobial resistance represents a global threat requiring urgent measures to protect lives. Reducing the burden of AMR entails a host of multi-level approaches aimed at curbing transmission of the resistant pathogens, and optimizing the use of antibiotics. In this review, we identified the antimicrobial stewardship as well as HCAIs control interventions targeting *Clostridium difficile* and *Klebsiella pneumoniae*. These interventions include **E**ducation, **S**urveillance/**S**creening, **C**onsultations, **A**udits, **P**olicies/**P**rotocols, **E**nvironmental disinfection, **B**undles, **I**solation, and **N**otifications or alerts (ESCAPE-BIN). The key outcomes for the aforementioned interventions include antimicrobial use, cost reductions, resistance rates, risk of infection, time savings, hospital stay, as well as adherence to contact precautions and protocols. There is a further need for investigations the feasibility of behaviour-based approaches in improving adherence of health workers to interventions targeting *Clostridium difficile* and *Klebsiella pneumoniae*.

## Data Availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request through bernardokeah@gmail.com

## Appendix 1: Search strategy

### a. MEDLINE search strategy

View this table:
[Table6](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/11/2020.07.02.20144915/T6)

### b CINAHL Plus

View this table:
[Table7](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/11/2020.07.02.20144915/T7)

### c. Web of Science Core Collection

View this table:
[Table8](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/11/2020.07.02.20144915/T8)

### d. PubMed

Search (“Cross Infection”[Majr]) AND ((((“Klebsiella pneumoniae”[Mesh]) OR “Clostridium difficile”[Mesh])) AND (((“Drug Resistance”[Mesh] OR “Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial”[Mesh] OR “Drug Resistance, Bacterial”[Mesh] OR “Drug Resistance, Microbial”[Mesh])) OR “Antimicrobial Stewardship”[Majr])) Filters: published in the last 10 years; Humans.

## Appendix 2: Data Extraction

### a. Clostridium difficile

View this table:
[Table9](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/11/2020.07.02.20144915/T9)

### b. Klebsiella pneumoniae

View this table:
[Table10](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/11/2020.07.02.20144915/T10)

*   Received July 2, 2020.
*   Revision received August 9, 2020.
*   Accepted August 11, 2020.


*   © 2020, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/)

## References

1.  1.Mohr, K. I. History of antibiotics research. Curr. Top. Microbiol. Immunol. 398, 237–272 (2016).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access\_num=10.1007/82_2016_499&link_type=DOI) 

2.  2.Clardy, J., Fischbach, M. A. & Currie, C. R. The natural history of antibiotics. Current Biology vol. 19 (2009).
    
    

3.  3.Fleming, A. On the antibacterial action of cultures of a penicillium, with special reference to their use in the isolation of B. influenzae. Br. J. Exp. Pathol. 10, 226–236 (1929).
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000207180600008&link_type=ISI) 

4.  4.Waksman, S. What is an Antibiotic or an Antibiotic Substance? Mycologia 39, 565–569 (1947).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2307/3755196&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20264541&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1947XS71300005&link_type=ISI) 

5.  5.Houbraken, J., Frisvad, J. C. & Samson, R. A. Fleming’s penicillin producing strain is not Penicillium chrysogenum but P. rubens. IMA Fungus 2, 87–95 (2011).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.5598/imafungus.2011.02.01.12&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22679592&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 

6.  6.Zaffiri, L., Gardner, J. & Toledo-Pereyra, L. H. History of antibiotics. from salvarsan to cephalosporins. Journal of Investigative Surgery vol. 25 67–77 (2012).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3109/08941939.2012.664099&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22439833&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 

7.  7.Klein, E. Y. et al. Global increase and geographic convergence in antibiotic consumption between 2000 and 2015. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 115, E3463–E3470 (2018).
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoicG5hcyI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiMTE1LzE1L0UzNDYzIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjAvMDgvMTEvMjAyMC4wNy4wMi4yMDE0NDkxNS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

8.  8.Huttner, A. et al. Antimicrobial resistance: A global view from the 2013 World Healthcare-Associated Infections Forum. Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control vol. 2 (2013).
    
    

9.  9.Légaré, F. et al. Training family physicians in shared decision-making to reduce the overuse of antibiotics in acute respiratory infections: A cluster randomized trial. CMAJ 184, (2012).
    
    

10. 10.Alumran, A., Hou, X. Y. & Hurst, C. Assessing the overuse of antibiotics in children in Saudi Arabia: Validation of the parental perception on antibiotics scale (PAPA scale). Health Qual. Life Outcomes 11, (2013).
    
    

11. 11.Martin, M. J., Thottathil, S. E. & Newman, T. B. Antibiotics overuse in animal agriculture: A call to action for health care providers. American Journal of Public Health vol. 105 2409–2410 (2015).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2105/AJPH.2015.302870&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26469675&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 

12. 12.World Health Organization. WHO - The top 10 causes of death. 1–7 [https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death](https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death) (2018).
    
