Abstract
Objectives
In 2017, a Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Programs (RCPAQAP) laboratory survey demonstrated suboptimal antimicrobial susceptibility reporting practices. In response, the RCPA published Selective Reporting of Antimicrobials Guidelines to support selective and cascade reporting of antimicrobials. We sought to revisit laboratory antimicrobial reporting practices since these guidelines were published.
Materials and methods
We carried out a repeat of the laboratory survey in 2023 and compared results to the previous 2017 report. We also studied antimicrobial reporting practices from two routine external quality assurance (EQA) samples dispatched by the RCPAQAP.
Results
In 2023, compared with 2017, there was an overall improvement in selective reporting and a reduction in reporting of antibiotics inappropriate for bacteraemia. For a fully susceptible Escherichia coli in blood cultures, fewer laboratories over-reported antibiotics [29/62 (47%) and 55/84 (65%), respectively, P = 0.03] or reported ciprofloxacin [13/55 (24%) and 41/73 (56%), respectively, P = 0.03]. Similarly, for a fully susceptible E. coli in urine, fewer laboratories reported amoxicillin-clavulanate [15/57 (26%) and 44/90 (49%), respectively, P = 0.006] and ciprofloxacin [6/51 (12%) and 12/57 (21%), respectively, P = 0.21]. For a wild-type Klebsiella pneumoniae in blood culture, fewer laboratories reported inappropriate antibiotics for bacteraemia [11/94 (12%) and 1/62 (2%), P = 0.02].
Conclusions
We demonstrate an improvement in selective antimicrobial reporting following the publication of national antimicrobial reporting guidelines for laboratories, but opportunities for further improvement and standardization remain. This work is encouraging and highlights how microbiology laboratories can be supported to contribute to antimicrobial stewardship efforts.
Introduction
Selective reporting of antimicrobial susceptibilities intentionally limits which susceptible antimicrobials are reported to the clinician, such as those with an unnecessary broad spectrum of activity. Published literature shows that selective reporting can influence prescribing practice, reduce antimicrobial usage and decrease antimicrobial resistance rates,1–7 and the practice is widely recommended.8–14
A 2017 Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Programmes (RCPAQAP) survey of Australian and Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ) laboratories identified deficiencies in selective reporting. Ninety-four laboratories responded to this survey in 2017, with 65% (55/84) of laboratories over-reporting at least one antimicrobial for a fully susceptible Escherichia coli in blood culture and 12% (10/84) reporting antimicrobials inappropriate for bacteraemia.15 In response, the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (RCPA) published the 2019 RCPA Selective Reporting of Antimicrobials Guidelines,16,17 later adapted and published by the New Zealand National Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Committee (NZNAC) for the NZ context.18,19 At the time, these were the first national selective reporting implementation guidelines of this type in the world.16,20
In view of the importance of selective reporting to support antimicrobial stewardship (AMS), we sought to revisit practices since the publication of the guidelines. We did this by repeating the 2017 survey in 2023, and also by interrogating antimicrobial reporting practices from two routine external quality assurance (EQA) samples dispatched by the RCPAQAP.
Materials and methods
Part 1: Antimicrobial Reporting Questionnaire
In 2023, Australian and NZ laboratories enrolled in the RCPAQAP bacteriology EQA were invited to respond to an electronic questionnaire. Questions were as previously published.1 Briefly, laboratories were asked to indicate which antibiotics, from a provided list, were reported for a fully susceptible E. coli in blood cultures, a fully susceptible E. coli in urine and a Klebsiella pneumoniae only resistant to ampicillin/amoxicillin in blood cultures. Laboratories were also asked to indicate whether they used EUCAST, CLSI, Calibrated Dichotomous Sensitivity (CDS) breakpoints (or a combination thereof) and if selective/cascade reporting principles were followed.
Contradictory duplicate entries for a given laboratory were removed while concordant duplicate responses were consolidated into a single response. The two-proportion z-test or Fisher’s exact test was used to calculate statistical significance for differences in the proportion of laboratories reporting an antibiotic in 2017 compared with 2023.
