Technical Letter

A Multicentric Assessment of Integrated Antimicrobial Stewardship (IAS) Practices Across Indian Tertiary- Care Institutions: A SASPI Capacity Mapping Initiative

Navjot Kaur, Sharwani Vijayshree Lal, Naveen Murali, Prasan Kumar Panda, Nusrat Shafiq, Sarita Mohapatra*, SASPI Consortium

JASPI September 2026 / Volume 4 / Issue 3

Copyright: © Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits non-commercial use, sharing, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original author and source are credited and no modifications or adaptations are made.

July – September 30, 2026

Kaur N, Lal SV, Murali N, et al. A Multicentric Assessment of Integrated Antimicrobial Stewardship (IAS) Practices Across Indian Tertiary- Care Institutions: A SASPI Capacity Mapping Initiative. JASPI. 2026;4(3): 1-10. DOI: 10.62541/jaspi187

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL


Supplementary Table 1: Domain-wise implementation level of the SASPI Integrated Antimicrobial Stewardship (IAS) Practice Statement. Each row represents a domain, with implementation of the four domains categorized as High (≥75%), Moderate (50–74%), or Low (<50%) based on the mean adherence score for the respective domain. 

IAS practice domain

Mean ± SD (%)

Median (IQR) (%)

Range (%)

95% CI for mean (%)

Overall implementation

Administrative Practices 

66.34 ± 19.96

65.00 (54.00–75.00)

32.00–100.00

56.08– 76.60

Moderate

Diagnostic Stewardship Practices 

81.76 ± 11.93

83.08 (71.54–89.62)

56.92–100.00

75.62– 87.89

High

Infection Prevention & Control Practices

80.12 ± 13.59

76.67 (74.17–90.00)

57.08–100.00

73.14– 87.11

High

Antimicrobial Stewardship Practices 

37.06 ± 28.11

33.33 (15.00–58.33)

0.00– 95.83

22.60– 51.51

Low

Supplementary Table 2: Overall mean adherence scores for the 42 practice statements of the SASPI Integrated Antimicrobial Stewardship (IAS) framework across participating tertiary-care institutions. The 42 practice statements are grouped into four domains: Administrative (5 practice points), Diagnostic Stewardship (13 practice points), Infection Prevention and Control (12 practice points), and Antimicrobial Stewardship (12 practice points). Implementation was assessed on a 0–100% scale, with higher scores indicating greater implementation.

S.No.

Integrated AMS Practices – 42 Points

Mean ± SD (%)

Median (IQR) (%)

Range (%)

95% CI for mean (%)

Implementation

A.

 

   

Administrative—Practice Points

1

Active IAS program (total/fragmented)

65.88 ± 27.74

60.00 (50.00–100.00)

20.00–100.00

51.62–80.14

Moderate

2

Defined accountability (HICC, AMSP, DSP)

73.04 ± 22.05

70.00 (50.00–100.00)

50.00–100.00

61.70–84.38

Moderate

3

Department-wise AM policy & checkpoints

54.71 ± 39.07

60.00 (30.00–100.00)

0.00–100.00

34.62–74.79

Moderate

4

IAS educational programs for all staff

68.09 ± 33.49

75.00 (30.00–100.00)

0.00–100.00

50.87–85.31

Moderate

5

Compulsory induction (PGs, interns, nurses)

70.00 ± 39.37

100.00 (60.00–100.00)

0.00–100.00

49.76–90.24

Moderate

B.

   

Diagnostic Stewardship Practices – Practice Points

6

The Clinical Microbiology Diagnostic Laboratory must be in the close vicinity or preferably in the same hospital premises to reduce Specimen transportation time.

95.88 ± 11.76

100.00 (100.00–100.00)

60.00–100.00

89.84–101.93

High

7

The hospital should have a fully functional 24×7 Clinical Microbiology Diagnostic Laboratory with competent manpower and signatory authority with Sunday and Holiday reporting.

80.88 ± 28.74

100.00 (70.00–100.00)

0.00–100.00

66.11–95.66

High

8

The hospital should have guidance procedures for the right investigation, right patient and right time and must ensure the right report interpretation, right antimicrobial and right time.