    

13. 13.Gasser, M., Zingg, W., Cassini, A. & Kronenberg, A. Attributable deaths and disability-adjusted life-years caused by infections with antibiotic-resistant bacteria in Switzerland. The Lancet Infectious Diseases vol. 19 17–18 (2019).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30708-4&link_type=DOI) 

14. 14.Zarb, P. et al. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Surveillance report - Point prevalence survey of healthcareassociated infections and antimicrobial use in European acute care hospitals. Eurosurveillance vol. 17 (2012).
    
    

15. 15.Antonioli, P. et al. A 2-year point-prevalence surveillance of healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial use in Ferrara University Hospital, Italy. BMC Infect. Dis. 20, (2020).
    
    

16. 16.Cassini, A. et al. Burden of Six Healthcare-Associated Infections on European Population Health: Estimating Incidence-Based Disability-Adjusted Life Years through a Population Prevalence-Based Modelling Study. PLoS Med. 13, (2016).
    
    

17. 17.Weiner-Lastinger, L. M. et al. Antimicrobial-resistant pathogens associated with pediatric healthcare-associated infections: Summary of data reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network, 2015–2017. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 41, 19–30 (2020).
    
    

18. 18.Baptista, A. B., Ramos, J. M. M., das Neves, R. R., de Souza, D. F. & Pimenta, R. S. Diversity of environmental and patients bacteria in the Hospital Geral de Palmas-TO. J. BIOENERGY FOOD Sci. 2, 160–164 (2015).
    
    

19. 19.Singh, N. P., Rani, M., Gupta, K., Sagar, T. & Kaur, I. R. Changing trends in antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of bacterial isolates in a burn unit. BURNS 43, 1083–1087 (2017).
    
    

20. 20.Gundogdu, A., Kilic, H., Ulu-Kilic, A., Aydin, G. & Alp, E. Epidemiological Features of Nosocomial Bloodstream Infections in Pediatric Patients. KLIMIK J. 29, 29–35 (2016).
    
    

21. 21.Liu, S., Wang, M., Zheng, L. & Guan, W. Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Nosocomial Pathogens in Regional China: A Brief Report from Two Tertiary Hospitals in China. Med. Sci. Monit. 24, 8602–8607 (2018).
    
    

22. 22.Flores-Treviño, S. et al. Screening of biomarkers of drug resistance or virulence in ESCAPE pathogens by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry. Sci. Rep. 9, (2019).
    
    

23. 23.Spigaglia, P. et al. Multidrug resistance in European Clostridium difficile clinical isolates. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 66, 2227–2234 (2011).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jac/dkr292&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21771851&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000294969700005&link_type=ISI) 

24. 24.Hooker, E. A. et al. Decreasing Clostridium difficile health care-associated infections through use of a launderable mattress cover. Am. J. Infect. Control 43, 1326–1330 (2015).
    
    

25. 25.Schulz-Stubner, S., Leonards, P. & Zimmer, P. Room Occupancy-Associated Transmission of MDRO, Clostridium difficile, or Norovirus: Results From a Room Surveillance Project. Infection control and hospital epidemiology vol. 38 1130–1131 (2017).
    
    

26. 26.Weiner, L. M. et al. Antimicrobial-Resistant Pathogens Associated with Healthcare-Associated Infections: Summary of Data Reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011–2014. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 37, 1288–1301 (2016).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1017/ice.2016.174&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27573805&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 

27. 27.Lake, J. G. et al. Pathogen Distribution and Antimicrobial Resistance Among Pediatric Healthcare-Associated Infections Reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network, 2011–2014. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 39, 1–11 (2018).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1017/ice.2017.236&link_type=DOI) 

28. 28.Lebel, S., Bouttier, S. & Lambert, T. The cme gene of Clostridium difficile confers multidrug resistance in Enterococcus faecalis. FEMSMicrobiol. Lett. 238, 93–100 (2004).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1574-6968.2004.tb09742.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15336408&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 

29. 29.Adams, H. M., Li, X., Mascio, C., Chesnel, L. & Palmer, K. L. Mutations associated with reduced surotomycin susceptibility in Clostridium difficile and Enterococcus species. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 59, 4139–4147 (2015).
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYWFjIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjU5LzcvNDEzOSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIwLzA4LzExLzIwMjAuMDcuMDIuMjAxNDQ5MTUuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

30. 30.Krutova, M., Matejkova, J., Drevinek, P., Kuijper, E. J. & Nyc, O. Increasing incidence of Clostridium difficile ribotype 001 associated with severe course of the infection and previous fluoroquinolone use in the Czech Republic, 2015. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 36, 2251–2258 (2017).
    
    

31. 31.Solomon, K. et al. PCR ribotype prevalence and molecular basis of macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin B (MLSB) and fluoroquinolone resistance in Irish clinical Clostridium difficile isolates. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 66, 1976–1982 (2011).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jac/dkr275&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21712239&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 

32. 32.Piepenbrock, E., Stelzer, Y., Berger, F. & Jazmati, N. Changes in Clostridium (Clostridioides) difficile PCR-Ribotype Distribution and Antimicrobial Resistance in a German Tertiary Care Hospital Over the Last 10 Years. Curr. Microbiol. 76, 520–526 (2019).
    
