The cost-effectiveness of procalcitonin for guiding antibiotic prescribing in individuals hospitalized with COVID-19: part of the PEACH study.

BACKGROUND: Many hospitals introduced procalcitonin (PCT) testing to help diagnose bacterial coinfection in individuals with COVID-19, and guide antibiotic decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. OBJECTIVES: Evaluating cost-effectiveness of using PCT to guide antibiotic decisions in individuals hospitalized with COVID-19, as part of a wider research programme. METHODS: Retrospective individual-level data on patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were collected from 11 NHS acute hospital Trusts and Health Boards from England and Wales, which varied in their use of baseline PCT testing during the first COVID-19 pandemic wave. A matched analysis (part of a wider analysis reported elsewhere) created groups of patients whose PCT was/was not tested at baseline. A model was created with combined decision tree/Markov phases, parameterized with quality-of-life/unit cost estimates from the literature, and used to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost-effectiveness was judged at a £20 000/QALY threshold. Uncertainty was characterized using bootstrapping. RESULTS: People who had baseline PCT testing had shorter general ward/ICU stays and spent less time on antibiotics, though with overlap between the groups' 95% CIs. Those with baseline PCT testing accrued more QALYs (8.76 versus 8.62) and lower costs (£9830 versus £10 700). The point estimate was baseline PCT testing being dominant over no baseline testing, though with uncertainty: the probability of cost-effectiveness was 0.579 with a 1 year horizon and 0.872 with a lifetime horizon. CONCLUSIONS: Using PCT to guide antibiotic therapy in individuals hospitalized with COVID-19 is more likely to be cost-effective than not, albeit with uncertainty.

A retrospective propensity-score-matched cohort study of the impact of procalcitonin testing on antibiotic use in hospitalized patients during the first wave of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Procalcitonin (PCT) is a blood marker used to help diagnose bacterial infections and guide antibiotic treatment. PCT testing was widely used/adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. OBJECTIVES: Primary: to measure the difference in length of early (during first 7 days) antibiotic prescribing between patients with COVID-19 who did/did not have baseline PCT testing during the first wave of the pandemic. Secondary: to measure differences in length of hospital/ICU stay, mortality, total days of antibiotic prescribing and resistant bacterial infections between these groups. METHODS: Multi-centre, retrospective, observational, cohort study using patient-level clinical data from acute hospital Trusts/Health Boards in England/Wales. Inclusion: patients ≥16 years, admitted to participating Trusts/Health Boards and with a confirmed positive COVID-19 test between 1 February 2020 and 30 June 2020. RESULTS: Data from 5960 patients were analysed: 1548 (26.0%) had a baseline PCT test and 4412 (74.0%) did not. Using propensity-score matching, baseline PCT testing was associated with an average reduction in early antibiotic prescribing of 0.43 days [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.22-0.64 days, P < 0.001) and of 0.72 days (95% CI: 0.06-1.38 days, P = 0.03] in total antibiotic prescribing. Baseline PCT testing was not associated with increased mortality or hospital/ICU length of stay or with the rate of antimicrobial-resistant secondary bacterial infections. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline PCT testing appears to have been an effective antimicrobial stewardship tool early in the pandemic: it reduced antibiotic prescribing without evidence of harm. Our study highlights the need for embedded, rapid evaluations of infection diagnostics in the National Health Service so that even in challenging circumstances, introduction into clinical practice is supported by evidence for clinical utility. STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN66682918.

Impact of introducing procalcitonin testing on antibiotic usage in acute NHS hospitals during the first wave of COVID-19 in the UK: a controlled interrupted time series analysis of organization-level data.

BACKGROUND: Blood biomarkers have the potential to help identify COVID-19 patients with bacterial coinfection in whom antibiotics are indicated. During the COVID-19 pandemic, procalcitonin testing was widely introduced at hospitals in the UK to guide antibiotic prescribing. We have determined the impact of this on hospital-level antibiotic consumption. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, controlled interrupted time series analysis of organization-level data describing antibiotic dispensing, hospital activity and procalcitonin testing for acute hospitals/hospital trusts in England and Wales during the first wave of COVID-19 (24 February to 5 July 2020). RESULTS: In the main analysis of 105 hospitals in England, introduction of procalcitonin testing in emergency departments/acute medical admission units was associated with a statistically significant decrease in total antibiotic use of -1.08 (95% CI: -1.81 to -0.36) DDDs of antibiotic per admission per week per trust. This effect was then lost at a rate of 0.05 (95% CI: 0.02-0.08) DDDs per admission per week. Similar results were found specifically for first-line antibiotics for community-acquired pneumonia and for COVID-19 admissions rather than all admissions. Introduction of procalcitonin in the ICU setting was not associated with any significant change in antibiotic use. CONCLUSIONS: At hospitals where procalcitonin testing was introduced in emergency departments/acute medical units this was associated with an initial, but unsustained, reduction in antibiotic use. Further research should establish the patient-level impact of procalcitonin testing in this population and understand its potential for clinical effectiveness.

