Setting up an interprofessional team for antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) to improve the quality and safety of antimicrobial use in primary care is essential but challenging. This study aimed to investigate the convergent and divergent attitudes and views of general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists (CPs) about AMS implementation and their perceived challenges of collaboration to design a GP–pharmacist collaborative AMS (GPPAS) model. Nationwide surveys of GPs and CPs across Australia were conducted January-October 2019. Chi square statistics and a theoretical framework were used for comparative analyses of quantitative and qualitative data, respectively. In total, 999 participants responded to the surveys with 15.4% (n = 386) response rates for GPs and 30.7% (n = 613) for CPs. GPs and CPs were aware about AMS however their interprofessional perceptions varied to the benefits of AMS programs. CPs indicated that they would need AMS training; significantly higher than GPs (GP vs. CP; 46.4% vs. 76.5%; p < 0.0001). GPs’ use of the Therapeutic Guideline Antibiotic was much higher than CPs (83.2% vs. 45.5%; p < 0.0001). No interprofessional difference was found in the very-limited use of patient information leaflets (p < 0.1162) and point-of-care tests (p < 0.7848). While CPs were more willing (p < 0.0001) to collaborate with GPs, both groups were convergent in views that policies that support GP–CP collaboration are needed to implement GPPAS strategies. GP–pharmacist collaborative group meetings (54.9% vs. 82.5%) and antimicrobial audit (46.1% vs. 86.5%) models were inter-professionally supported to optimise antimicrobial therapy, but an attitudinal divergence was significant (p < 0.001). The challenges towards GP–CP collaboration in AMS were identified by both at personal, logistical and organisational environment level. There are opportunities for GP–CP collaboration to improve AMS in Australian primary care. However, strengthening GP–pharmacy collaborative system structure and practice agreements is a priority to improve interprofessional trust, competencies, and communications for AMS and to establish a GPPAS model in future.

中文翻译：

---

全科医生和社区药剂师在澳大利亚共同实施抗菌素管理计划的态度和观点存在分歧和分歧：一项全国性研究

建立一支抗菌素管理专业团队以提高初级保健中抗菌素使用的质量和安全性是必不可少的，但也具有挑战性。这项研究旨在调查全科医生（GP）和社区药剂师（CP）关于AMS实施及其在设计GP-药剂师协作AMS（GPPAS）模型方面的协作挑战方面的趋同和分歧观点。2019年1月至10月在全国范围内对澳大利亚的GP和CP进行了调查。卡方统计和理论框架分别用于定量和定性数据的比较分析。总共999名参与者对问卷的回答为GP的15.4％（n = 386），回应率为30.7％（n= 613）。GP和CP都知道AMS，但是他们的跨专业看法因AMS计划的好处而异。CP表示他们将需要AMS培训；显着高于GP（GP vs. CP; 46.4％vs. 76.5％; p <0.0001）。全科医生对治疗指南抗生素的使用远高于全科医生（分别为83.2％和45.5％；p <0.0001）。在非常有限地使用患者信息传单（p <0.1162）和即时护理测试（p <0.7848）时，没有发现专业间差异。尽管CP的人更愿意（p<0.0001）与GP进行协作，这两个小组的观点一致，即实施GPPAS策略需要支持GP-CP协作的策略。专业间支持GP-药剂师协作小组会议（54.9％vs. 82.5％）和抗菌药物审核（46.1％vs. 86.5％）模型来优化抗菌药物治疗，但态度差异很大（p<0.001）。在个人，后勤和组织环境层面都确定了AMS中GP-CP协作所面临的挑战。GP-CP合作有机会改善澳大利亚初级保健中的AMS。但是，加强GP-药房协作系统的结构和实践协议是提高AMS跨行业信任，能力和沟通并在将来建立GPPAS模型的优先事项。