    

33. 33.Shoaei, P. et al. Molecular epidemiology of Clostridium difficile infection in Iranian hospitals 11 Medical and Health Sciences 1117 Public Health and Health Services. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 8, (2019).
    
    

34. 34.Berger, F. K. et al. Molecular characterization, toxin detection and resistance testing of human clinical Clostridium difficile isolates from Lebanon. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 308, 358–363 (2018).
    
    

35. 35.Walkty, A. et al. Molecular characterization of moxifloxacin resistance from Canadian Clostridium difficile clinical isolates. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 66, 419–424 (2010).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2009.12.002&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20226332&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000275973200011&link_type=ISI) 

36. 36.Tian, T. et al. Molecular Characterization of Clostridium difficile Isolates from Human Subjects and the Environment. PLoS One 11, e0151964 (2016).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0151964&link_type=DOI) 

37. 37.Dawson, L. F. et al. The analysis of para-cresol production and tolerance in Clostridium difficile 027 and 012 strains. BMC Microbiol. 11, 86 (2011).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1471-2180-11-86&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21527013&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 

38. 38.Isidro, J. et al. Imipenem Resistance in Clostridium difficile Ribotype 017, Portugal. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 24, 741–745 (2018).
    
    

39. 39.Barbanti, F. & Spigaglia, P. Characterization of Clostridium difficile PCR-ribotype 018: A problematic emerging type. Anaerobe 42, 123–129 (2016).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.anaerobe.2016.10.003&link_type=DOI) 

40. 40.Carman, R. J. et al. Multidrug resistant Clostridium difficile ribotype 027 in southwestern Virginia, 2007 to 2013. Anaerobe 52, 16–21 (2018).
    
    

41. 41.Krutova, M., Matejkova, J., Tkadlec, J. & Nyc, O. Antibiotic profiling of Clostridium difficile ribotype 176--A multidrug resistant relative to C. difficile ribotype 027. Anaerobe 36, 88–90 (2015).
    
    

42. 42.Asojo, O. A. et al. Structural and biochemical analyses of alanine racemase from the multidrug-resistant Clostridium difficile strain 630. Acta Crystallogr. Sect. D Biol. Crystallogr. 70, 1922–1933 (2014).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1107/S1399004714009419&link_type=DOI) 

43. 43.Tenover, F. C., Tickler, I. A. & Persing, D. H. Antimicrobial-resistant strains of Clostridium difficile from North America. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 56, 2929–2932 (2012).
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYWFjIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjU2LzYvMjkyOSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIwLzA4LzExLzIwMjAuMDcuMDIuMjAxNDQ5MTUuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

44. 44.Baghani, A. et al. Highly antibiotic-resistant Clostridium difficile isolates from Iranian patients. J. Appl. Microbiol. 125, 1518–1525 (2018).
    
    

45. 45.Ilchmann, C. et al. Comparison of resistance against erythromycin and moxifloxacin, presence of binary toxin gene and PCR ribotypes in Clostridium difficile isolates from 1990 and 2008. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 29, 1571–1573 (2010).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s10096-010-1017-9&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20632051&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 

46. 46.Nyc, O. et al. Two Clusters of Fluoroquinolone and Clindamycin-Resistant Clostridium difficile PCR Ribotype 001 Strain Recognized by Capillary Electrophoresis Ribotyping and Multilocus Variable Tandem Repeat Analysis. Microb. Drug Resist. 23, 609–615 (2017).
    
    

47. 47.Mena, A. et al. In vivo selection of moxifloxacin-resistant Clostridium difficile. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 56, 2788–2789 (2012).
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYWFjIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjU2LzUvMjc4OCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIwLzA4LzExLzIwMjAuMDcuMDIuMjAxNDQ5MTUuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

48. 48.Obuch-Woszczatyński, P. et al. Emergence of Clostridium difficile infection in tuberculosis patients due to a highly rifampicin-resistant PCR ribotype 046 clone in Poland. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 32, 1027–1030 (2013).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s10096-013-1845-5&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23443474&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 

49. 49.Dang, U. T. et al. Rifamycin Resistance in Clostridium difficile Is Generally Associated with a Low Fitness Burden. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 60, 5604–5607 (2016).
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYWFjIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjYwLzkvNTYwNCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIwLzA4LzExLzIwMjAuMDcuMDIuMjAxNDQ5MTUuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

50. 50.Lynch, T. et al. Characterization of a Stable, Metronidazole-Resistant Clostridium difficile Clinical Isolate. PLoS One 8, e53757 (2013).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0053757&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23349739&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 

51. 51.Pituch, H. et al. [Assessment of susceptibility to metronidazole and vancomycin of Clostridium difficile strains isolated between 1998–2002]. Med. Dosw. Mikrobiol. 55, 253–258 (2003).
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=14702667&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 

52. 52.Caspers, P. et al. Different Resistance Mechanisms for Cadazolid and Linezolid in Clostridium difficile Found by Whole-Genome Sequencing Analysis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 61, (2017).
    