Developing a local antimicrobial resistance action plan: the Cornwall One Health Antimicrobial Resistance Group.

Objectives: The UK Five Year Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) Strategy was published in September 2013 and recommended a One Health approach emphasizing the importance of collaboration to tackle AMR. We describe the inauguration of what we believe to be the first regional One Health group established in the UK. The purpose of the group was to ensure the implementation of a coordinated Cornwall-wide response to the UK AMR Strategy and we describe the outputs of the group to date. Methods: The Cornwall Antimicrobial Resistance Group was set up as a sub-group of the Health & Wellbeing Board's Health Protection Committee. Stakeholders reviewed the key objectives set out within the Five Year AMR strategy, identified local priorities and existing work streams within Cornwall, and completed a gap analysis. The annual work plan was developed from the gap analysis and provided a foundation for improved coordination of One Health antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) activity in Cornwall. Results: To date, outputs from the group can be arranged under the following themes: education and engagement with the public; education and engagement with healthcare workers and veterinarians; and a comprehensive AMS programme for all sectors. The group continues to grow in size with wider stakeholder engagement and increased variety of work streams. Conclusions: This unique group facilitates discussions across sectors, which has enabled the sharing of knowledge, ideas and resources, stimulated local AMS initiatives, and ensured a platform for the development of future AMR and AMS work.

Omitted doses as an unintended consequence of a hospital restricted antibacterial system: a retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine the frequency of omitted doses of antibacterial agents and explore a number of risk factors, including the effect of a restricted antibacterial system. METHODS: Antibacterial data were extracted from a hospital electronic prescribing and medication administration system for the period 1 January to 30 April 2014. Percentage dose omission rates were calculated. Omission rates for the first dose of antibacterial courses were analysed using logistic regression to identify any correlation between first dose omission rates and potential risk factors, including the antibacterials' restriction status and whether or not they were ward stock. RESULTS: The study included 90 761 antibacterial doses. Of these, 6535 (7.2%) were documented as having been omitted; omission of 847 (0.9% of 90 761) was due to medication being unavailable. Non-restricted, ward stock antibacterials had the lowest frequency of omission, with 6.2% (271 of 4391) first doses omitted. The prevalence was 10.4% (27 of 260) for restricted, ward-stock antibacterials (OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.0-2.4, P = 0.027) and 15.5% (53 of 341) for non-restricted, non-ward stock antibacterials (OR = 2.7, 95% CI = 2.0-3.7, P < 0.001). Restricted, non-ward stock antibacterials had the highest frequency (30.7%, 71 of 231; OR = 6.2, 95% CI = 4.5-8.4, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Antibacterials not stocked in clinical areas were significantly more likely to be omitted. The prevalence of omitted doses increased further if the antibiotic was also restricted. To achieve safe, effective antimicrobial use, a balance is needed between promoting antimicrobial stewardship and preventing unintended omitted doses.

Eliciting the barriers and enablers towards anaesthetists giving penicillin-based antibiotic prophylaxis to low-risk patients who have had their penicillin allergy label removed as part of a preoperative delabelling process.

Background: Some penicillin allergy labels can be removed by non-allergy specialists by direct oral challenge, but there is reluctance amongst anaesthetists to give penicillin to these patients. We aimed to assess anaesthetist beliefs about giving penicillin to patients delabelled by direct oral challenge. Methods: A survey, developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework, was circulated to anaesthetists within a regional research network in England. Domains were rated using 5-point Likert scales. Overall and group medians were used to dichotomize domains rated by group into 'relatively important/unimportant' and 'relative enabler/barrier'. Results: We received 257 responses from six hospitals (response rate 49.7%). Seven domains were rated as important for all stakeholder groups and hospitals: Knowledge, Skills, Belief in Capabilities, Belief in Consequences, Memory/Attention/Decisions, Environmental Context and Resources, and Emotions. Social and Professional Role was also important to all respondents except those in one hospital. Intentions and Optimism were rated as important for some groups/hospitals and unimportant for others. All four other domains were rated as unimportant for all groups/hospitals. All domains rated as important were enablers for all groups/hospitals, with the exception of Memory/Attention/Decisions and Emotions, which were rated as discordant barriers/enablers between groups. This means they were acting as a barrier for some staff groups/hospitals and an enabler for others. Barrier domains (Reinforcement, Goals, Social Influences, Behavioural Regulation) were all rated unimportant. Conclusions: Behavioural influences on giving penicillin prophylaxis to a delabelled patient are complex and nuanced. These findings could inform targeted interventions, both across and within hospitals and staff groups.

