Nurses’ and Physicians’ Responses to a New Active Antimicrobial Stewardship Program: A Two-Phase Study of Responses and Their Underlying Perceptions and Values

Document Type : Original Article


1 Department of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel

2 Faculty of Medicine, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel

3 School of Business Administration, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel


Successful implementation of an antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) depends on staff members’ response to it. We introduced at the Hadassah Medical Center in Israel a significant change to our long-standing handshake ASP. As before, the new ASP involved a dialogue between the treating physician and the infectious disease physician over the appropriate antibiotic therapy. The main change was that the infectious disease physician’s decision was now integrated into the patient’s electronic medical record (EMR). Our purpose in this study was to uncover the concerns and expectations of physicians and nurses towards the new ASP, before and after its implementation, and link these with their basic perceptions of the ASP and their personal values.

We used open-ended questions and Likert-type scales to study staff members’ personal values, basic perceptions of the new system, and attitudes towards it, both before (N = 143), and one year after (N = 103) the system’s implementation. Relationships of the system’s perceptions and personal values with attitudes toward the system were tested using correlations and multiple regression analyses.

Prior to its implementation, physicians and nurses had multiple concerns about the new ASP’s demandingness and inefficiency and its threat to physicians’ autonomy and expertise. They also had positive expectations for benefits to the hospital, the patients and society. A year later, following the system’s implementation, concerns dissipated, whereas the perceived benefits remained. Moreover, staff members’ attitudes tended to be more positive among those who value conformity.

Introducing new ASPs is a challenging process. Our findings suggest that hospital staff ’s initial concerns about the new ASP were primarily about its ease of use and demandingness. These concerns, which diminished over time, were linked with perceived satisfaction with the system. Conformity values had an indirect effect in predicting satisfaction with the system, mediated by perceptions of the system as straightforward.