    

53. 53.Candela, T., Marvaud, J.-C., Nguyen, T. K. & Lambert, T. A cfr-like gene cfr(C) conferring linezolid resistance is common in Clostridium difficile. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 50, 496–500 (2017).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2017.03.013&link_type=DOI) 

54. 54.Leeds, J. A., Sachdeva, M., Mullin, S., Barnes, S. W. & Ruzin, A. In vitro selection, via serial passage, of Clostridium difficile mutants with reduced susceptibility to fidaxomicin or vancomycin. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 69, 41–44 (2014).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jac/dkt302&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23887866&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000328425400006&link_type=ISI) 

55. 55.Mascio, C. T. M., Chesnel, L., Thorne, G. & Silverman, J. A. Surotomycin demonstrates low in vitro frequency of resistance and rapid bactericidal activity in Clostridium difficile, Enterococcus faecalis, and Enterococcus faecium. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 58, 3976–3982 (2014).
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYWFjIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjU4LzcvMzk3NiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIwLzA4LzExLzIwMjAuMDcuMDIuMjAxNDQ5MTUuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

56. 56.Cermak, P. et al. Strong antimicrobial activity of xanthohumol and other derivatives from hops (Humulus lupulus L.) on gut anaerobic bacteria. APMIS 125, 1033–1038 (2017).
    
    

57. 57.Mendez, M. N. et al. Impact of a piperacillin-tazobactam shortage on antimicrobial prescribing and the rate of vancomycin-resistant enterococci and Clostridium difficile infections. Pharmacotherapy 26, 61–67 (2006).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1592/phco.2006.26.1.61&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16509027&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000234437300008&link_type=ISI) 

58. 58.Britton, R. A. & Young, V. B. Role of the intestinal microbiota in resistance to colonization by Clostridium difficile. Gastroenterology 146, 1547–1553 (2014).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1053/j.gastro.2014.01.059&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24503131&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 

59. 59.Adams, D. J., Eberly, M. D., Goudie, A. & Nylund, C. M. Rising Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus Infections in Hospitalized Children in the United States. Hosp. Pediatr. 6, 404–411 (2016).
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoiaG9zcHBlZHMiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6NzoiNi83LzQwNCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIwLzA4LzExLzIwMjAuMDcuMDIuMjAxNDQ5MTUuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

60. 60.Seril, D. N., Ashburn, J. H., Lian, L. & Shen, B. Risk factors and management of refractory or recurrent clostridium difficile infection in ileal pouch patients. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 20, 2226–2233 (2014).
    
    

61. 61.Dicks, L. M. T., Mikkelsen, L. S., Brandsborg, E. & Marcotte, H. Clostridium difficile, the Difficult ‘Kloster’ Fuelled by Antibiotics. Curr. Microbiol. 76, 774–782 (2019).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00284-018-1543-8&link_type=DOI) 

62. 62.Jimenez, A., Alvarado, A., Gomez, F., Carrero, G. & Fajardo, C. Risk factors associated with the isolation of extended spectrum betalactamases producing Escherichia coli or Klebsiella pneumoniae in a tertiary care hospital in Colombia. BIOMEDICA 34, 16–22 (2014).
    
    

63. 63.Durdu, B. et al. Risk Factors Affecting Patterns of Antibiotic Resistance and Treatment Efficacy in Extreme Drug Resistance in Intensive Care Unit-Acquired Klebsiella Pneumoniae Infections: A 5-Year Analysis. Med. Sci. Monit. 25, 174–183 (2019).
    
    

64. 64.Rettedal, S., Hoyland Lohr, I., Natas, O., Sundsfjord, A. & Oymar, K. Risk factors for acquisition of CTX-M-15 extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae during an outbreak in a neonatal intensive care unit in Norway. Scand. J. Infect. Dis. 45, 54–58 (2013).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3109/00365548.2012.713116&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22991960&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 

65. 65.Malek, A. et al. Next-Generation-Sequencing-Based Hospital Outbreak Investigation Yields Insight into Klebsiella aerogenes Population Structure and Determinants of Carbapenem Resistance and Pathogenicity. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 63, (2019).
    
    

66. 66.Chi, X. et al. Genomic Analysis Of A KPC-2-Producing Klebsiella Pneumoniae ST11 Outbreak From A Teaching Hospital In Shandong Province, China. Infect. Drug Resist. 12, 2961–2969 (2019).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2147/IDR.S221788&link_type=DOI) 

67. 67.Mu, A. et al. Reconstruction of the Genomes of Drug-Resistant Pathogens for Outbreak Investigation through Metagenomic Sequencing. MSphere 4, (2019).
    
    

68. 68.Zautner, A. E. et al. Monitoring microevolution of OXA-48-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae ST147 in a hospital setting by SMRT sequencing. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 72, 2737–2744 (2017).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jac/dkx216&link_type=DOI) 

69. 69.Renner, L. D. et al. Detection of ESKAPE Bacterial Pathogens at the Point of Care Using Isothermal DNA-Based Assays in a Portable Degas-Actuated Microfluidic Diagnostic Assay Platform. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 83, (2017).
    
