Changes in public health-seeking behaviours for self-limiting respiratory tract infections across England during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: National Health Service (NHS) guidance for acute respiratory tract infections (RTIs) advocates self-care, encourages utilization of local pharmacies and recommends consulting general practitioners (GPs) primarily for the vulnerable or those with persistent symptoms. Coronavirus disease 2019 exerted substantial strain on the English NHS, affecting public access to primary care services. METHODS: For 3 years, public surveys assessed RTI incidences in the previous 12 months and associated health-seeking behaviours. Telephone surveys of 1676 respondents across England were conducted in March 2021 and 1663 respondents in March 2022. Findings were compared with a face-to-face baseline survey of 2022 respondents from March 2020. Key demographics were representative of the population. RESULTS: In 2021, the proportion of respondents who reported an RTI (51%) significantly declined from 2020 (70%, P < 0.05), then returned to pre-pandemic rates in 2022 (67%). Respondents reported more proactive symptom management in both 2021 and 2022 from 2020: there were greater reports of seeking over-the-counter treatments (55%, 55% vs. 35%, P < 0.05) and use of alternative remedies (38%, 38% vs. 21%, P < 0.05). 2022 observed a reduction in those who reported consulting their GP for their most recent RTI (15%) compared to 2021 (25%, P < 0.05) and 2020 (23%), which was not accounted for through greater consultation rates with other healthcare services. CONCLUSIONS: Public health bodies should consider how pandemic-related changes may have facilitated increased self-care for self-limiting infections such as RTIs. Resources and support must include safety-netting advice to safeguard against unintentional consequences of increased self-care.

Criteria to achieve safe antimicrobial intravenous-to-oral switch in hospitalised adult populations: a systematic rapid review.

OBJECTIVES: This rapid review aimed to assess and collate intravenous-to-oral switch (IVOS) criteria from the literature to achieve safe and effective antimicrobial IVOS in the hospital inpatient adult population. DESIGN: The rapid review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. DATA SOURCES: OVID Embase and Medline databases. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Articles of adult populations published globally between 2017 and 2021 were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: An Excel spreadsheet was designed with specific column headings. IVOS criteria from UK hospital IVOS policies informed the framework synthesis. RESULTS: IVOS criteria from 45/164 (27%) local IVOS policies were categorised into a five-section framework: (1) timing of IV antimicrobial review, (2) clinical signs and symptoms, (3) infection markers, (4) enteral route and (5) infection exclusions. The literature search identified 477 papers, of which 16 were included. The most common timing for review was 48-72 hours from initiation of intravenous antimicrobial (n=5, 30%). Nine studies (56%) stated clinical signs and symptoms must be improving. Temperature was the most frequently mentioned infection marker (n=14, 88%). Endocarditis had the highest mention as an infection exclusion (n=12, 75%). Overall, 33 IVOS criteria were identified to go forward into the Delphi process. CONCLUSION: Through the rapid review, 33 IVOS criteria were collated and presented within five distinct and comprehensive sections. The literature highlighted the possibility of reviewing IVOS before 48-72 hours and of presenting heart rate, blood pressure and respiratory rate as a combination early warning score criterion. The criteria identified can serve as a starting point of IVOS criteria review for any institution globally, as no country or region limits were applied. Further research is required to achieve consensus on IVOS criteria from healthcare professionals that manage patients with infections. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022320343.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on antimicrobial stewardship support for general practices in England: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: In England, clinical commissioning group (CCG; now replaced by Integrated Care Systems [ICSs]) and primary care network (PCN) professionals support primary care prescribers to optimise antimicrobial stewardship (AMS). AIM: To explore views and experiences of CCG and PCN staff in supporting AMS, and the impact of COVID-19 on this support. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative interview study in primary care in England. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews with staff from CCG and PCNs responsible for AMS were conducted at two timepoints via telephone. These were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Twenty-seven interviews were conducted with 14 participants (nine CCG, five PCN) in December 2020-January 2021 and February-May 2021. The study found that AMS support was (1) deprioritised in order to keep general practice operational and deliver COVID-19 vaccines; (2) disrupted as social distancing made it harder to build relationships, conduct routine AMS activities, and challenge prescribing decisions; and (3) adapted, with opportunities identified for greater use of technology and changing patient and public perceptions of viruses and self-care. It was also found that resources to support AMS were valued if they were both novel, to counter AMS 'fatigue', and sufficiently familiar to fit with existing and/or future AMS. CONCLUSION: AMS needs to be reprioritised in general practice in the post-pandemic era and within the new ICSs in England. This should include interventions and strategies that combine novel elements with already familiar strategies to refresh prescribers' motivation and opportunities for AMS. Behaviour change interventions should be aimed at improving the culture and processes for how PCN pharmacists voice concerns about AMS to prescribers in general practice and take advantage of the changed patient and public perceptions of viruses and self-care.