The appropriateness of penicillin allergy de-labelling by non-allergist clinical ward teams.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the appropriateness of penicillin allergy (PenA) assessment conducted by clinical teams and to review the safety of subsequent exposure of these patients to penicillin. METHODS: Opportunistic, prospective observational study of usual clinical care, between 16 May 2023 and 14 August 2023, of inpatients with a PenA and requiring antibiotics, in a 750-bed hospital in England. To assess the appropriateness of management, PenA patients prescribed penicillins were grouped into risk categories using a validated antibiotic allergy assessment tool: eligible for de-label on history alone (direct de-label; DDL), eligible for direct oral challenge (DOC), high risk or unable to obtain history. RESULTS: Of the 123 patients admitted with a PenA (or sensitivity record) and exposed to a penicillin, data were collected for 50. Their PenA records were grouped follows: eligible for DDL 34 (68%), eligible for DOC 11 (22%), high risk 4 (8%) and unable to obtain history 1 (2%). In 14/50 (28%) patients there was no evidence of a current PenA assessment in the medical notes. CONCLUSIONS: Using the allergy risk tool, most patients with PenA records were exposed to penicillin appropriately. However, patients meeting high-risk criteria were also exposed to penicillin when the tool excluded them. PenA assessment needs to be carried out with appropriate training and governance structures in place.

Experiences of an inpatient penicillin allergy de-labelling pathway: capturing the patient voice.

Background: Non-allergist-delivered penicillin allergy de-labelling (PADL) is supported by UK and other national guidelines but is not yet routine practice in UK hospitals. Those who have undergone PADL report high rates of acceptance, but it is unknown why some continue to avoid penicillin, and why some decline testing. Objectives: To explore the experiences of patients recently approached for penicillin allergy (penA) assessment and de-label by non-allergists in a UK hospital to determine the barriers and enablers to patient acceptance of PADL. Methods: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with patients who were penA assessed and de-labelled during an inpatient stay between November 2022 and January 2023. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Results: Nineteen patients were interviewed. Patients were largely unaware of the negative impact of penA on their healthcare. Patients had differing views on challenging their penA status while they were acutely unwell, some agreeing that it is the right time to test and others not. Patients declined testing because they felt they were at higher potential risk because they were older or had multiple comorbidities. Some patients who declined testing felt they would have been persuaded if they had received a better explanation of the risks and benefits of PADL. Conclusions: Patients who were successfully de-labelled were positive about the experience. Those who declined testing did so for a variety of reasons including frailty/comorbidities or a fear of testing whilst unwell. Patients highlighted the importance of good communication about the personalized risks and benefits of testing.

Non-allergist healthcare workers views on delivering a penicillin allergy de-labelling inpatient pathway: identifying the barriers and enablers.

Background: Non-allergist delivered PADL is supported by UK and World Health Organization guidelines but is not yet routine in UK hospitals. Understanding the views of healthcare workers (HCWs) on managing patients with penA records and exploring perspectives on delivering a PADL inpatient pathway are required to inform the development of non-allergist delivered PADL pathways. Objective: To explore the perspectives of non-allergist HCWs working in medical specialties on managing patients with penA records, and to explore the enablers and barriers to embedding PADL as a standard of care for inpatients. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with doctors, nurses, pharmacists and medicines optimization pharmacy technicians working in a district general hospital in the UK. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Results: The PADL pathway was considered a shared responsibility of the multidisciplinary team, which needed to be structured and supported by a framework. PADL aligns with HCW roles but time to deliver PADL was a barrier. Training for HCWs on the benefits of PADL and delivering PADL for those patients where a penicillin might be beneficial during the current episode of care would both motivate HCWs to deliver PADL. Discussion and conclusion: The PADL pathway was acceptable to HCWs and aligned with their roles and current healthcare processes but their capacity to deliver PADL in a time pressured environment was a significant barrier.