    

70. 70.Bernaschi, P. et al. Microbial tracking of multidrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates in a pediatric hospital setting. Int. J. Immunopathol. Pharmacol. 26, 463–472 (2013).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/039463201302600219&link_type=DOI) 

71. 71.Wu, D., Huang, X., Jia, C., Liu, J. & Wan, Q. Clinical Manifestation, Distribution, and Drug Resistance of Pathogens Among Abdominal Solid Organ Transplant Recipients With Klebsiella pneumoniae Infections. Transplant. Proc. 52, 289–294 (2020).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.transproceed.2019.11.023&link_type=DOI) 

72. 72.Humayun, A. et al. Incidence of metallo-beta-lactamase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates from hospital setting in Pakistan. Int. Microbiol. 21, 73–78 (2018).
    
    

73. 73.Kryzhanovskaya, O. A. et al. Antibiotic Resistance and Its Molecular Mechanisms in Carbapenem-Nonsusceptible Klebsiellapneumoniae Isolated in Pediatric ICUs in Moscow. Antibiot. i khimioterapiia = Antibiot. chemoterapy [sic] 61, 22–26 (2016).
    
    

74. 74.Moghadas, A. J., Kalantari, F., Sarfi, M., Shahhoseini, S. & Mirkalantari, S. Evaluation of Virulence Factors and Antibiotic Resistance Patterns in Clinical Urine Isolates of Klebsiella pneumoniae in Semnan, Iran. JUNDISHAPUR J. Microbiol. 11, (2018).
    
    

75. 75.Aljanaby, A. A. J. & Alhasnawi, H. M. R. J. Phenotypic and Molecular Characterization of Multidrug Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae Isolated from Different Clinical Sources i n Al-Najaf Province-Iraq. Pakistan J. Biol. Sci. PJBS 20, 217–232 (2017).
    
    

76. 76.Metan, G., Ilbay, A., Eser, O. K., Unal, S. & Zarakolu, P. A Silent Epidemic of Colistin- and Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae at a Turkish University Hospital. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 38, 254–257 (2017).
    
    

77. 77.Aracil-Garcia, B. et al. Rapid increase in resistance to third generation cephalosporins, imipenem and co-resistance in Klebsiella pneumoniae from isolated from 7,140 blood- cultures (2010-2014) using EARS-Net data in Spain. Enferm. Infecc. Microbiol. Clin. 35, 480–486 (2017).
    
    

78. 78.Halaby, T. et al. Genomic Characterization of Colistin Heteroresistance in Klebsiella pneumoniae during a Nosocomial Outbreak. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 60, 6837–6843 (2016).
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYWFjIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiI2MC8xMS82ODM3IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjAvMDgvMTEvMjAyMC4wNy4wMi4yMDE0NDkxNS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

79. 79.Zheng, B. et al. Genome sequencing and genomic characterization of a tigecycline-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae strain isolated from the bile samples of a cholangiocarcinoma patient. GUT Pathog. 6, (2014).
    
    

80. 80.Fabbri, G. et al. Outbreak of ampicillin/piperacillin-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU): investigation and control measures. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 10, 808–815 (2013).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3390/ijerph10030808&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23442560&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 

81. 81.Chen, D. et al. Co-outbreak of multidrug resistance and a novel ST3006 Klebsiella pneumoniae in a neonatal intensive care unit: A retrospective study. Medicine (Baltimore). 98, e14285 (2019).
    
    

82. 82.Liu, L. et al. Carbapenem-resistant Isolates of the Klebsiella pneumoniae Complex in Western China: The Common ST11 and the Surprising Hospital-specific Types. Clin. Infect. Dis. 67, S263–S265 (2018).
    
    

83. 83.Naparstek, L., Carmeli, Y., Chmelnitsky, I., Banin, E. & Navon-Venezia, S. Reduced susceptibility to chlorhexidine among extremely-drug-resistant strains of Klebsiella pneumoniae. J. Hosp. Infect. 81, 15–19 (2012).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jhin.2012.02.007&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22463977&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 

84. 84.Piazza, A. et al. Identification of bla VIM-1 Gene in ST307 and ST661 Klebsiella pneumoniae Clones in Italy: Old Acquaintances for New Combinations. Microb. Drug Resist. 25, 787–790 (2019).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1089/mdr.2018.0327&link_type=DOI) 

85. 85.Peltier, F. et al. Characterization of a multidrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae ST607-K25 clone responsible for a nosocomial outbreak in a neonatal intensive care unit. J. Med. Microbiol. 68, 67–76 (2019).
    
    

86. 86.Mukherjee, S. et al. Molecular characterization of NDM-1-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae ST29, ST347, ST1224, and ST2558 causing sepsis in neonates in a tertiary care hospital of North-East India. Infect. Genet. Evol. 69, 166–175 (2019).
    
