This is an educational tool. It is designed for teaching, discussion, and orientation to the AMS literature. It is not clinical decision support, not a guideline, and not a substitute for local policy.

All recommendations generated by this tool — including hospital-matching results and AI-generated narratives — must be reviewed and validated by a qualified AMS expert before any clinical, operational, or policy implementation.

The Stewardship Atlas organises named antimicrobial stewardship strategies drawn from the wider AMS literature into a single navigable structure of 17 families containing 107 individual interventions.

Each strategy entry includes: mechanism, evidence tier, typical setting, and a concise impact statement. Policy sources and citations have been deliberately omitted — users must verify every strategy against current local and national guidance (WHO, CDC, IDSA/SHEA, ESCMID, NICE, UKHSA, and peer-reviewed literature) before any teaching, clinical, or policy use. These are teaching summaries only, not referenced guidelines.

Evidence tiers are a simplified categorisation:

• High — multiple RCTs or meta-analyses, endorsed by major guidelines
• Moderate — consistent observational evidence and guideline endorsement
• Limited / setting-specific — evidence varies or is specific to certain contexts
• Emerging — pre-adoption; active research, not standard of care

The hospital-matching engine uses a hybrid approach: a transparent rule-based scoring system triages strategies against the profile, and an optional AI-generated narrative contextualises the top-ranked strategies. The rule-based scores are fully auditable — each score includes the reasons that produced it. The narrative layer is informational and must be treated with appropriate caution; AI outputs can be subtly wrong even when they sound authoritative.

Compiled for educational use in FRCPath preparation, ESCMID/ESGAID training, and NHS AMS team onboarding. Not a substitute for clinical guidelines.