Factors influencing implementation and adoption of direct oral penicillin challenge for allergy delabelling: a qualitative evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Over 95% of penicillin allergy labels are inaccurate and may be addressed in low-risk patients using direct oral penicillin challenge (DPC). This study explored the behaviour, attitudes and acceptability of patients, healthcare professionals (HCPs) and managers of using DPC in low-risk patients. METHODS: Mixed-method, investigation involving patient interviews and staff focus groups at three NHS acute hospitals. Transcripts were coded using inductive and deductive thematic analysis informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework. FINDINGS: Analysis of 43 patient interviews and three focus groups (28 HCPs: clinicians and managers) highlighted themes of 'knowledge', 'beliefs about capabilities and consequences', 'environmental context', 'resources', 'social influences', 'professional role and identity', 'behavioural regulation and reinforcement' and a cross-cutting theme of digital systems. Overall, study participants supported the DPC intervention. Patients expressed reassurance about being in a monitored, hospital setting. HCPs acknowledged the need for robust governance structures for ensuring clarity of roles and responsibilities and confidence. CONCLUSION: There were high levels of acceptability among patients and HCPs. HCPs recognised the importance of DPC. Complexities of penicillin allergy (de)labelling were highlighted, and issues of knowledge, risk, governance and workforce were identified as key determinants. These should be considered in future planning and adoption strategies for DPC.

A multicentre observational study to investigate feasibility of a direct oral penicillin challenge in de-labelling 'low risk' patients with penicillin allergy by non-allergy healthcare professionals (SPACE study): Implications for healthcare systems.

OBJECTIVE: The huge burden of inaccurate penicillin allergy labels (PALs) is an important driver of antimicrobial resistance. This is magnified by insufficient allergy specialists and lack of 'point-of-care' tests. We investigated the feasibility of non-allergy healthcare professionals (HCPs) delivering direct oral penicillin challenges (DPCs) for penicillin allergy de-labelling. METHODS: This prospective observational study was conducted in three hospitals in England across three settings (acute medical, pre-surgical and haematology-oncology). Patients with a PAL were screened and stratified as low risk/high risk. Low risk patients (non-immune mediated symptoms, benign rash, tolerated amoxicillin since and family history) underwent a DPC. RESULTS: N = 2257 PALs were screened, 1054 were eligible; 643 were approached, 373 declined, 270 consented and 259 risk stratified (low risk = 155; high risk = 104). One hundred and twenty-six low risk patients underwent DPC, 122 (96.8%) were de-labelled with no serious allergic reactions. Conversion rate from screening-to-consent was 12% [3.3% and 17.9% in acute and elective settings respectively; odds ratios for consent were 3.42 (p < 0.001) and 5.53 (p < 0.001) in haematology-oncology and pre-surgical setting respectively. Common reasons for failure to progress in the study included difficulty in reaching patients, clinical instability/medical reasons, lacking capacity to consent and psychological factors. INTERPRETATION: DPCs can be delivered by non-allergy HCPs. A high proportion of patients with PALs did not progress in the study pathway. Strategies to deliver DPC at optimal points of the care pathway are needed to enhance uptake. Elective settings offer greater opportunities than acute settings for DPC. The safety and simplicity of DPCs lends itself to adoption by healthcare systems beyond the UK, including in resource-limited settings.

Geoforensic search to crime scene: Remote sensing, geophysics, and dogs.

In the absence of surface indications of burial sites, law enforcement or humanitarian organizations are faced with the difficult task of focusing large-scale ground searches to a manageable excavation area. A geoforensic-based survey may exclude parts of the landscape for reasons such as diggability or viewshed analysis but leave areas still too large for invasive exploration. This work examines how drone-based remote sensing, geophysics, and search dogs may be combined to narrow such searches. Here, we ask the reader to consider two examples where forensic geomorphology and land use provided a range of possible burial locations. Following this is a multi-proxy approach to similar dilemma, with a search-to-scene case study using remote sensing (drone photography), geophysics, ground probes, and search dogs. This approach is not presented as a definitive guide, but serves as an example of the conjunctive use of well-studied methods to approach a common problem in geoforensics.

Penicillin allergy de-labelling by non-allergists: a comparison of testing protocols.