Implementing antibiotic stewardship in high-prescribing English general practices: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Trials have identified antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) strategies that effectively reduce antibiotic use in primary care. However, many are not commonly used in England. The authors co-developed an implementation intervention to improve use of three AMS strategies: enhanced communication strategies, delayed prescriptions, and point-of-care C-reactive protein tests (POC-CRPTs). AIM: To investigate the use of the intervention in high-prescribing practices and its effect on antibiotic prescribing. DESIGN AND SETTING: Nine high-prescribing practices had access to the intervention for 12 months from November 2019. This was primarily delivered remotely via a website with practices required to identify an 'antibiotic champion'. METHOD: Routinely collected prescribing data were compared between the intervention and the control practices. Intervention use was assessed through monitoring. Surveys and interviews were conducted with professionals to capture experiences of using the intervention. RESULTS: There was no evidence that the intervention affected prescribing. Engagement with intervention materials differed substantially between practices and depended on individual champions' preconceptions of strategies and the opportunity to conduct implementation tasks. Champions in five practices initiated changes to encourage use of at least one AMS strategy, mostly POC-CRPTs; one practice chose all three. POC-CRPTs was used more when allocated to one person. CONCLUSION: Clinicians need detailed information on exactly how to adopt AMS strategies. Remote, one-sided provision of AMS strategies is unlikely to change prescribing; initial clinician engagement and understanding needs to be monitored to avoid misunderstanding and suboptimal use.

Learning from electronic prescribing errors: a mixed methods study of junior doctors' perceptions of training and individualised feedback data.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the views of junior doctors towards (1) electronic prescribing (EP) training and feedback, (2) readiness for receiving individualised feedback data about EP errors and (3) preferences for receiving and learning from EP feedback. DESIGN: Explanatory sequential mixed methods study comprising quantitative survey (phase 1), followed by interviews and focus group discussions (phase 2). SETTING: Three acute hospitals of a large English National Health Service organisation. PARTICIPANTS: 25 of 89 foundation year 1 and 2 doctors completed the phase 1 survey; 5 participated in semi-structured interviews and 7 in a focus group in phase 2. RESULTS: Foundation doctors in this mixed methods study reported that current feedback provision on EP errors was lacking or informal, and that existing EP training and resources were underused. They believed feedback about prescribing errors to be important and were keen to receive real-time, individualised EP feedback data. Feedback needed to be in manageable amounts, motivational and clearly signposting how to learn or improve. Participants wanted feedback and better training on the EP system to prevent repeating errors. In addition to individualised EP error data, they were positive about learning from general prescribing errors and aggregated EP data. However, there was a lack of consensus about how best to learn from statistical data. Potential limitations identified by participants included concern about how the data would be collected and whether it would be truly reflective of their performance. CONCLUSIONS: Junior doctors would value feedback on their prescribing, and are keen to learn from EP errors, develop their clinical prescribing skills and use the EP interface effectively. We identified preferences for EP technology to enable provision of real-time data in combination with feedback to support learning and potentially reduce prescribing errors.

What does antimicrobial stewardship look like where you are? Global narratives from participants in a massive open online course.

