One Health Determinants of Escherichia coli Antimicrobial Resistance in Humans in the Community: An Umbrella Review.

To date, the scientific literature on health variables for Escherichia coli antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has been investigated throughout several systematic reviews, often with a focus on only one aspect of the One Health variables: human, animal, or environment. The aim of this umbrella review is to conduct a systematic synthesis of existing evidence on Escherichia coli AMR in humans in the community from a One Health perspective. PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched on "antibiotic resistance" and "systematic review" from inception until 25 March 2022 (PROSPERO: CRD42022316431). The methodological quality was assessed, and the importance of identified variables was tabulated across all included reviews. Twenty-three reviews were included in this study, covering 860 primary studies. All reviews were of (critically) low quality. Most reviews focused on humans (20), 3 on animals, and 1 on both human and environmental variables. Antibiotic use, urinary tract infections, diabetes, and international travel were identified as the most important human variables. Poultry farms and swimming in freshwater were identified as potential sources for AMR transmission from the animal and environmental perspectives. This umbrella review highlights a gap in high-quality literature investigating the time between variable exposure, AMR testing, and animal and environmental AMR variables.

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of community pharmacist-led interventions to optimise the use of antibiotics.

AIMS: The aim of this systematic review is to assess the effects of community pharmacist-led interventions to optimise the use of antibiotics and identify which interventions are most effective. METHODS: This review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42020188552). PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for (randomised) controlled trials. Included interventions were required to target antibiotic use, be set in the community pharmacy context, and be pharmacist-led. Primary outcomes were quality of antibiotic supply and adverse effects while secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the 'Cochrane suggested risk of bias criteria' and narrative synthesis of primary outcomes conducted. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included covering in total 3822 patients (mean age 45.6 years, 61.9% female). Most studies used educational interventions. Three studies reported on primary outcomes, 12 on secondary outcomes and two on both. Three studies reported improvements in quality of dispensing, interventions led to more intensive symptom assessment (up to 30% more advice given) and a reduction of over-the-counter supply up to 53%. Three studies led to higher consumer satisfaction, effects on adherence from nine studies were mixed (risk difference 0.04 [-0.02, 0.10]). All studies had unclear or high risks of bias across at least one domain, with large heterogeneity between studies. CONCLUSIONS: Our review suggests some positive results from pharmacist-led interventions, but the interventions do not seem sufficiently effective as currently implemented. This review should be interpreted as exploratory research, as more high-quality research is needed.

Real-World Data about Commonly Used Antibiotics in Long-Term Care Homes in Australia from 2016 to 2019.

In this study, we use real-world data to explore trends in antibiotic use in a dynamic cohort of long-term care (LTC) residents. A cross-sectional retrospective analysis of pharmacy medication supply records of 3459 LTC residents was conducted from 31 May 2016 to 31 May 2019. The primary outcome was the monthly prevalence of residents with an antibiotic episode. Secondary outcomes were the type of antibiotic used and duration of use. Over the three-year study period, residents were supplied 10460 antibiotics. On average, 18.9% of residents received an antibiotic monthly. Antibiotic use decreased slightly over time with a mean of 168/1000 (95% CI 146-177) residents using at least one antibiotic per month in June 2016 to 148/1000 (95% CI 127-156) in May 2019. The total number of antibiotic days per 100 resident days remained relatively constant over the study period: 8.8 days in 2016-2017, 8.4 in 2017-2018 and 6.4 in 2018-2019. Prolonged durations exceeding 100 days were seen for a small percentage of residents. We found extensive antibiotic use, which is a recognized contributor to antimicrobial resistance development, underscoring the necessity for quality treatment guidelines in this vulnerable population.

Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Restraint Use in Aged Care.

Restraint use in Australian residential aged care has been highlighted by the media, and investigated by researchers, government and advocacy bodies. In 2018, the Royal Commission into Aged Care selected 'Restraint' as a key focus of inquiry. Subsequently, Federal legislation was passed to ensure restraint is only used in residential aged care services as the 'last resort'. To inform and develop Government educational resources, we conducted qualitative research to gain greater understanding of the experiences and attitudes of aged care stakeholders around restraint practice. Semi-structured interviews were held with 28 participants, comprising nurses, care staff, physicians, physiotherapists, pharmacists and relatives. Two focus groups were also conducted to ascertain the views of residential and community aged care senior management staff. Data were thematically analyzed using a pragmatic approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. Five themes were identified during the study: 1. Understanding of restraint; 2. Support for legislation; 3. Restraint-free environments are not possible; 4. Low-level restraint; 5. Restraint in the community is uncharted. Although most staff, health practitioners and relatives have a basic understanding of restraint, more education is needed at a conceptual level to enable them to identify and avoid restraint practice, particularly 'low-level' forms and chemical restraint. There was strong support for the new restraint regulations, but most interviewees admitted they were unsure what the legislation entailed. With regards to resources, stakeholders wanted recognition that there were times when restraint was necessary and advice on what to do in these situations, as opposed to unrealistic aspirations for restraint-free care. Stakeholders reported greater oversight of restraint in residential aged care but specified that community restraint use was largely unknown. Research is needed to investigate the extent and types of restraint practice in community aged care.