Reciprocity in the intercultural conference space to improve Aboriginal oral health: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Despite high rates of oral disease in Indigenous communities globally, progress is slow in implementing policies and practices so the depth of inequity is addressed and oral health outcomes improve. Indigenous communities are often poorly consulted in the process. This paper responds to this inequity by seeking to create a respectful intercultural space at international dental conferences where Aboriginal health practitioners and dental public health researchers can discuss ways forward for oral health in Indigenous communities. METHODS: Participatory action research informed by Indigenist methodologies guided this research. Two roundtable discussions between Australian Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal participants were recorded, transcribed and analysed for themes related to problems and potential solutions to dental disease in Indigenous communities. Follow-up discussions on participants' reflections engaging in this intercultural space were recorded and analysed. RESULTS: Two Aboriginal health practitioners and five non-Aboriginal international dental public health researchers identified the importance of inclusion where intercultural engagement and collaboration with Indigenous Peoples were integral to conducting research in this context and improving oral health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Creating a safe, respectful space between Aboriginal health practitioners and non-Aboriginal dental public health researchers at an international conference fostered dialogue to better understand barriers and enablers to good oral health outcomes. Intercultural engagement and discussion is a step towards mutual understanding of oral health perspectives and experiences that can foster equity and enable more collaborative responses to improve oral health outcomes.

Antibiotic prescribing in general medical and surgical specialties: a prospective cohort study.

Background: Qualitative work has described the differences in prescribing practice across medical and surgical specialties. This study aimed to understand if specialty impacts quantitative measures of prescribing practice. Methods: We prospectively analysed the antibiotic prescribing across general medical and surgical teams for acutely admitted patients. Over a 12-month period (June 2016 - May 2017) 659 patients (362 medical, 297 surgical) were followed for the duration of their hospital stay. Antibiotic prescribing across these cohorts was assessed using Chi-squared or Wilcoxon rank-sum, depending on normality of data. The t-test was used to compare age and length of stay. A logistic regression model was used to predict escalation of antibiotic therapy. Results: Surgical patients were younger (p < 0.001) with lower Charlson Comorbidity Index scores (p < 0.001). Antibiotics were prescribed for 45% (162/362) medical and 55% (164/297) surgical patients. Microbiological results were available for 26% (42/164) medical and 29% (48/162) surgical patients, of which 55% (23/42) and 48% (23/48) were positive respectively. There was no difference in the spectrum of antibiotics prescribed between surgery and medicine (p = 0.507). In surgery antibiotics were 1) prescribed more frequently (p = 0.001); 2) for longer (p = 0.016); 3) more likely to be escalated (p = 0.004); 4) less likely to be compliant with local policy (p < 0.001) than medicine. Conclusions: Across both specialties, microbiology investigation results are not adequately used to diagnose infections and optimise their management. There is significant variation in antibiotic decision-making (including escalation patterns) between general surgical and medical teams. Antibiotic stewardship interventions targeting surgical specialties need to go beyond surgical prophylaxis. It is critical to focus on of review the patients initiated on therapeutic antibiotics in surgical specialties to ensure that escalation and continuation of therapy is justified.

Epidemiology and health-economic burden of urinary-catheter-associated infection in English NHS hospitals: a probabilistic modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) and bloodstream infection (CABSI) are leading causes of healthcare-associated infection in England's National Health Service (NHS), but health-economic evidence to inform investment in prevention is lacking. AIMS: To quantify the health-economic burden and value of prevention of urinary-catheter-associated infection among adult inpatients admitted to NHS trusts in 2016/17. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the annual prevalence of CAUTI and CABSI, and their associated excess health burdens [quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] and economic costs (£ 2017). Patient-level datasets and literature were synthesized to estimate population structure, model parameters and associated uncertainty. Health and economic benefits of catheter prevention were estimated. Scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. FINDINGS: The model estimated 52,085 [95% uncertainty interval (UI) 42,967-61,360] CAUTIs and 7529 (UI 6857-8622) CABSIs, of which 38,084 (UI 30,236-46,541) and 2524 (UI 2319-2956) were hospital-onset infections, respectively. Catheter-associated infections incurred 45,717 (UI 18,115-74,662) excess bed-days, 1467 (UI 1337-1707) deaths and 10,471 (UI 4783-13,499) lost QALYs. Total direct hospital costs were estimated at £54.4M (UI £37.3-77.8M), with an additional £209.4M (UI £95.7-270.0M) in economic value of QALYs lost assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY. Respectively, CABSI accounted for 47% (UI 32-67%) and 97% (UI 93-98%) of direct costs and QALYs lost. Every catheter prevented could save £30 (UI £20-44) in direct hospital costs and £112 (UI £52-146) in QALY value. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital catheter prevention is poised to reap substantial health-economic gains, but community-oriented interventions are needed to target the large burden imposed by community-onset infection.