    

87. 87.Ferreira, R. L. et al. High Prevalence of Multidrug-Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae Harboring Several Virulence and beta-Lactamase Encoding Genes in a Brazilian Intensive Care Unit. Front. Microbiol. 9, (2019).
    
    

88. 88.Moghadampour, M., Rezaei, A. & Faghri, J. The emergence of blaOXA-48 and blaNDM among ESBL-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae in clinical isolates of a tertiary hospital in Iran. Acta Microbiol. Immunol. Hung. 65, 335–344 (2018).
    
    

89. 89.Asencio Egea, M. A. et al. Monoclonal spread of multi-drug resistant CTX-M-15-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae. Impact of measures to control the outbreak. Rev. Esp. Quimioter. 31, 237–246 (2018).
    
    

90. 90.Kotsanas, D. et al. ‘Down the drain’: carbapenem-resistant bacteria in intensive care unit patients and handwashing sinks. Med. J. Aust. 198, 267–269 (2013).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.5694/mja12.11757&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23496403&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000316846300020&link_type=ISI) 

91. 91.Jafari, Z. et al. Molecular Epidemiology and Drug Resistance Pattern of Carbapenem-Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae Isolates from Iran. Microb. DRUG Resist. 25, 336–343 (2019).
    
    

92. 92.Zaki, A. O. B. A. M. E. S. Molecular Study of Klebsiella Pneumoniae Virulence Genes from Patients with Hospital Acquired Sepsis. Clin. Lab. 65, (2019).
    
    

93. 93.Malik, T., Naim, A. & Saeed, A. Molecular Detection of TEM, SHV and CTX-M Genes Among Gram-negative Klebsiella Isolates. Curr. Drug Deliv. 15, 417–423 (2018).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2174/1567201815666180101160108&link_type=DOI) 

94. 94.Mammina, C. et al. Sequence type 101 (ST101) as the predominant carbapenem-non-susceptible Klebsiella pneumoniae clone in an acute general hospital in Italy. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 39, 543–545 (2012).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2012.02.012&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22534506&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 

95. 95.Eghbalpoor, F. et al. Antibiotic resistance, virulence and genetic diversity of Klebsiellapneumoniae in community- and hospital-acquired urinary tract infections in Iran. Acta Microbiol. Immunol. Hung. 66, 349–366 (2019).
    
    

96. 96.Lim, J. M. et al. Impact of national interventions to promote responsible antibiotic use: a systematic review. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. (2019) doi:10.1093/jac/dkz348.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jac/dkz348&link_type=DOI) 

97. 97.Thorpe, K. E., Joski, P. & Johnston, K. J. Antibiotic-resistant infection treatment costs have doubled since 2002, now exceeding $2 billion annually. Health Aff. 37, 662–669 (2018).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1153&link_type=DOI) 

98. 98.WHO. Antimicrobial resistance and primary health care. World Health Organization (WHO) vol. brief [https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/primary-health-care-conference/amr.pdf?sfvrsn=8817d5ba_2](https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/primary-health-care-conference/amr.pdf?sfvrsn=8817d5ba_2) (2018).
    
    

99. 99.Smieszek, T. et al. Potential for reducing inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in English primary care. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 73, ii36–ii43 (2018).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jac/dkx500&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29490058&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 

100.100.Wilkinson, A., Ebata, A. & Macgregor, H. Interventions to reduce antibiotic prescribing in LMICs: A scoping review of evidence from human and animal health systems. Antibiotics vol. 8 (2019).
    
    

101.101.Davies, S. C. Reducing inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics in english primary care: Evidence and outlook. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 73, 833–834 (2018).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jac/dkx535&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 

102.102.Wenzel, R. P. & Edmond, M. B. Infection control: the case for horizontal rather than vertical interventional programs. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 14, (2010).
    
    

103.103.Afshari, A., Schrenzel, J., Ieven, M. & Harbarth, S. Bench-to-bedside review: Rapid molecular diagnostics for bloodstream infection - a new frontier? Critical Care vol. 16 222 (2012).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/cc11202&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22647543&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 

104.104.Stein, K. et al. The use and misuse of antibiotics in dentistry: A scoping review. J. Am.Dent. Assoc. 149, 869–884.e5 (2018).
    
    

105.105.Saha, S. K., Barton, C., Promite, S. & Mazza, D. Knowledge, perceptions and practices of community pharmacists towards antimicrobial stewardship: A systematic scoping review. Antibiotics vol. 8 263 (2019).
    
    

106.106.Moher, D. et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst. Rev. 4, 1 (2015).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/2046-4053-4-1&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25554246&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 

107.107.Cacchione, P. Z. The Evolving Methodology of Scoping Reviews. Clin. Nurs. Res. 25, 115–119 (2016).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/1054773816637493&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26976609&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 

108.108.Arksey, H. & O’Malley, L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. Theory Pract. 8, 19–32 (2005).
    
    

109.109.Goodwin, N. Studying the Organisation and Delivery of Health Services: Research Methods. Heal. Soc. Care Community 10, 411–412 (2002).
    