63.24 ± 35.31

50.00 (50.00–100.00)

0.00–100.00

45.08–81.39

Moderate

9

All Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory should ensure that Critical Alerts have been displayed, and a Notification is sent each time any critical result is observed.

84.41 ± 21.93

100.00 (70.00–100.00)

30.00–100.00

73.14–95.69

High

10

The Clinical Microbiology Laboratory should ensure that all proper protocols of Antimicrobial Susceptibility testing are being followed as per own, CLSI, and or EUCAST guideline.

99.41 ± 2.43

100.00 (100.00–100.00)

90.00–100.00

98.16–100.66

High

11

Clinical Microbiology Diagnostic Laboratory should ensure the AMR data digitalization on WHONET or MS Excel.

88.24 ± 21.86

100.00 (100.00–100.00)

50.00–100.00

76.99–99.48

High

12

The hospital should have documented SOP for Specimen Collection, Storage, Transportation and Processing Protocols and mandatory Culture Collection Protocol as the first specimen to be collected from the patient before the commencement of antimicrobials. These SOPs should be circulated to all the clinical departments involved in patient care time to time.

94.71 ± 10.68

100.00 (100.00–100.00)

70.00–100.00

89.22–100.19

High

13

The Hospital should ensure that at least Automated Culture, Identification, and Susceptibility equipment are present, which can provide MIC values, with Breakpoint to MIC Quotients whenever and wherever possible.

75.59 ± 34.99

100.00 (70.00–100.00)

0.00–100.00

57.60–93.58

High

14

The hospital should ensure proper supply chain management to avoid break in the Diagnostic Services.

77.35 ± 25.50

80.00 (80.00–100.00)

0.00–100.00

64.24–90.47

High

15

The Laboratory must have a documented policy to communicate Preliminary Grams stain findings and relevant critical alert reports and Test Interpretation must be communicated within specified turnaround time.

83.82 ± 29.02

100.00 (80.00–100.00)

0.00–100.00

68.90–98.75

High

16

The Laboratory must ensure that advisory footnotes, interpretation, and knowledge dissemination on Intrinsic resistance are communicated in the report.

95.00 ± 13.69

100.00 (100.00–100.00)

50.00–100.00

87.96–102.04

High

17

Wherever possible the Laboratory should ensure that Personalized AST Reporting including MIC values with breakpoints (R/I/S) is being performed especially in critically ill patients.

76.76 ± 34.59

100.00 (50.00–100.00)

0.00–100.00

58.98–94.55

High

18

The Clinical Microbiology Diagnostic Laboratory should employ rapid diagnostic tests, molecular or phenotypic, for detecting resistance mechanisms (like CRE, MRSA, ESBL, etc) so as to provide directed treatment.

47.55 ± 42.67

50.00 (0.00–100.00)

0.00–100.00

25.61–69.49

Low

C.

   

Infection Prevention & Control Practices – Practice Points

19

The hospital should have a functional HICC, with full-time appointed infection control officers and infection control nurses along with their roles and responsibilities.

92.06 ± 24.43

100.00 (100.00–100.00)

0.00–100.00

79.50–104.62

High

20

The hospital should adopt national guidelines and prepare a hospital-specific hospital infection control policy document.

94.71 ± 11.25

100.00 (100.00–100.00)

60.00–100.00

88.92–100.49

High

21

The hospital should conduct HICC meetings regularly (e.g. Monthly/quarterly).

91.76 ± 14.57

100.00 (80.00–100.00)

50.00–100.00

84.27–99.26

High

22

The hospital should conduct a hand hygiene audit on a monthly basis at least in all critical areas. The reports should be communicated to the respective departments.

91.18 ± 16.44

100.00 (90.00–100.00)

50.00–100.00

82.72–99.63

High

23

The hospital should conduct a biomedical waste segregation audit regularly.

90.29 ± 17.36

100.00 (90.00–100.00)

50.00–100.00

81.37–99.22

High

24

The hospital should conduct care bundle audits on a monthly basis at least in all critical areas.

71.18 ± 34.75

80.00 (50.00–100.00)

0.00–100.00

53.31–89.05

Moderate

25

The hospital should conduct HAI surveillance on a monthly basis at least in all critical areas along with root cause analysis and CAPA.

