Appraisal of the Australian Veterinary Prescribing Guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery in dogs and cats

• Published in: Australian veterinary journal Vol. 97; no. 9; pp. 316 - 322
• Main Authors: Hardefeldt, LY, Crabb, HK, Bailey, KE, Johnstone, T, Gilkerson, JR, Billman‐Jacobe, H, Browning, GF
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Melbourne Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 01-09-2019; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• Subjects: Animals; Anti-Bacterial Agents - therapeutic use; antibiotic; Antibiotic Prophylaxis - methods; Antibiotic Prophylaxis - veterinary; Antimicrobial agents; Antimicrobial Stewardship; Attitude of Health Personnel; Australia; Cats; companion animals; Dogs; Evaluation; Guidelines; Humans; Medical personnel; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Prophylaxis; resistance; Surgeons; Surgery; Surgery, Veterinary - methods; Veterinarians; Veterinarians - psychology; Veterinary surgeons; Australia; antibiotic; Antimicrobial stewardship; companion animals; resistance
• ISSN: 0005-0423; 1751-0813
• DOI: 10.1111/avj.12848

The Australian Veterinary Prescribing Guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery on dogs and cats are evidence‐based guidelines for veterinary practitioners. Validation of these guidelines is necessary to ensure quality and implementability. Two validated tools, used for medical guideline appraisal, were chosen to assess the guidelines. The terminology from the GuideLine Implementability Appraisal (GLIA) and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation version 2 (AGREE II) were adapted for use by veterinarians. A two‐phase evaluation approach was conducted. In the first phase of the evaluation, the GLIA tool was used by two specialist veterinary surgeons in clinical practice. The results of this phase were then used to modify the guidelines. In the second phase, the AGREE II tool was used by 6 general practitioners and 6 specialists to appraise the guidelines. In phase 1, the specialist surgeons either agreed or strongly agreed that the guidelines were executable, decidable, valid and novel, and that the guidelines would fit within the process of care. The surgeons were neutral on flexibility and measurability. Additional clarity around one common surgical procedure was added to the guidelines, after which the surgeons agreed that the guidelines were sufficiently flexible. In phase 2, 12 veterinarians completed the assessment using the AGREE II tool. In all sections the scaled domain score was greater than 70%. The overall quality of the guidelines was given a global scaled score of 76%. This assessment has demonstrated that the guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis for companion animal surgery are valid and appear implementable.