    

110.110.Tricco, A. C. et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine vol. 169 467–473 (2018).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/M18-0850&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30178033&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 

111.111.Levac, D., Colquhoun, H. & O’Brien, K. K. Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implement. Sci. 5, (2010).
    
    

112.112.So, M. et al. Effect of an antimicrobial stewardship programme on antimicrobial utilisation and costs in patients with leukaemia: a retrospective controlled study. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 24, 882–888 (2018).
    
    

113.113.Tedeschi, S. et al. An Antimicrobial Stewardship Program Based on Systematic Infectious Disease Consultation in a Rehabilitation Facility. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 38, 76–82 (2017).
    
    

114.114.Lee, T. C., Frenette, C., Jayaraman, D., Green, L. & Pilote, L. Antibiotic Self-stewardship: Trainee-Led Structured Antibiotic Time-outs to Improve Antimicrobial Use. Ann. Intern. Med. 161, S53–S58 (2014).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/M13-3016&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25402404&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 

115.115.Beaulac, K., Corcione, S., Epstein, L., Davidson, L. E. & Doron, S. Antimicrobial Stewardship in a Long-Term Acute Care Hospital Using Offsite Electronic Medical Record Audit. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 37, 433–439 (2016).
    
    

116.116.Dancer, S. J. et al. Approaching zero: temporal effects of a restrictive antibiotic policy on hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile, extended-spectrum -lactamase-producing coliforms and meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 41, 137–142 (2013).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2012.10.013&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23276500&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 

117.117.Elligsen, M. et al. Audit and Feedback to Reduce Broad-Spectrum Antibiotic Use among Intensive Care Unit Patients A Controlled Interrupted Time Series Analysis. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 33, 354–361 (2012).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1086/664757&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22418630&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 

118.118.Quan, K. A., Cousins, S. M., Porter, D. D., Puppo, R. A. & Huang, S. S. Automated tracking and ordering of precautions for multidrug-resistant organisms. Am. J. Infect. Control 43, 577–580 (2015).
    
    

119.119.Butler, J. P. Effect of copper-impregnated composite bed linens and patient gowns on healthcare-associated infection rates in six hospitals. J. Hosp. Infect. 100, e130–e134 (2018).
    
    

120.120.Madden, G. R., Heon, B. E. & Sifri, C. D. Effect of copper-impregnated linens on multidrug-resistant organism acquisition and Clostridium difficile infection at a long-term acute-care hospital. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 39, 1384–1386 (2018).
    
    

121.121.Anderson, D. J. et al. Effectiveness of targeted enhanced terminal room disinfection onhospital-wide acquisition and infection with multidrug-resistant organisms and Clostridium difficile: a secondary analysis of a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial with crossover. Lancet. Infect. Dis. 18, 845–853 (2018).
    
    

122.122.Moffa, M. A., Walsh, T. L., Tang, A. & Bremmer, D. N. Impact of an antimicrobial stewardship program on healthcare-associated Clostridium difficile rates at a community-based teaching hospital. J. Infect. Prev. 19, 191–194 (2018).
    
    

123.123.Suzuki, H. et al. Impact of intensive infection control team activities on the acquisition of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and the incidence of Clostridium difficile-associated disease. J. Infect. Chemother. 19, 1047–1052 (2013).
    
    

124.124.Yam, P., Fales, D., Jemison, J., Gillum, M. & Bernstein, M. Implementation of an antimicrobial stewardship program in a rural hospital. Am. J. Heal. Pharm. 69, 1142–1148 (2012).
    
    

125.125.Goltsman, G. et al. The impact of intensive staff education on rate of Clostridium difficile-associated disease in hospitalized geriatric patients. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. (2019) doi:10.1007/s40520-019-01424-y.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s40520-019-01424-y&link_type=DOI) 

126.126.Polen, C. B., Judd, W. R., Ratliff, P. D. & King, G. S. Impact of real-time notification of Clostridium difficile test results and early initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy. Am. J. Infect. Control 46, 538–541 (2018).
    
    

127.127.Koll, B. S. et al. Prevention of hospital-onset Clostridium difficile infection in the New York metropolitan region using a collaborative intervention model. J. Healthc. Qual. 36, 35–45 (2014).
    
    

128.128.Borer, A. et al. A Multifaceted Intervention Strategy for Eradication of a Hospital-Wide Outbreak Caused by Carbapenem-Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in Southern Israel. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 32, 1158–1165 (2011).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1086/662620&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22080653&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 

129.129.Liu, P. et al. Active screening diminishes antibiotic resistance to main pathogenic bacteria in the ICU. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 9, 4685–4689 (2016).
    
