5.1. Translating Point Prevalence Surveillance into Sustainable Clinical Action
The synthesis of regional evidence confirms that institutional antimicrobial stewardship programmes require more than isolated audit exercises to curb resistance trajectories in public healthcare facilities. Point prevalence surveys provide essential baseline documentation of prescribing patterns, yet their diagnostic utility remains constrained when public facilities lack reliable microbiological infrastructure and rapid turnaround times (Saleem et al., 2021). While national action plans advocate restrictive and enabling formulary controls, systemic disparities between tertiary teaching facilities and peripheral public hospitals hinder the consistent translation of policy into bedside practice (Godman et al., 2022). Furthermore, interprofessional dynamics frequently restrict pharmacy-led interventions, as hierarchical clinical cultures and diagnostic uncertainty drive physicians toward empirical broad-spectrum coverage and prolonged prophylactic regimens (Kalungia et al., 2019). A persistent research gap emerges regarding longitudinal post-intervention assessments; prevailing scholarship predominantly relies on cross-sectional audits, thereby obscuring whether episodic stewardship campaigns produce enduring behavioural modifications among prescribers. Methodological limitations within this synthesis involve reliance on published secondary datasets that display variable reporting standards, inconsistent stratification of surgical prophylaxis durations, and potential publication bias toward better-resourced tertiary centres. Addressing these structural vulnerabilities necessitates institutionalising routine feedback loops, dedicated stewardship funding, and mandatory multidisciplinary antimicrobial management teams across public health networks.