BACKGROUND: Whilst antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) is being implemented globally, contextual differences exist. We describe how the use of a massive open online course (MOOC) platform provided an opportunity to gather diverse narratives on AMS from around the world. METHODS: A free 3 week MOOC titled 'Tackling antimicrobial resistance: a social science approach' was launched in November 2019. Learners were asked specific questions about their experiences of AMS via 38 optional free-text prompts dispersed throughout the modules. Content analysis was used to identify key emerging themes from the learners' responses in the first three runs of the MOOC. RESULTS: Between November 2019 and July 2020, 1464 learners enrolled from 114 countries. Overall, 199 individual learners provided a total of 1097 responses to the prompts. The diverse perspectives describe unique challenges present in different contexts including ill-defined roles for pharmacists and nurses in AMS; inadequate governance and policy inconsistencies in surveillance for antibiotic consumption and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in some countries; lack of ownership of antibiotic decision-making and buy-in from different clinical specialties; and human resource and technological constraints. Patients' knowledge, experiences and perspectives were recognized as a valuable source of information that should be incorporated in AMS initiatives to overcome cultural barriers to the judicious use of antibiotics. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of learner comments and reflections identified a range of enablers and barriers to AMS implementation across different healthcare economies. Common challenges to AMS implementation included the role of non-physician healthcare workers, resource limitations, gaps in knowledge of AMR, and patient engagement and involvement in AMS.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Community Antibiotic Prescribing and Stewardship: A Qualitative Interview Study with General Practitioners in England.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the delivery of primary care services. We aimed to identify general practitioners' (GPs') perceptions and experiences of how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced antibiotic prescribing and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) in general practice in England. Twenty-four semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 GPs at two time-points: autumn 2020 (14 interviews) and spring 2021 (10 interviews). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically, taking a longitudinal approach. Participants reported a lower threshold for antibiotic prescribing (and fewer consultations) for respiratory infections and COVID-19 symptoms early in the pandemic, then returning to more usual (pre-pandemic) prescribing. They perceived the pandemic as having had less impact on antibiotic prescribing for urinary and skin infections. Participants perceived the changing ways of working and consulting (e.g., proportions of remote and in-person consultations) in addition to changing patient presentations and GP workloads as influencing the fluctuations in antibiotic prescribing. This was compounded by decreased engagement with, and priority of, AMS due to COVID-19-related urgent priorities. Re-engagement with AMS is needed, e.g., through reviving antibiotic prescribing feedback and targets/incentives. The pandemic disrupted, and required adaptations in, the usual ways of working and AMS. It is now important to identify opportunities, e.g., for re-organising ways of managing infections and AMS in the future.

Development of an intervention to support the implementation of evidence-based strategies for optimising antibiotic prescribing in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Trials show that antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) strategies, including communication skills training, point-of-care C-reactive protein testing (POC-CRPT) and delayed prescriptions, help optimise antibiotic prescribing and use in primary care. However, the use of these strategies in general practice is limited and inconsistent. We aimed to develop an intervention to enhance uptake and implementation of these strategies in primary care. METHODS: We drew on the Person-Based Approach to develop an implementation intervention in two stages. (1) Planning and design: We defined the problem in behavioural terms drawing on existing literature and conducting primary qualitative research (nine focus groups) in high-prescribing general practices. We identified 'guiding principles' with intervention objectives and key features and developed logic models representing intended mechanisms of action. (2) Developing the intervention: We created prototype intervention materials and discussed and refined these with input from 13 health professionals and 14 citizens in two sets of design workshops. We further refined the intervention materials following think-aloud interviews with 22 health professionals. RESULTS: Focus groups highlighted uncertainties about how strategies could be used. Health professionals in the workshops suggested having practice champions, brief summaries of each AMS strategy and evidence supporting the AMS strategies, and they and citizens gave examples of helpful communication strategies/phrases. Think-aloud interviews helped clarify and shorten the text and user journey of the intervention materials. The intervention comprised components to support practice-level implementation: antibiotic champions, practice meetings with slides provided, and an 'implementation support' website section, and components to support individual-level uptake: website sections on each AMS strategy (with evidence, instructions, links to electronic resources) and material resources (patient leaflets, POC-CRPT equipment, clinician handouts). CONCLUSIONS: We used a systematic, user-focussed process of developing a behavioural intervention, illustrating how it can be used in an implementation context. This resulted in a multicomponent intervention to facilitate practice-wide implementation of evidence-based strategies which now requires implementing and evaluating. Focusing on supporting the uptake and implementation of evidence-based strategies to optimise antibiotic use in general practice is critical to further support appropriate antibiotic use and mitigate antimicrobial resistance.