  1. Birgand G, Castro-Sánchez E, Hansen S, et al. Comparison of governance approaches for the control of antimicrobial resistance: analysis of three European countries. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2018;7:28. doi:1186/s13756-018-0321-5
  2. Owens RC Jr. Antimicrobial stewardship: concepts and strategies in the 21st century. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2008;61(1):110-128. doi:1016/j.diagmicrobio.2008.02.012
  3. Barlam TF, Cosgrove SE, Abbo LM, et al. Implementing an antibiotic stewardship program: guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;62(10):e51-77. doi:1093/cid/ciw118
  4. Baker DW, Hyun D, Neuhauser MM, Bhatt J, Srinivasan A. Leading practices in antimicrobial stewardship: conference summary. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2019;45(7):517-523. doi:1016/j.jcjq.2019.04.006
  5. Bartunek JM, Rousseau DM, Rudolph JW, DePalma JA. On the receiving end: sensemaking, emotion, and assessments of an organizational change initiated by others. J Appl Behav Sci. 2006;42(2):182-206. doi:1177/0021886305285455
  6. Charani E, Ahmad R, Rawson TM, Castro-Sanchèz E, Tarrant C, Holmes AH. The differences in antibiotic decision-making between acute surgical and acute medical teams: an ethnographic study of culture and team dynamics. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;69(1):12-20. doi:1093/cid/ciy844
  7. Szymczak JE. Are surgeons different? The case for bespoke antimicrobial stewardship. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;69(1):21-23. doi:1093/cid/ciy847
  8. Broom J, Broom A, Plage S, Adams K, Post JJ. Barriers to uptake of antimicrobial advice in a UK hospital: a qualitative study. J Hosp Infect. 2016;93(4):418-422. doi:1016/j.jhin.2016.03.011
  9. Sikkens JJ, van Agtmael MA, Peters EJG, et al. Behavioral approach to appropriate antimicrobial prescribing in hospitals: the Dutch Unique Method for Antimicrobial Stewardship (DUMAS) participatory intervention study. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(8):1130-1138. doi:1001/jamainternmed.2017.0946
  10. Cosgrove SE, Seo SK, Bolon MK, et al. Evaluation of postprescription review and feedback as a method of promoting rational antimicrobial use: a multicenter intervention. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2012;33(4):374-380. doi:1086/664771
  11. Arieli S, Sagiv L, Roccas S. Values at work: the impact of personal values in organisations. Appl Psychol. 2020;69(2):230-275. doi:10.1111/apps.12181
  12. Sagiv L, Schwartz SH. Personal values across cultures. Annu Rev Psychol. 2022;73:517-546. doi:1146/annurev-psych-020821-125100
  13. Rzewuska M, Charani E, Clarkson JE, et al. Prioritizing research areas for antibiotic stewardship programmes in hospitals: a behavioural perspective consensus paper. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019;25(2):163-168. doi:1016/j.cmi.2018.08.020
  14. van den Bergh D, Brink A. A commitment and call to strengthen and expand qualitative research efforts to improve the impact of antimicrobial stewardship. JAC Antimicrob Resist. 2021;3(4):dlab151. doi:1093/jacamr/dlab151
  15. Schwartz SH. Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In: Zanna MP, ed. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol 25. San Diego: Academic Press; 1992:1-65. doi:1016/s0065-2601(08)60281-6
  16. Oreg S, Edwards JA, Rauthmann JF. The situation six: uncovering six basic dimensions of psychological situations from the Hebrew language. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2020;118(4):835-863. doi:1037/pspp0000280
  17. Sekerdej M, Roccas S. Love versus loving criticism: disentangling conventional and constructive patriotism. Br J Soc Psychol. 2016;55(3):499-521. doi:1111/bjso.12142
  18. Sagiv L, Roccas S, Cieciuch J, Schwartz SH. Personal values in human life. Nat Hum Behav. 2017;1(9):630-639. doi:1038/s41562-017-0185-3
  19. Stemler S. An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. 2000;7(17). Available at:
  20. Hayes AF. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2020.
  21. Duncan EM, Charani E, Clarkson JE, et al. A behavioural approach to specifying interventions: what insights can be gained for the reporting and implementation of interventions to reduce antibiotic use in hospitals? J Antimicrob Chemother. 2020;75(5):1338-1346. doi:1093/jac/dkaa001
  22. Donisi V, Sibani M, Carrara E, et al. Emotional, cognitive and social factors of antimicrobial prescribing: can antimicrobial stewardship intervention be effective without addressing psycho-social factors? J Antimicrob Chemother. 2019;74(10):2844-2847. doi:1093/jac/dkz308
  23. MacBrayne CE, Williams MC, Levek C, et al. Sustainability of handshake stewardship: extending a hand is effective years later. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;70(11):2325-2332. doi:1093/cid/ciz650
  24. Evans B, Kosar J, Peermohamed S. Attitudes and perceptions amongst critical care physicians towards handshake antimicrobial stewardship rounds. Cureus. 2019;11(12):e6419. doi:7759/cureus.6419
  25. Moghnieh R, Awad L, Abdallah D, et al. Effect of a "handshake" stewardship program versus a formulary restriction policy on High-End antibiotic use, expenditure, antibiotic resistance, and patient outcome. J Chemother. 2020;32(7):368-384. doi:1080/1120009x.2020.1755589
  26. Oreg S, Goldenberg J. Resistance to Innovation: Its Sources and Manifestations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2015.
  27. Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. 4th ed. New York: Simon & Schuster; 2010.
  28. Sverdlik N, Oreg S. Personal values and conflicting motivational forces in the context of imposed change. J Pers. 2009;77(5):1437-1465. doi:1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00588.x
Volume 11, Issue 12
December 2022
Pages 2982-2989
  • Receive Date: 26 June 2021
  • Revise Date: 07 May 2022
  • Accept Date: 08 May 2022
  • First Publish Date: 09 May 2022