Optimizing penicillin allergy de-labelling (PADL) to ensure patients with an incorrect penicillin allergy record are de-labelled with minimal patient harm is important for antibiotic stewardship. The heterogeneity of inclusion and exclusion criteria in the published penicillin allergy testing protocols risks suboptimal delivery of PADL. We compared the similarities and the differences between non-allergist-delivered PADL testing protocols and make suggestions for harmonization. The observed variation in testing practice has two broad elements: (i) definitions and terminology; and (ii) differences in the acceptability of perceived risk. All direct drug provocation testing (DDPT) protocols included patients with benign delayed rash as eligible for testing, although the remoteness of the rash, and the terminology used to describe the rash, differed. Patients with features of potential IgE reactions were excluded from most DDPT protocols, but not all of them. There was differing advice on how to manage patients who had subsequently tolerated penicillin since the index reaction and differences in which patients were considered ineligible for DDPT due to acuity of illness, comorbidities and concomitant medications. Standardization of the terminology used in penicillin allergy testing protocols and consensus on inclusion and exclusion criteria are required for safe and efficient PADL delivery at scale by non-allergists.

Addressing the Challenges of Penicillin Allergy Delabeling With Electronic Health Records and Mobile Applications.

Allergy labels are common, often incorrect, and potentially harmful. There are many opportunities for clinical decision support (CDS) tools integrated in the electronic health record (EHR) and mobile apps to address the challenges with drug allergy management, including penicillin allergy delabeling (PADL). Effective delabeling solutions must consider multidisciplinary clinical workflow and multistep processes, including documentation, assessment, plan (eg, allergy testing and referral), record update, drug allergy alert management, and allergy reconciliation over time. Developing a systematic infrastructure to manage allergies across the EHR is critical to improve the accuracy and completeness of a patient's allergy and avoid inadvertently relabeling. Improving the appropriateness and relevancy of drug allergy alerts is important to reduce alert fatigue. Using alerts to guide clinicians on appropriate antibiotic use may reduce unnecessary ß-lactam avoidance. To date, EHR CDS tools have facilitated non-allergists to provide PADL at the point of care. A mobile app was shown to support PADL and provide specialist support and education. Future research is needed to standardize, integrate, and evaluate innovative CDS tools in the EHR to demonstrate patient safety and clinical utility and facilitate wider adoption.

Removal of incorrect penicillin allergy labels in a UK hospital.

OBJECTIVES: Penicillin allergy records are common, often incorrect and are associated with broad spectrum antibiotic use. We piloted a pharmacist-led multidisciplinary penicillin allergy de-labelling daily ward round to determine the opportunity for penicillin allergy de-labelling in a UK hospital. METHODS: A daily ward round, delivered by antibiotic pharmacists or junior doctors, identified adult medical and surgical patients between 7 November 2022 and 31 January 2023 with a penicillin allergy record that was preventing first-line penicillin use. An allergy history was taken before risk stratifying likelihood of future harm from penicillin re-exposure and an allergy testing method was determined (direct de-label on history alone or after direct drug provocation testing). After successful allergy de-label, the antibiotic was switched to a penicillin antibiotic. RESULTS: Of 7214 inpatients during the study period, 1133 (15.7%) had a penicillin allergy record. Of 285 allergy histories taken, 105 (36.8%) met high-risk criteria, 45 (15.8%) met low-risk criteria eligible for direct de-label and 73 (25.6%) met criteria eligible for direct drug provocation testing. We were unable to obtain a history for 61 (21.4%) patients. Of 45 low-risk patients eligible for direct de-label, 40 (88.9%) were de-labelled of whom 24 (53.3%) were switched to a penicillin antibiotic. Of 73 patients with a low-risk allergy history eligible for direct drug provocation testing, 16 (21.9%) received direct drug provocation testing, of whom 9 were switched to a penicillin antibiotic. Two direct de-label patients experienced harm (thrush within 5 days and delayed skin reaction after day 5); none of the direct drug provocation testing patients had a reaction by day 5. The switches resulted in reduced alternative antibiotic use by 173 Daily Defined Doses (DDDs). DISCUSSION: Penicillin allergy de-labelling patient pathway delivered by pharmacists and junior doctors was safe and effective and well accepted by patients and the wider clinical teams.

