RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To understand the impact on prescribing behaviour of an antimicrobial therapy guidelines smartphone app, in widespread use in hospitals in the UK. METHODS: Twenty-eight doctors and five nurse prescribers from four purposively selected hospitals in the UK participated in behavioural theory-informed semi-structured interviews about their experiences of using the MicroGuide™ smartphone app. Data were analysed using a thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Five themes emerged from the interview data: convenience and accessibility; validation of prescribing decisions; trust in app content; promotion of antimicrobial stewardship; and limitations and concerns. Participants appreciated the perceived convenience, accessibility and timesaving attributes of the app, potentially contributing to more prompt treatment of patients with time-critical illness. The interviewees also reported finding it reassuring to use the app to support decision-making and to validate existing knowledge. They trusted the app content authored by local experts and considered it to be evidence-based and up-to-date. This was believed to result in fewer telephone calls to the microbiology department for advice. Participants recognized the value of the app for supporting the goals of antimicrobial stewardship by promoting the responsible and proportionate use of antimicrobials. Finally, a number of limitations of the app were reported, including the risk of de-skilling trainees, cultural problems with using smartphones in clinical environments and software technical problems. CONCLUSIONS: The MicroGuide app was valued as a means of addressing an unmet need for updated, concise, trustworthy specialist information in an accessible format at the bedside to support safe and effective antimicrobial prescribing.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: The objective of this prospective, observational study was to describe the treatment, severity assessment and healthcare resources required for management of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections who were unsuitable for beta-lactam antibiotic treatments. METHODS: Patients were enrolled across five secondary care National Health Service hospitals. Eligible patients had a diagnosis of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection and were considered unsuitable for beta-lactam antibiotics (e.g. confirmed/suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, beta-lactam allergy). Data regarding diagnosis, severity of the infection, antibiotic treatment and patient management were collected. RESULTS: 145 patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection were included; 79% (n = 115) patients received greater than two antibiotic regimens; median length of the first antibiotic regimen was 2 days (interquartile range of 1-5); median time to switch from intravenous to oral antibiotics was 4 days (interquartile range of 3-8, n = 72/107); 25% (n = 10/40) patients with Eron class 1 infection had systemic inflammatory response syndrome, suggesting they were misclassified. A higher proportion of patients with systemic inflammatory response syndrome received treatment in an inpatient setting, and their length of stay was prolonged in comparison with patients without systemic inflammatory response syndrome. CONCLUSION: There exists an urgent need for more focused antimicrobial stewardship strategies and tools for standardised clinical assessment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection severity in patients who are unsuitable for beta-lactam antibiotics. This will lead to optimised antimicrobial treatment strategies and ensure effective healthcare resource utilisation.