Public preferences for delayed or immediate antibiotic prescriptions in UK primary care: A choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: Delayed (or "backup") antibiotic prescription, where the patient is given a prescription but advised to delay initiating antibiotics, has been shown to be effective in reducing antibiotic use in primary care. However, this strategy is not widely used in the United Kingdom. This study aimed to identify factors influencing preferences among the UK public for delayed prescription, and understand their relative importance, to help increase appropriate use of this prescribing option. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted an online choice experiment in 2 UK general population samples: adults and parents of children under 18 years. Respondents were presented with 12 scenarios in which they, or their child, might need antibiotics for a respiratory tract infection (RTI) and asked to choose either an immediate or a delayed prescription. Scenarios were described by 7 attributes. Data were collected between November 2018 and February 2019. Respondent preferences were modelled using mixed-effects logistic regression. The survey was completed by 802 adults and 801 parents (75% of those who opened the survey). The samples reflected the UK population in age, sex, ethnicity, and country of residence. The most important determinant of respondent choice was symptom severity, especially for cough-related symptoms. In the adult sample, the probability of choosing delayed prescription was 0.53 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.56, p < 0.001) for a chesty cough and runny nose compared to 0.30 (0.28 to 0.33, p < 0.001) for a chesty cough with fever, 0.47 (0.44 to 0.50, p < 0.001) for sore throat with swollen glands, and 0.37 (0.34 to 0.39, p < 0.001) for sore throat, swollen glands, and fever. Respondents were less likely to choose delayed prescription with increasing duration of illness (odds ratio (OR) 0.94 (0.92 to 0.96, p < 0.001)). Probabilities of choosing delayed prescription were similar for parents considering treatment for a child (44% of choices versus 42% for adults, p = 0.04). However, parents differed from the adult sample in showing a more marked reduction in choice of the delayed prescription with increasing duration of illness (OR 0.83 (0.80 to 0.87) versus 0.94 (0.92 to 0.96) for adults, p for heterogeneity p < 0.001) and a smaller effect of disruption of usual activities (OR 0.96 (0.95 to 0.97) versus 0.93 (0.92 to 0.94) for adults, p for heterogeneity p < 0.001). Females were more likely to choose a delayed prescription than males for minor symptoms, particularly minor cough (probability 0.62 (0.58 to 0.66, p < 0.001) for females and 0.45 (0.41 to 0.48, p < 0.001) for males). Older people, those with a good understanding of antibiotics, and those who had not used antibiotics recently showed similar patterns of preferences. Study limitations include its hypothetical nature, which may not reflect real-life behaviour; the absence of a "no prescription" option; and the possibility that study respondents may not represent the views of population groups who are typically underrepresented in online surveys. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that delayed prescription appears to be an acceptable approach to reducing antibiotic consumption. Certain groups appear to be more amenable to delayed prescription, suggesting particular opportunities for increased use of this strategy. Prescribing choices for sore throat may need additional explanation to ensure patient acceptance, and parents in particular may benefit from reassurance about the usual duration of these illnesses.

Implementing interventions to reduce antibiotic use: a qualitative study in high-prescribing practices.