Definitions
Definitions of over-reporting and inappropriate reporting were as stated previously, although norfloxacin was not included as a reporting option in the 2023 questionnaire.1
Inappropriate reporting was defined as reporting of antimicrobials not appropriate for the site of infection. For isolates in blood cultures we defined this as reporting of cefalexin, nitrofurantoin or trimethoprim as these antimicrobials do not generally achieve sufficient blood levels to adequately treat bacteraemia.13
Over-reporting was defined as reporting of broad-spectrum antimicrobials on isolates susceptible to narrow-spectrum antimicrobials. We defined ‘ideal’ reporting for a fully susceptible E. coli in blood cultures as reporting of ampicillin/amoxicillin, cefazolin/ceftriaxone/cefuroxime, gentamicin and co-trimoxazole with additional reporting of amoxicillin/clavulanate or ampicillin/sulbactam if the blood culture isolate was K. pneumoniae. For a fully susceptible E. coli in urine we considered reporting of ampicillin/amoxicillin, cefalexin, gentamicin, nitrofurantoin and trimethoprim as ideal. Over-reporting was defined as reporting any antibiotic not considered ‘ideal’.
Part 2: RCPAQAP EQA dispatch
The RCPAQAP EQA electronic results portal requires laboratories to enter antimicrobial susceptibility results as well as indicate which are reported to the clinician. We collated routine reporting practices for two EQA isolates dispatched in 2023 (a fully susceptible E. coli in urine) and 2025 (amoxicillin/ampicillin resistant K. pneumoniae in blood culture) to determine the proportion of participants testing and reporting to the clinician a range of antimicrobials.
Results
Part 1: Antimicrobial Reporting Questionnaire
The electronic questionnaire was distributed to 156 RCPAQAP enrolled laboratories, with an overall response rate of 40% (62/156). Fifty (81%) responses were from Australia and 12 (19%) were from NZ.
For all scenarios combined, fewer laboratories over-reported at least one antibiotic in 2023 compared with 2017 [73% (45/62) and 82% (77/94), respectively, P = 0.25]. Similarly, for a fully susceptible E. coli in blood cultures, fewer laboratories over-reported antibiotics in 2023 compared with 2017 [47% (29/62) and 65% (55/84) respectively, P = 0.03] and fewer laboratories performing testing for amoxicillin-clavulanate, ciprofloxacin, piperacillin-tazobactam and meropenem reported these results (Table 1).
Table 1.
Comparison of laboratories reporting antimicrobials in 2017 and 2023
| Scenario | Antibiotic | Number (%) of laboratories testing and reporting the antibiotic | P value (comparing 2017 with 2023) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | 2023 | |||
| Fully susceptible E. coli in blood culture |
Amoxicillin/ampicillin | 82/82 (100%) | 58/59 (98%) | 0.32 |
| Amoxicillin/clavulanate | 31/79 (39%) | 16/58 (28%) | 0.18 | |
| Ceftriaxone | 41/73 (56%) | 28/54 (52%) | 0.67 | |
| Ciprofloxacin | 33/79 (42%) | 13/55 (24%) | 0.03 | |
| Co-trimoxazole | 41/69 (59%) | 36/54 (67%) | 0.34 | |
| Piperacillin/tazobactam | 24/69 (35%) | 11/54 (20%) | 0.07 | |
| Meropenem | 10/65 (15%) | 5/56 (9%) | 0.44 | |
| Nitrofurantoin | 0 | 0 | n/a | |
| Trimethoprim | 2/41 (5%) | 1/29 (3%) | 1.0 | |
| Over-reported antibiotics | 55/84 (65%) | 29/62 (47%) | 0.03 | |
| Inappropriate reporting | 6/94 (6%) | 3/62 (5%) | 0.68 | |
| Fully susceptible E. coli in urine |
Amoxicillin/ampicillin | 92/93 (99%) | 57/58 (98%) | 1.0 |