The effectiveness of interventions that support penicillin allergy assessment and delabeling of adult and pediatric patients by nonallergy specialists: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Penicillin allergy records are often incorrect and may result in harm. We aimed to systematically review the effectiveness and safety of nonallergist health care worker delivery of penicillin allergy delabeling. METHODS: We searched EMBASE/MEDLINE/CINAHL (Ovid), PsycInfo, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception to January 21, 2022 and unpublished studies and gray literature. The proportion of patients allergic to penicillin delabeled and harmed was calculated using random-effects models. RESULTS: Overall, 5019 patients were delabeled. Using allergy history alone, 14% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9-21%) of 4350 assessed patients were delabeled without reported harm. Direct drug provocation testing resulted in delabeling in 27% (95% CI, 18-37%) of 4207 assessed patients. Of the 1373 patients tested, 98% were delabeled (95% CI, 97-99%), and nonserious harm was reported in 1% (95% CI, 0-2%). Using skin testing, followed by drug provocation testing, 41% (95% CI, 24-59%) of 2890 assessed patients were delabeled. Of the 1294 tested patients, 95.0% (95% CI, 90-99%) were delabeled, and the reported harm was low (0%; (95% CI 0-1%). CONCLUSION: Penicillin allergy delabeling by nonallergists is efficacious and safe. The proportion of assessed patients who can be delabeled increases with the complexity of testing method, but substantial numbers can be delabeled without skin testing.

Assessment of the appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing in an acute UK hospital using a national audit tool: a single centre retrospective survey.

INTRODUCTION: Antibiotic use drives antibiotic resistance. The UK antimicrobial resistance (AMR) strategy aims to reduce antibiotic use. We aimed to quantify excess antibiotic use in a district general hospital in south-west England. METHODS: Medical patients discharged in August 2020 who had received antibiotics were included. An audit tool of antibiotic prescribing appropriateness was used to collect relevant clinical information regarding each patient case. The appropriateness of antibiotic use was then determined by two infection specialists and excess days of therapy (DOTs) calculated. RESULTS: 647 patients were discharged in August 2020. Of the 1658 antibiotic DOTs for the 184 patients reviewed, 403 (24%) were excess DOTs. The excess antibiotic DOTs were prescribed in 92 patients (50%); 112/403 (27.8%) excess DOTs originated at the initiation of antibiotic therapy (time point A); 184/403 (45.7%) of excess DOTs occurred at the antibiotic review pre-72 hours (time point B); and 107/403 (26.6%) of excess DOTs were due to protracted antibiotic courses (time point C). CONCLUSION: 24% of antibiotic DOTs were deemed unnecessary. The greatest opportunity to reduce antibiotic use safely was the pre-72 hours antibiotic review, which may provide a target for reducing excess antimicrobial therapy in line with the national AMR strategy.

Developing a model for decision-making around antibiotic prescribing for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in acute NHS hospitals during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: qualitative results from the Procalcitonin Evaluation of Antibiotic use in COVID-19 Hospitalised patients (PEACH Study).

OBJECTIVE: To explore and model factors affecting antibiotic prescribing decision-making early in the pandemic. DESIGN: Semistructured qualitative interview study. SETTING: National Health Service (NHS) trusts/health boards in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Clinicians from NHS trusts/health boards in England and Wales. METHOD: Individual semistructured interviews were conducted with clinicians in six NHS trusts/health boards in England and Wales as part of the Procalcitonin Evaluation of Antibiotic use in COVID-19 Hospitalised patients study, a wider study that included statistical analysis of procalcitonin (PCT) use in hospitals during the first wave of the pandemic. Thematic analysis was used to identify key factors influencing antibiotic prescribing decisions for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia during the first wave of the pandemic (March to May 2020), including how much influence PCT test results had on these decisions. RESULTS: During the first wave of the pandemic, recommendations to prescribe antibiotics for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were based on concerns about secondary bacterial infections. However, as clinicians gained more experience with COVID-19, they reported increasing confidence in their ability to distinguish between symptoms and signs caused by SARS-CoV-2 viral infection alone, and secondary bacterial infections. Antibiotic prescribing decisions were influenced by factors such as clinician experience, confidence, senior support, situational factors and organisational influences. A decision-making model was developed. CONCLUSION: This study provides insight into the decision-making process around antibiotic prescribing for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia during the first wave of the pandemic. The importance of clinician experience and of senior review of decisions as factors in optimising antibiotic stewardship is highlighted. In addition, situational and organisational factors were identified that could be optimised. The model presented in the study can be used as a tool to aid understanding of the complexity of the decision-making process around antibiotic prescribing and planning antimicrobial stewardship support in the context of a pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN66682918.