BACKGROUND: Trials have shown that delayed antibiotic prescriptions (DPs) and point-of-care C-Reactive Protein testing (POC-CRPT) are effective in reducing antibiotic use in general practice, but these were not typically implemented in high-prescribing practices. We aimed to explore views of professionals from high-prescribing practices about uptake and implementation of DPs and POC-CRPT to reduce antibiotic use. METHODS: This was a qualitative focus group study in English general practices. The highest antibiotic prescribing practices in the West Midlands were invited to participate. Clinical and non-clinical professionals attended focus groups co-facilitated by two researchers. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Nine practices (50 professionals) participated. Four main themes were identified. Compatibility of strategies with clinical roles and experience - participants viewed the strategies as having limited value as 'clinical tools', perceiving them as useful only in 'rare' instances of clinical uncertainty and/or for those less experienced. Strategies as 'social tools' - participants perceived the strategies as helpful for negotiating treatment decisions and educating patients, particularly those expecting antibiotics. Ambiguities - participants perceived ambiguities around when they should be used, and about their impact on antibiotic use. Influence of context - various other situational and practical issues were raised with implementing the strategies. CONCLUSIONS: High-prescribing practices do not view DPs and POC-CRPT as sufficiently useful 'clinical tools' in a way which corresponds to the current policy approach advocating their use to reduce clinical uncertainty and improve antimicrobial stewardship. Instead, policy attention should focus on how these strategies may instead be used as 'social tools' to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use. Attention should also focus on the many ambiguities (concerns and questions) about, and contextual barriers to, using these strategies that need addressing to support wider and more consistent implementation.

Trends in Antibiotic Prescribing in Out-of-Hours Primary Care in England from January 2016 to June 2020 to Understand Behaviours during the First Wave of COVID-19.

We describe the trend of antibiotic prescribing in out-of-hours (OOH) general practices (GP) before and during England's first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. We analysed practice-level prescribing records between January 2016 to June 2020 to report the trends for the total prescribing volume, prescribing of broad-spectrum antibiotics and key agents included in the national Quality Premium. We performed a time-series analysis to detect measurable changes in the prescribing volume associated with COVID-19. Before COVID-19, the total prescribing volume and the percentage of broad-spectrum antibiotics continued to decrease in-hours (IH). The prescribing of broad-spectrum antibiotics was higher in OOH (OOH: 10.1%, IH: 8.7%), but a consistent decrease in the trimethoprim-to-nitrofurantoin ratio was observed OOH. The OOH antibiotic prescribing volume diverged from the historical trend in March 2020 and started to decrease by 5088 items per month. Broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing started to increase in OOH and IH. In OOH, co-amoxiclav and doxycycline peaked in March to May in 2020, which was out of sync with seasonality peaks (Winter) in previous years. While this increase might be explained by the implementation of the national guideline to use co-amoxiclav and doxycycline to manage pneumonia in the community during COVID-19, further investigation is required to see whether the observed reduction in OOH antibiotic prescribing persists and how this reduction might influence antimicrobial resistance and patient outcomes.

Delayed Antibiotic Prescription by General Practitioners in the UK: A Stated-Choice Study.

Delayed antibiotic prescription in primary care has been shown to reduce antibiotic consumption, without increasing risk of complications, yet is not widely used in the UK. We sought to quantify the relative importance of factors affecting the decision to give a delayed prescription, using a stated-choice survey among UK general practitioners. Respondents were asked whether they would provide a delayed or immediate prescription in fifteen hypothetical consultations, described by eight attributes. They were also asked if they would prefer not to prescribe antibiotics. The most important determinants of choice between immediate and delayed prescription were symptoms, duration of illness, and the presence of multiple comorbidities. Respondents were more likely to choose a delayed prescription if the patient preferred not to have antibiotics, but consultation length had little effect. When given the option, respondents chose not to prescribe antibiotics in 51% of cases, with delayed prescription chosen in 21%. Clinical features remained important. Patient preference did not affect the decision to give no antibiotics. We suggest that broader dissemination of the clinical evidence supporting use of delayed prescription for specific presentations may help increase appropriate use. Establishing patient preferences regarding antibiotics may help to overcome concerns about patient acceptance. Increasing consultation length appears unlikely to affect the use of delayed prescription.