| Amoxicillin/clavulanate | 44/90 (49%) | 15/57 (26%) | 0.006 | |
| Trimethoprim | 91/92 (99%) | 55/57 (96%) | 0.31 | |
| Nitrofurantoin | 80/87 (92%) | 53/55 (96%) | 0.41 | |
| Cefalexin | 64/65 (98%) | 44/45 (98%) | 1.0 | |
| Ciprofloxacin | 12/57 (21%) | 6/51 (12%) | 0.21 | |
| Co-trimoxazole | 16/37 (43%) | 7/29 (24%) | 0.14 | |
| Piperacillin/tazobactam | 1/32 (3%) | 1/59 (2%) | 1.0 | |
| Meropenem | 1/37 (3%) | 0/34 | 1.0 | |
| Over-reported antibiotics | 59/94 (63%) | 32/62 (52%) | 0.15 | |
| K. pneumoniae in blood culture, resistant to only ampicillin/amoxicillin | Amoxicillin/ampicillin | 80/81 (99%) | 56/58 (97%) | 0.56 |
| Amoxicillin/clavulanate | 63/80 (79%) | 51/57 (89%) | 0.14 | |
| Ceftriaxone | 42/73 (58%) | 33/55 (60%) | 0.83 | |
| Ciprofloxacin | 35/81 (43%) | 17/56 (30%) | 0.10 | |
| Co-trimoxazole | 41/68 (60%) | 36/53 (68%) | 0.34 | |
| Piperacillin/tazobactam | 28/71 (39%) | 16/52 (31%) | 0.34 | |
| Meropenem | 9/65 (14%) | 3/58 (5%) | 0.13 | |
| Nitrofurantoin | 2/30 (7%) | 0/25 (0%) | 0.50 | |
| Trimethoprim | 6/39 (15%) | 1/29 (3%) | 0.21 | |
| Over-reported antibiotics | 54/94 (57%) | 28/62 (45%) | 0.14 | |
| Inappropriately reported antibiotics | 11/94 (12%) | 1/62 (2%) | 0.02 | |
For a fully susceptible E. coli in urine, fewer laboratories over-reported antibiotics in 2023 compared with 2017 [52% (32/62) and 63% (59/94) respectively, P = 0.15], and reporting rates for amoxicillin-clavulanate, ciprofloxacin and co-trimoxazole also decreased (Table 1).
Similarly, for the K. pneumoniae in blood culture, fewer laboratories unnecessarily reported broad-spectrum antibiotics such as ciprofloxacin, piperacillin-tazobactam and meropenem, while more laboratories reported amoxicillin-clavulanate and co-trimoxazole (Table 1).
Overall, 3/62 (5%) laboratories reported one or more antimicrobials considered inappropriate for the treatment of bacteraemia in 2023, namely cefalexin and trimethoprim, compared with 10/84 (12%) in 2017, P = 0.24.
None of the laboratories over-reporting ciprofloxacin or meropenem, and only one laboratory over-reporting piperacillin-tazobactam, were from NZ.
For a full list of submitted responses for each antibiotic, see Supplementary Table S1 (available as Supplementary data at JAC-AMR Online).
Susceptibility testing method
In 2023, 26% (16/62) of responding laboratories used CLSI breakpoints, 44% (27/62) used EUCAST and 8% (5/62) used CDS; the remaining 22% (14/62) used a hybrid of these methods. This reflects a shift from CLSI towards EUCAST, and a decline in the use of CDS across Australian laboratories, since 2017. Only one laboratory (2%) indicated that selective/cascade reporting was not in use, compared with 8/94 (9%) in 2017 (P = 0.08), and this same laboratory over-reported meropenem for two of the three scenarios.
Part 2: RCPAQAP microbiology external quality assurance (EQA) surveys
In 2023, 136 Australian and NZ laboratories participated in an RCPAQAP urine dispatch which included a fully susceptible E. coli (117 Australian, 19 NZ). Eleven laboratories (11/31, 35%) indicated they would test, and report, ciprofloxacin compared with 122/125 (98%), 124/128 (97%) and 103/110 (94%) for amoxicillin, trimethoprim and nitrofurantoin, respectively (table 2). Reporting for the EQA urine dispatch was similar to reporting in the questionnaire with two exceptions (where reporting rates were reported to be lower in the questionnaire than for the EQA): amoxicillin-clavulanate and gentamicin. Only one laboratory tested and reported meropenem.