62.65 ± 36.23

70.00 (40.00–100.00)

0.00–100.00

44.02–81.28

Moderate

26

The hospital should have a needle-stick injury prevention and management program through NSI surveillance.

95.00 ± 12.25

100.00 (100.00–100.00)

55.00–100.00

88.70–101.30

High

27

The hospital should have a policy that specifies adhering to adult vaccinations by HCWs.

63.24 ± 40.35

70.00 (50.00–100.00)

0.00–100.00

42.49–83.98

Moderate

28

The hospital should provide hepatitis B vaccine to all HCWs including the temporary staff and students and check anti-HB titers subsequently.

66.47 ± 38.03

80.00 (50.00–100.00)

0.00–100.00

46.92–86.02

Moderate

29

The hospital should perform environmental disinfection according to standard CDC/NABH/Kayakalp/other guidelines regularly.

86.76 ± 24.43

100.00 (85.00–100.00)

20.00–100.00

74.21–99.32

High

30

The hospital should have an updated policy that specifies dealing with locally transmitted infections including MDRs.

56.18 ± 42.34

50.00 (0.00–100.00)

0.00–100.00

34.41–77.94

Moderate

D.

   

Antimicrobial Stewardship Practices – Practice Points

31

The hospital should set various methods of monitoring by the pharmacologist or pharmacist for ensuring rational antimicrobial use.

48.53 ± 39.83

50.00 (0.00–100.00)

0.00–100.00

28.05–69.01

Low

32

The AMS Committee should perform antimicrobial prescription audit in all critical areas, whole hospitals preferably, and inform the report to clinicians regularly.

39.71 ± 37.69

50.00 (0.00–60.00)

0.00–100.00

20.33–59.08

Low

33

Specific teams should perform prospective audits and feedbacks for specific antimicrobial agents regularly.

30.59 ± 34.86

25.00 (0.00–40.00)

0.00–100.00

12.66–48.51

Low

34

Preauthorization of restricted antimicrobial agents for specific infections should be done.

22.06 ± 31.08

0.00 (0.00–40.00)

0.00–100.00

6.08–38.04

Low

35

The hospital should have practicing documents on PK/PD of specific antimicrobial agents.

23.53 ± 35.87

0.00 (0.00–50.00)

0.00–100.00

5.09–41.97

Low

36

The hospital should have updated facility-specific ID treatment recommendations, based on national guidelines and local antibiograms, preferably once a year.

60.59 ± 45.75

100.00 (0.00–100.00)

0.00–100.00

37.06–84.11

Moderate

37

The hospital should have a policy that requires prescribers to document in the medical record or during order entry – dose (including loading dose), creatinine clearance, route, duration, stop date, and indication for all antimicrobial prescriptions.

31.47 ± 41.45

0.00 (0.00–80.00)

0.00–100.00

10.16–52.78

Low

38

The hospital should have a policy that specifies IV to oral switch practices.

30.00 ± 40.27

0.00 (0.00–65.00)

0.00–100.00

9.29–50.71

Low

39

The hospital should have a policy that specifies antimicrobials timeout practices.

28.53 ± 43.00

0.00 (0.00–80.00)

0.00–100.00

6.42–50.64

Low

40

The hospital should have a policy that specifies antimicrobials ADR/SAE reporting’ practices along with root cause analysis and CAPA.

62.65 ± 38.65

60.00 (50.00–100.00)

0.00–100.00

42.77–82.52

Moderate

41

The hospital should have a policy that specifies OPAT practices.

22.06 ± 39.41

0.00 (0.00–25.00)

0.00–100.00

1.80–42.32

Low

42

The hospital should track (record, review and report) on antimicrobial use on a regular basis, may be through DOT and AWaRe uses, and if required report to national or state authorities.