Investigating the mechanism of impact and differential effect of the Quality Premium scheme on antibiotic prescribing in England: a longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: In 2017, approximately 73% of antibiotics in England were prescribed from primary care practices. It has been estimated that 9%-23% of antibiotic prescriptions between 2013 and 2015 were inappropriate. Reducing antibiotic prescribing in primary care was included as one of the national priorities in a financial incentive scheme in 2015-2016. AIM: To investigate whether the effects of the Quality Premium (QP), which provided performance-related financial incentives to clinical commissioning groups (CCGs), could be explained by practice characteristics that contribute to variations in antibiotic prescribing. DESIGN & SETTING: Longitudinal monthly prescribing data were analysed for 6251 primary care practices in England from April 2014 to March 2016. METHOD: Linear generalised estimating equations models were fitted, examining the effect of the 2015-2016 QP on the number of antibiotic items per specific therapeutic group age-sex related prescribing unit (STAR-PU) prescribed, adjusting for seasonality and months since implementation. Consistency of effects after further adjustment for variations in practice characteristics were also examined, including practice workforce, comorbidities prevalence, prescribing rates of non-antibiotic drugs, and deprivation. RESULTS: Antibiotics prescribed in primary care practices in England reduced by -0.172 items per STAR-PU (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.180 to -0.171) after 2015-2016 QP implementation, with slight increases in the months following April 2015 (+0.014 items per STAR-PU; 95% CI = +0.013 to +0.014). Adjusting the model for practice characteristics, the immediate and month-on-month effects following implementation remained consistent, with slight attenuation in immediate reduction from -0.172 to -0.166 items per STAR-PU. In subgroup analysis, the QP effect was significantly greater among the top 20% prescribing practices (interaction p<0.001). Practices with low workforce and those with higher diabetes prevalence had greater reductions in prescribing following 2015-2016 QP compared with other practices (interaction p<0.001). CONCLUSION: In high-prescribing practices, those with low workforce and high diabetes prevalence had more reduction following the QP compared with other practices, highlighting the need for targeted support of these practices and appropriate resourcing of primary care.

The impact of electronic prescribing systems on healthcare professionals' working practices in the hospital setting: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise peer-reviewed literature assessing the impact of electronic prescribing (eP) systems on the working practices of healthcare professionals (HCPs) in the inpatient setting and identify implications for practice and research. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane and the Cumulative Index to Nursing Allied Health Literature databases for studies published from inception to November 2018. We included controlled, uncontrolled, observational and descriptive studies that explored the effect of eP on HCPs' working practices in an inpatient setting. Data on setting, eP system and impact on working practices were extracted. Methodological quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Emergent themes were identified and subjected to narrative synthesis. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (registration CRD42017075804). RESULTS: Searches identified 1301 titles and abstracts after duplicate removal. 171 papers underwent full-text review. A total of 25 studies met the inclusion criteria, from nine different countries. Nineteen were of commercial eP systems. There were a range of study designs; most (n = 14) adopted quantitative methods such as cross-sectional surveys, ten adopted qualitative approaches and a further one used mixed methods. Fourteen of the 25 studies were deemed to be of high quality. Four key themes were identified: communication, time taken to complete tasks, clinical workflow, and workarounds. Within each theme, study findings differed as to whether the effects of eP on HCPs' working practices were positive or negative. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of consensus within the literature on the impact of eP on HCPs' working practices. Future research should explore the strategies resulting in a positive impact on HCPs' working practices and learn from those that have not been successful.

A whole-health-economy approach to antimicrobial stewardship: Analysis of current models and future direction.

In a Policy Forum, Alison Holmes and colleagues discuss coordinated approaches to antimicrobial stewardship.