Table 2.
Antibiotics tested and reported in RCPAQAP EQA dispatches compared to the responses to the 2023 questionnaire
| Antibiotic | Fully susceptible E. coli in urine | K. pneumoniae in blood culture only resistant to ampicillin/amoxicillin | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RCPAQAP 2023 urine EQA dispatch | RCPAQAP 2023 questionnaire | RCPAQAP 2025 blood culture EQA dispatch | RCPAQAP 2023 questionnaire | |||||
| No. (%) tested | Tested and reported (%) | Tested and reported (%) | P value | No. (%) tested | Tested and reported (%) | Tested and reported (%) | P value | |
| Ampicillin/amoxicillin | 125/136 (92%) | 122/125 (98%) | 57/58 (98%) | 0.816 | 96/100 (96%) | 95/96 (99%) | 56/58 (97%) | 0.37 |
| Amoxicillin-clavulanate | 91/136 (67%) | 56/91 (62%) | 15/57 (26%) | <0.001 | 87/100 (87%) | 82/87 (94%) | 51/56 (91%) | 0.48 |
| Cefalexin | 94/136 (69%) | 91/94 (97%) | 44/45 (98%) | 0.81 | 1/100 (1%) | 1/1 (100%) | 1/10 (2%) | n/a |
| Ceftriaxone | — | — | — | — | 69/100 (69%) | 60/69 (87%) | 33/55 (60%) | <0.001 |
| Ciprofloxacin | 31/136 (23%) | 11/31 (35%) | 6/51 (12%) | 0.012 | 63/100 (63%) | 50/63 (79%) | 17/56 (30%) | <0.001 |
| Fosfomycin | 1/136 (0.7%) | 0/1 | 0/59 | N/A | — | — | — | — |
| Gentamicin | 86/136 (63%) | 80/86 (93%) | 34/59 (58%) | <0.001 | 93/100 (93%) | 84/93 (90%) | 50/56 (89%) | 0.84 |
| Meropenem | 13/136 (10%) | 1/13 (8%) | 0/34 | 0.29 | 38/100 (38%) | 18/38 (47%) | 3/58 (5%) | <0.001 |
| Nitrofurantoin | 110/136 (81%) | 103/110 (94%) | 53/55 (96%) | 0.55 | 3/100 (3%) | 0/3 | 0/25 | N/A |
| Piperacillin-tazobactam | 9/136 (6%) | 1/9 (11%) | 1/59 (2%) | 0.22 | 44/100 (44%) | 29/44 (66%) | 16/52 (31%) | <0.001 |
| Trimethoprim | 128/136 (94%) | 124/128 (97%) | 55/57 (96%) | 0.9 | 6/100 (6%) | 2/6 (33%) | 1/29 (3%) | n/a |
| Over-reported antibiotics | — | 70/136 (51%) | 32/62 (52%) | 0.99 | — | 62/100 (62%) | 28/62 45% | 0.036 |
| Inappropriately reported antibiotics | — | N/A | N/A | — | 2/100 (2%) | 1/62 (2%) | 0.85 | |
For the 2025 RCPAQAP blood culture dispatch, which included a K. pneumoniae isolate resistant only to amoxicillin, 100 laboratories participated. Sixty-two laboratories (62/100, 62%) over-reported antibiotics in the EQA dispatch compared with 28/62 laboratories (45%, P = 0.036) in the survey. Fifty laboratories (50/63, 79%) indicated they would test and report ciprofloxacin compared with 82/87 (94%) reporting amoxicillin-clavulanate and 84/93 (90%) reporting gentamicin. Eighteen laboratories (18/38, 47%) over-reported meropenem, with three inappropriately reporting cefalexin or trimethoprim. Testing and reporting for the EQA dispatch differed to the questionnaire for ceftriaxone, ciprofloxacin, piperacillin-tazobactam and meropenem, all with more laboratories reporting in the EQA dispatch than in the questionnaire. However, the number of laboratories reporting these four antimicrobials were lower when considered as a proportion of the total number of laboratories enrolled in the EQA dispatch overall (60/100, 50/100, 29/100 and 18/100, respectively).