Mapping national surveillance of surgical site infections in England: needs and priorities.

BACKGROUND: The rise in antimicrobial resistance has highlighted the importance of surgical site infection (SSI) prevention with effective surveillance strategies playing a key role in improving patient safety. AIM: To map national needs and priorities for SSI surveillance against current national surveillance activity. METHODS: This study analysed SSI surveillance in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in England covering 23 surgical procedures. Data collected were: (i) annual number of procedures, (ii) SSI rates from national reports, (iii) national reporting requirement (mandatory, voluntary, not offered), (iv) priority ranking from a survey of 84 English NHS hospitals, (v) excess length of stay and costs from the literature. The relationships between estimated SSI burden, national surveillance activity, and hospital-reported priorities were explored with descriptive and univariate analyses. FINDINGS: Among the 23 surgical categories analysed, top priority ranking by hospitals was associated only with current surveillance (r = 0.76, P < 0.01) and mandatory reporting (33% vs 8 and 4%, P = 0.04). Percentage of hospitals undertaking surveillance, mandatory reporting, and the selection of priorities did not match SSI burden. Large bowel surgery (LBS, voluntary) and caesarean section (not offered) were the two highest contributors of total SSIs per annum, with 39,000 (38%) and 17,000 (16%) respectively, while the four orthopaedic categories (all mandatory) contributed 5000 (5%). LBS also had the highest associated costs (£119 million per annum). CONCLUSION: Current surveillance and future priorities were not associated with SSI rate, volume, or cost to hospitals. The two highest contributors of SSIs and related costs have no (caesarean section) or limited (LBS) coverage by national surveillance.

Comparison of national strategies to reduce meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in Japan and England.

BACKGROUND: National responses to healthcare-associated infections vary between high-income countries, but, when analysed for contextual comparability, interventions can be assessed for transferability. AIM: To identify learning from country-level approaches to addressing meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in Japan and England. METHODS: A longitudinal analysis (2000-2017), comparing epidemiological trends and policy interventions. Data from 441 textual sources concerning infection prevention and control (IPC), surveillance, and antimicrobial stewardship interventions were systematically coded for: (a) type: mandatory requirements, recommendations, or national campaigns; (b) method: restrictive, persuasive, structural in nature; (c) level of implementation: macro (national), meso (organizational), micro (individual) levels. Healthcare organizational structures and role of media were also assessed. FINDINGS: In England significant reduction has been achieved in number of reported MRSA bloodstream infections. In Japan, in spite of reductions, MRSA remains a predominant infection. Both countries face new threats in the emergence of drug-resistant Escherichia coli. England has focused on national mandatory and structural interventions, supported by a combination of outcomes-based incentives and punitive mechanisms, and multi-disciplinary IPC hospital teams. Japan has focused on (non-mandatory) recommendations and primarily persuasive interventions, supported by process-based incentives, with voluntary surveillance. Areas for development in Japan include resourcing of dedicated data management support and implementation of national campaigns for healthcare professionals and the public. CONCLUSION: Policy interventions need to be relevant to local epidemiological trends, while acceptable within the health system, culture, and public expectations. Cross-national learning can help inform the right mix of interventions to create sustainable and resilient systems for future infection and economic challenges.

Is antimicrobial stewardship cost-effective? A narrative review of the evidence.

AIMS: This narrative review aimed to collate recent evidence on the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes, to address the question 'is AMS cost-effective?', while providing resources and guidance for future research in this area. SOURCES: PubMed was searched for studies assessing the cost-effectiveness, cost-utility or cost-benefit of AMS interventions in humans, published from January 2000 to March 2017, with no setting inclusion/exclusion criteria specified. Reference lists of retrieved reviews were searched for additional articles. CONTENT: Recent evidence on the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of AMS is described, studies suggest persuasive and structural AMS interventions may provide health economic benefits to the hospital setting. However, overall, cost-effectiveness evidence for AMS is severely limited, especially for the community setting. Recommendations for future research in this area are therefore provided, including discussion of appropriate health economic methodological choice. IMPLICATIONS: Health systems have a finite and decreasing resource, decision makers currently do not have necessary evidence to assess whether AMS programmes provide sufficient benefits. Although the evidence-base of the cost-effectiveness of AMS is increasing, it remains inadequate for investment decision-making. Robust health economics research needs to be completed to enhance the generalizability and usability of cost-effectiveness results.

Tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy: a review of the literature.

In considering whether to refer a child for tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy, five questions must be answered. Is the patient's tonsillar enlargement due to infection? Do the tonsils and adenoids have a useful function at this period of the child's growth? What is the frequency of T & A? What are the cause and course of tonsillitis? What is the risk/benefit ratio of T & A? From an extensive review of the literature, this paper attempts to answer these questions.