The impact of implementing a hospital electronic prescribing and administration system on clinical pharmacists' activities - a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: The increasing adoption of hospital electronic prescribing and medication administration (ePA) systems has driven a wealth of research around the impact on patient safety. Yet relatively little research has sought to understand the effects on staff, particularly pharmacists. We aimed to investigate the effects of ePA on pharmacists' activities, including interactions with patients and health professionals, and their perceptions of medication safety risks. METHODS: A mixed methods study comprising quantitative direct observations of ward pharmacists before and after implementation of ePA in an English hospital, and semi-structured interviews post-ePA. Quantitative data comprised multi-dimensional work activity sampling to establish the proportion of time ward pharmacists spent on different tasks, with whom and where. These data were extrapolated to estimate task duration. Qualitative interviews with pharmacists explored perceived impact on (i) ward activities, (ii) interactions with patients and different health professionals, (iii) locations where tasks were carried out, and (iv) medication errors. RESULTS: Observations totalled 116 h and 50 min. Task duration analysis suggested screening inpatient medication increased by 16 mins per 10 patients reviewed (p = 0.002), and searching for paper drug charts or computer decreased by 2 mins per 10 patients reviewed (p = 0.001). Pharmacists mainly worked alone (58% of time pre- and 65% post-ePA, p = 0.17), with patient interactions reducing from 5 to 2% of time (p = 0.03). Seven main themes were identified from the interviews, underpinned by a core explanatory concept around the enhanced and shifting role of the ward pharmacist post-ePA. Pharmacists perceived there to be a number of valuable safety features with ePA. However, paradoxically, some of these may have also inadvertently contributed to medication errors. CONCLUSION: This study provides quantitative and qualitative insights into the effects of implementing ePA on ward pharmacists' activities. Some tasks took longer while others reduced, and pharmacists may spend less time with patients with ePA. Pharmacists valued a number of safety features associated with ePA but also perceived an overall increase in medication risk. Pharmacy staff demonstrated a degree of resilience to ensure 'business as usual' by enhancing and adapting their role.

An Evidence-Based Antimicrobial Stewardship Smartphone App for Hospital Outpatients: Survey-based Needs Assessment Among Patients.

BACKGROUND: Current advances in modern technology have enabled the development and utilization of electronic medical software apps for both mobile and desktop computing devices. A range of apps on a large variety of clinical conditions for patients and the public are available, but very few target antimicrobials or infections. OBJECTIVE: We sought to explore the use of different antimicrobial information resources with a focus on electronic platforms, including apps for portable devices, by outpatients at two large, geographically distinct National Health Service (NHS) teaching hospital trusts in England. We wanted to determine whether there is demand for an evidence-based app for patients, to garner their perceptions around infections/antimicrobial prescribing, and to describe patients' experiences of their interactions with health care professionals in relation to this topic. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey design was used to investigate aspects of antimicrobial prescribing and electronic devices experienced by patients at four hospitals in London and a teaching hospital in the East of England. RESULTS: A total of 99 surveys were completed and analyzed. A total of 82% (80/98) of respondents had recently been prescribed antimicrobials; 87% (85/98) of respondents were prescribed an antimicrobial by a hospital doctor or through their general practitioner (GP) in primary care. Respondents wanted information on the etiology (42/65, 65%) and prevention and/or management (32/65, 49%) of their infections, with the infections reported being upper and lower respiratory tract, urinary tract, oral, and skin and soft tissue infections. All patients (92/92, 100%) desired specific information on the antimicrobial prescribed. Approximately half (52/95, 55%) stated it was "fine" for doctors to use a mobile phone/tablet computer during the consultation while 13% (12/95) did not support the idea of doctors accessing health care information in this way. Although only 30% (27/89) of respondents reported on the use of health care apps, 95% (81/85) offered information regarding aspects of antimicrobials or infections that could be provided through a tailored app for patients. Analysis of the comments revealed the following main global themes: knowledge, technology, and patient experience. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of respondents in our study wanted to have specific etiological and/or infection management advice. All required antimicrobial-related information. Also, most supported the use of electronic resources of information, including apps, by their doctors. While a minority of people currently use health apps, many feel that apps could be used to provide additional support/information related to infections and appropriate use of antimicrobials. In addition, we found that there is a need for health care professionals to engage with patients and help address common misconceptions around the generation of antimicrobial resistance.

Facilitators and Barriers to Safe Medication Administration to Hospital Inpatients: A Mixed Methods Study of Nurses' Medication Administration Processes and Systems (the MAPS Study).