Discussion
We have demonstrated that most Australian and NZ laboratories are reporting antimicrobials in line with the RCPA and NZNAC selective reporting guidelines,17,19 with consistently fewer laboratories over-reporting broad-spectrum antimicrobials for susceptible organisms and fewer laboratories reporting antibiotics inappropriate for bacteraemia. In particular, unnecessary reporting of meropenem, ciprofloxacin, piperacillin-tazobactam and amoxicillin-clavulanate have decreased, while reporting of narrower spectrum agents has stayed the same.
The importance of selective reporting of antimicrobial susceptibilities is widely accepted, but there are few national antibiotic reporting guidelines and studies measuring their impact are limited.20 Despite the many barriers that prevent adoption of consensus reporting guidelines, we show consistent improvement in reporting practices since 2017 and since the RCPA and NZNAC guidelines were published.17,19,20
The questionnaire relies on the self-reported practices by laboratory personnel participating in our EQA programmes. Given the inherent limitations of this methodology, we included actual reporting practices as determined through two routine EQA surveys dispatched in 2023 and 2025. It is reassuring to confirm from the EQA data that for a fully susceptible E. coli in urine only a minority of laboratories tested and reported ciprofloxacin, meropenem, piperacillin-tazobactam and fosfomycin (Table 2). By contrast, as expected, most laboratories that tested trimethoprim and nitrofurantoin reported these commonly recommended narrow-spectrum urinary antibiotics. Overall, reporting practices were similar between the EQA and the questionnaire responses. However, for the fully susceptible E. coli in urine fewer laboratories reported amoxicillin-clavulanate in our questionnaire compared with the EQA (Table 2). Similarly for the K. pneumoniae in blood culture, fewer laboratories reported ciprofloxacin and meropenem in the questionnaire responses than for the EQA. This could be because despite being aware of the desired or ‘correct’ response for the questionnaire, laboratories continue to over-report in practice.
Another limitation of our study is the lower response rate (40%) compared with the previous 2017 survey (60%). Although we have not explored the reasons for this, it is likely that increasing laboratory workloads and staffing pressures have contributed. While we tried to keep the survey short, completion still took time and was entirely voluntary to carry out.
Finally, we did not confirm to what degree the improvements in reporting practices were directly due to the published RCPA/NZNAC guidelines rather than increasing general awareness and acceptability of selective reporting over time. However, the publication of the guidelines was accompanied by intentional wide-reaching national dissemination and education of RCPA fellows, clinical microbiologists and laboratory staff through written information and presentations,20 which will probably have contributed to the improvements seen.
This study provides encouraging evidence that Australian and NZ laboratories are increasingly adopting selective antimicrobial reporting that can support AMS efforts. We demonstrate an improvement in selective antimicrobial reporting following the publication of national antimicrobial reporting guidelines but also highlight the opportunities for further improvement and standardization.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgements
We thank all our participating laboratories for taking the time to answer our survey and the RCPAQAP for their unwavering support of quality improvements in antimicrobial reporting. We also thank the RCPA and NZNAC for their dedicated hard work in writing, supporting, publishing and implementing their antimicrobial reporting guidelines.
Contributor Information
Juliet Elvy, Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Programs (RCPAQAP), Microbiology Discipline, Saint Leonards, NSW, Australia; Department of Microbiology, Awanui Labs, Dunedin Hospital, Great King Street, Dunedin 9016, New Zealand.
Katherine Ryan, Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Programs (RCPAQAP), Microbiology Discipline, Saint Leonards, NSW, Australia.
Melanie Otormin, Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Programs (RCPAQAP), Microbiology Discipline, Saint Leonards, NSW, Australia.
Menuk Jayawardena, Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Programs (RCPAQAP), Microbiology Discipline, Saint Leonards, NSW, Australia.
Maryza Graham, Department of Microbiology, Monash Pathology, Clayton, VIC, Australia; Victorian Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory, The Peter Doherty Institute of Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Melbourne at the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Funding
This study was carried out with voluntary work from the authors, without specific funding.
Transparency declarations
None to declare.
Supplementary data
Table S1 is available as Supplementary data at JAC-AMR Online.
