Eurosurveillance - Volume 26, Issue 4, 28 January 2021

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) should be tackled through a One Health approach, as stated in the World Health Organization Global Action Plan on AMR. We describe the landscape of AMR surveillance in the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) and underline a gap regarding veterinary medicine. Current AMR surveillance efforts are of limited help to veterinary practitioners and policymakers seeking to improve antimicrobial stewardship in animal health. We propose to establish the European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance network in Veterinary medicine (EARS-Vet) to report on the AMR situation, follow AMR trends and detect emerging AMR in selected bacterial pathogens of animals. This information could be useful to advise policymakers, explore efficacy of interventions, support antimicrobial stewardship initiatives, (re-)evaluate marketing authorisations of antimicrobials, generate epidemiological cut-off values, assess risk of zoonotic AMR transmission and evaluate the burden of AMR in animal health. EARS-Vet could be integrated with other AMR monitoring systems in the animal and medical sectors to ensure a One Health approach. Herein, we present a strategy to establish EARS-Vet as a network of national surveillance systems and highlight challenges of data harmonisation and bias. Strong political commitment at national and EU/EEA levels is required for the success of EARS-Vet.

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of both exposure and transmission of infectious disease. Two European Union (EU) directives state that health services are responsible for assessing their employees’ potential exposure to infectious diseases and offering immunisation free of charge. We assessed current policy for immunisation of HCWs and the availability of vaccine coverage data in the Nordic countries by surveying national vaccination experts in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, as well as Swedish county medical officers (CMOs). All national experts and 17 of 21 Swedish CMOs responded. All EU countries had transposed the European directives into national law, while Norway and Iceland had similar national legislation. Recommendations or guidelines were issued in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and 15 of 17 responding Swedish counties. The range of diseases covered differed by countries and Swedish counties. HCW vaccine coverage data were not systematically collected; incomplete estimates were only available for Finland and two Swedish counties. In conclusion, recommendations or guidelines exist in the Nordic countries, but their impact cannot be assessed, as vaccine uptake among HCWs is not currently measured. Systematic collection of data is a necessary step towards improving HCW immunisation policy and practice in the Nordic countries.