    

130.130.Ciobotaro, P., Oved, M., Nadir, E., Bardenstein, R. & Zimhony, O. An effective intervention to limit the spread of an epidemic carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae strain in an acute care setting: from theory to practice. Am. J. Infect. Control 39, 671–677 (2011).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ajic.2011.05.004&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21864942&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000296535700011&link_type=ISI) 

131.131.Andersen, S. E. & Knudsen, J. D. A managed multidisciplinary programme on multi-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in a Danish university hospital. BMJ Qual. Saf. 22, 907–915 (2013).
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoicWhjIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjIyLzExLzkwNyI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIwLzA4LzExLzIwMjAuMDcuMDIuMjAxNDQ5MTUuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

132.132.Lei Munhoz Lima, A. L. et al. Carbapenem stewardship - positive impact on hospital ecology. BRAZILIAN J. Infect. Dis. 15, 1–5 (2011).
    
    

133.133.Schwaber, M. J. et al. Containment of a country-wide outbreak of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in Israeli hospitals via a nationally implemented intervention. Clin. Infect. Dis. 52, 848–855 (2011).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/cid/cir025&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21317398&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000288802600006&link_type=ISI) 

134.134.Agodi, A. et al. Containment of an outbreak of KPC-3-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae in Italy. J. Clin. Microbiol. 49, 3986–3989 (2011).
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiamNtIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiI0OS8xMS8zOTg2IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjAvMDgvMTEvMjAyMC4wNy4wMi4yMDE0NDkxNS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

135.135.Meletis, G., Oustas, E., Botziori, C., Kakasi, E. & Koteli, A. Containment of carbapenem resistance rates of Klebsiella pneumoniae and Acinetobacter baumannii in a Greek hospital with a concomitant increase in colistin, gentamicin and tigecycline resistance. New Microbiol. 38, 417–421 (2015).
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26147150&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 

136.136.Alrabaa, S. F. et al. Early identification and control of carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae, originating from contaminated endoscopic equipment. Am. J. Infect. Control 41, 562–564 (2013).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ajic.2012.07.008&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23171594&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 

137.137.Geladari, A. et al. Epidemiological surveillance of multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria in a solid organ transplantation department. Transpl. Infect. Dis. 19, (2017).
    
    

138.138.Kassis-Chikhani, N. et al. Extended measures for controlling an outbreak of VIM-1 producing imipenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in a liver transplant centre in France, 2003-2004. Euro Surveill. 15, (2010).
    
    

139.139.Li, M. et al. Infection-prevention and control interventions to reduce colonisation and infection of intensive care unit-acquired carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae: a 4-year quasi-experimental before-and-after study. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 8, 8 (2019).
    
    

140.140.Zhou, J., Li, G., Ma, X., Yang, Q. & Yi, J. Outbreak of colonization by carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae in a neonatal intensive care unit: Investigation, control measures and assessment. Am. J. Infect. Control 43, 1122–1124 (2015).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ajic.2015.05.038&link_type=DOI) 

141.141.Cantey, J. B. et al. Prompt control of an outbreak caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae in a neonatal intensive care unit. J. Pediatr. 163, 672–673 (2013).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.03.001&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23582136&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000323985300015&link_type=ISI) 

142.142.Gaibani, P. et al. Successful containment and infection control of a Carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae outbreak in an Italian hospital. New Microbiol. 37, 87–90 (2014).
    
    

143.143.Kim, N.-H. et al. Successful containment of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae by strict contact precautions without active surveillance. Am. J. Infect. Control 42, 1270–1273 (2014).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ajic.2014.09.004&link_type=DOI) 

144.144.Szel, B. et al. Successful elimination of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing nosocomial bacteria at a neonatal intensive care unit. World J. Pediatr. 13, 210–216 (2017).
    
    

145.145.Snitkin, E. S. et al. Tracking a hospital outbreak of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae with whole-genome sequencing. Sci. Transl. Med. 4, 148ra116 (2012).
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTE6InNjaXRyYW5zbWVkIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE0OiI0LzE0OC8xNDhyYTExNiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIwLzA4LzExLzIwMjAuMDcuMDIuMjAxNDQ5MTUuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

146.146.Vodicka, E. L. et al. Costs of integrating cervical cancer screening at an HIV clinic in Kenya. Int. J. Gynecol. Obstet. 136, 220–228 (2017).
    
    

147.147.Dantes, R. et al. Association between Outpatient Antibiotic Prescribing Practices and Community-Associated Clostridium difficile Infection. Open Forum Infect. Dis. ofv113 (2015) doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofv113.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/ofid/ofv113&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26509182&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom) 

148.148.Brown, K., Valenta, K., Fisman, D., Simor, A. & Daneman, N. Hospital ward antibiotic prescribing and the risks of Clostridium difficile infection. JAMA Intern. Med. 175, 626–633 (2015).
    
    

149.149.Cross, J. Three myths of behaviour change -- what you think you know that you don’t [online video]. (2013).
    
    

150.150.Huis, A. et al. A systematic review of hand hygiene improvement strategies: a behavioural approach. Implement. Sci. 7, (2012).
    
    

151.151.Kelly, M. P. & Barker, M. Why is changing health-related behaviour so difficult? Public Health 136, 109–116 (2016).
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F11%2F2020.07.02.20144915.atom)