References
- 1. Langford BJ, Leung E, Haj R et al. Nudging In MicroBiology Laboratory Evaluation (NIMBLE): a scoping review. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2019; 40: 1400–6. 10.1017/ice.2019.293 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Cunney R, Aziz HA, Schubert D et al. Interpretative reporting and selective antimicrobial susceptibility release in non-critical microbiology results. J Antimicrob Chemother 2000; 45: 705–8. 10.1093/jac/45.5.705 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Davey P, Marwick CA, Scott CL et al. Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 2: CD003543. 10.1002/14651858.CD003543.pub4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Tan TY, McNulty C, Charlett A et al. Laboratory antibiotic susceptibility reporting and antibiotic prescribing in general practice. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003; 51: 379–84. 10.1093/jac/dkg032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. McNulty CA, Lasseter GM, Charlett A et al. Does antibiotic susceptibility reporting influence primary care prescribing in urinary tract infection and other infections? J Antimicrob Chemother 2011; 66: 1396–404. 10.1093/jac/dkr088 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Langford BJ, Seah J, Chan A et al. Antimicrobial stewardship in the microbiology laboratory: impact of selective susceptibility reporting on ciprofloxacin utilization and susceptibility of Gram-negative isolates to ciprofloxacin in a hospital setting. J Clin Microbiol 2016; 54: 2343–7. 10.1128/JCM.00950-16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Vissichelli NC, Orndahl CM, Cecil JA et al. Impact of cascade reporting of antimicrobial susceptibility on fluoroquinolone and meropenem consumption at a Veterans’ Affairs medical center. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2022; 43: 199–204. 10.1017/ice.2021.83 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC) . Antimicrobial Stewardship in Australian Health Care. ACSQHC, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- 9. 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: e51–77. 10.1093/cid/ciw118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Australian Government. Australia's National Antimicrobial Resistance Strategy – 2020 and Beyond . Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. 2020. https://www.amr.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-11/australia-s-national-antimicrobial-resistance-strategy-2020-and-beyond_0.pdf
- 11. Pulcini C, Tebano G, Mutters NT et al. Selective reporting of antibiotic susceptibility test results in European countries: an ESCMID cross-sectional survey. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2017; 49: 162–6. 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2016.11.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Kahlmeter G, Thilly N, Pulcini C. Selective reporting of antibiotic susceptibility testing results: less is more. Clin Microbiol Infect 2021; 27: 503–5. 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.11.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. CLSI . Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing—Thirty-Fifth Edition: M100. 2025. [Google Scholar]
- 14. UK Health Security Agency . UK Standards for Microbiology Investigations: Investigation of Urine (B 41 Issue 8.7). 2019. https://uksmi.github.io/Standards-for-Microbiology-Investigations/bacteriology/B_41i8.7.pdf
- 15. Graham M, Walker DA, Haremza E et al. RCPAQAP audit of antimicrobial reporting in Australian and New Zealand laboratories: opportunities for laboratory contribution to antimicrobial stewardship. J Antimicrob Chemother 2019; 74: 251–5. 10.1093/jac/dky398 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia. Selective Reporting of Antimicrobials in Australia. 1st edn. (Version 1.0). RCPA, 2019.
- 17. Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia. Selective Reporting of Antimicrobials in Australia. 3rd edn. RCPA, 2025.
- 18. Elvy J. The New Zealand guideline for reporting of antimicrobials in microbiology laboratories: an opportunity for laboratory based antimicrobial stewardship activities in New Zealand. NZ J Med Lab Sci 2021; 75: 90–108. [Google Scholar]
- 19. NZMN . Guideline for reporting of antimicrobials for New Zealand microbiology laboratories. Version 1.0, December 2020. https://www.nzmn.org.nz/assets/NZMN/NAC-Docs/Guideline-for-reporting-antimicrobials/NZ-version-selective-reporting-July2021.pdf.
- 20. Graham M, Graves D, Cooley L et al. Establishment of RCPA national guidelines for selective reporting of antimicrobials: processes, challenges and measuring the impact. J Antimicrob Chemother 2022; 77: 3064–8. 10.1093/jac/dkac279 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.