45.00 ± 45.28

40.00 (0.00–100.00)

0.00–100.00

21.72–68.28

Low

“To provide additional information on the distribution and precision of the implementation scores, median (IQR), minimum–maximum range, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were additionally assessed. At the domain level, administrative practices had a mean implementation score of 66.34 ± 19.96% (95% CI, 56.08–76.60%), with a median of 65.00% (IQR, 54.00–75.00%) and a range of 32.00–100.00%. Diagnostic stewardship practices had a mean score of 81.76 ± 11.93% (95% CI, 75.62–87.89%), with a median of 83.08% (IQR, 71.54–89.62%) and a range of 56.92–100.00%. Infection prevention and control practices had a mean score of 80.12 ± 13.59% (95% CI, 73.14–87.11%), with a median of 76.67% (IQR, 74.17–90.00%) and a range of 57.08–100.00%. Antimicrobial stewardship practices had a mean score of 37.06 ± 28.11% (95% CI, 22.60–51.51%), with a median of 33.33% (IQR, 15.00–58.33%) and a range of 0.00–95.83%.

Implementation was assessed on a 0–100% scale. Mean ± SD, median (IQR), minimum–maximum range, and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean are presented. The 95% CI was calculated using the t-distribution (n= 17 participating institutions; df = 16 (n-1)). Implementation categories were defined as High (≥75%), Moderate (50–74%), and Low (<50%) according to the SASPI framework.” Supplementary Table 3: Institution-wise implementation to the four domains of the SASPI 42-point IAS Practice Statement. Each row represents a participating institution, with implementation of the four domains categorized as High (≥75%), Moderate (50–74%), or Low (<50%) based on the mean adherence score for the respective domain. The table demonstrates variation in domain-level implementation across participating institutions.

S.No.

Participating institute

Administrative  

Diagnostic Stewardship Practices 

Infection Prevention & Control Practices

Antimicrobial Stewardship Practices 

Overall implementation

1.

AIIMS, 

New Delhi

Moderate 69.3%

High

96.0%

High

80.4%

Moderate

63.3%

High

77.3%

2.

JIPMER, Puducherry

Moderate

54.0%

High

86.9%

High

76.7%

Low

33.8%

Moderate

62.8%

3.

PGIMER, Chandigarh

High

100.0%

High

89.6%

High

75.0%

High

77.5%

High

85.5%

4.

JNMC, Aligarh

Moderate

58.0%

High

80.0%

High

90.0%

Low

33.3%

Moderate

65.3%

5.

NEIGRIHMS, Shillong

Moderate

60.0%

Moderate

71.2%

High

83.3%

Low

20.8%

Moderate

58.8%

6.

MNRMCH, Sangareddy

High

75.0%

Moderate

71.2%

Moderate

57.1%

Low

12.1%

Moderate

53.8%

7.

AIIMS, Jodhpur

High

94.0%

High

100.0%

High

100.0%

High

95.8%

High

97.5%

8.

AIIMS, Raipur

Moderate

65.0%

Moderate

69.2%

High

100.0%

Low

33.3%

Moderate

66.9%

9.

AIIMS, Rishikesh

Moderate

66.0%

High

83.1%

High

75.8%

Moderate

58.3%

Moderate

70.8%

10.

Shridevi IMSRH, Karnataka

High

91.0%

High

83.8%

High

100.0%

Moderate

71.7%

High

86.6%

11.

AIIMS, Nagpur

High

95.5%

High

100.0%

High

97.9%

Moderate

54.2%

High

86.9%

12.

AIIMS, Bathinda

Low

32.0%

High

77.7%

Moderate

65.0%

Low

23.3%

Low

49.5%

13.

AIIMS, Gorakhpur

Moderate

51.0%

High

89.2%

Moderate

71.7%

Low

0.0%

Moderate

53.0%

14.

AIIMS, Bibinagar

Low

40.0%

Moderate

71.5%

Moderate

60.0%

Low

20.8%

Low

48.1%

15.

AIIMS, Deoghar

Low

46.0%

Moderate

56.9%

High

76.7%

Low

12.5%

Low

48.0%

16.

AIIMS, Jammu

Moderate

74.0%

High

90.0%

Moderate

74.2%

Low

4.2%

Moderate

60.6%

17.

AIIMS, Guwahati

Moderate

57.0%

Moderate

73.5%

High

78.3%

Low

15.0%

Moderate

55.9%

“

 

Submit a Manuscript:

                                                                                                                                 

                                                                                                                                                

 Copyright © Author(s) 2026. JASPI- Journal of Antimicrobial Stewardship Practices and Infectious Diseases.

Share and Enjoy !

Shares
Scroll to Top
If you are interested in joining as a reviewer for JASPI
This is default text for notification bar