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