CONTEXT: Research has documented the problem of medication administration errors and their causes. However, little is known about how nurses administer medications safely or how existing systems facilitate or hinder medication administration; this represents a missed opportunity for implementation of practical, effective, and low-cost strategies to increase safety. AIM: To identify system factors that facilitate and/or hinder successful medication administration focused on three inter-related areas: nurse practices and workarounds, workflow, and interruptions and distractions. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods ethnographic approach involving observational fieldwork, field notes, participant narratives, photographs, and spaghetti diagrams to identify system factors that facilitate and/or hinder successful medication administration in three inpatient wards, each from a different English NHS trust. We supplemented this with quantitative data on interruptions and distractions among other established medication safety measures. FINDINGS: Overall, 43 nurses on 56 drug rounds were observed. We identified a median of 5.5 interruptions and 9.6 distractions per hour. We identified three interlinked themes that facilitated successful medication administration in some situations but which also acted as barriers in others: (1) system configurations and features, (2) behaviour types among nurses, and (3) patient interactions. Some system configurations and features acted as a physical constraint for parts of the drug round, however some system effects were partly dependent on nurses' inherent behaviour; we grouped these behaviours into 'task focused', and 'patient-interaction focused'. The former contributed to a more streamlined workflow with fewer interruptions while the latter seemed to empower patients to act as a defence barrier against medication errors by being: (1) an active resource of information, (2) a passive information resource, and/or (3) a 'double-checker'. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified practical examples of system effects on work optimisation and nurse behaviours that potentially increase medication safety, and conceptualized ways in which patient involvement can increase medication safety in hospitals.

A national survey of inpatient medication systems in English NHS hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Systems and processes for prescribing, supplying and administering inpatient medications can have substantial impact on medication administration errors (MAEs). However, little is known about the medication systems and processes currently used within the English National Health Service (NHS). This presents a challenge for developing NHS-wide interventions to increase medication safety. We therefore conducted a cross-sectional postal census of medication systems and processes in English NHS hospitals to address this knowledge gap. METHODS: The chief pharmacist at each of all 165 acute NHS trusts was invited to complete a questionnaire for medical and surgical wards in their main hospital (July 2011). We report here the findings relating to medication systems and processes, based on 18 closed questions plus one open question about local medication safety initiatives. Non-respondents were posted another questionnaire (August 2011), and then emailed (October 2011). RESULTS: One hundred (61% of NHS trusts) questionnaires were returned. Most hospitals used paper-based prescribing on the majority of medical and surgical inpatient wards (87% of hospitals), patient bedside medication lockers (92%), patients' own drugs (89%) and 'one-stop dispensing' medication labelled with administration instructions for use at discharge as well as during the inpatient stay (85%). Less prevalent were the use of ward pharmacy technicians (62% of hospitals) or pharmacists (58%) to order medications on the majority of wards. Only 65% of hospitals used drug trolleys; 50% used patient-specific inpatient supplies on the majority of wards. Only one hospital had a pharmacy open 24 hours, but all had access to an on-call pharmacist. None reported use of unit-dose dispensing; 7% used an electronic drug cabinet in some ward areas. Overall, 85% of hospitals had a double-checking policy for intravenous medication and 58% for other specified drugs. "Do not disturb" tabards/overalls were routinely used during nurses' drug rounds on at least one ward in 59% of hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Inter- and intra-hospital variations in medication systems and processes exist, even within the English NHS; future research should focus on investigating their potential effects on nurses' workflow and MAEs, and developing NHS-wide interventions to reduce MAEs.

The use and functionality of electronic prescribing systems in english acute NHS trusts: a cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: To describe current use of electronic prescribing (EP) in English acute NHS hospital trusts, and the use of multiple EP systems within the same hospital. DESIGN: Descriptive cross-sectional postal survey. SETTING: Acute NHS hospital trusts in England. PARTICIPANTS: The survey was sent to chief pharmacists in all acute English NHS hospital trusts in 2011. Where trusts comprised multiple hospitals, respondents were asked to complete the questionnaire for their main acute hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of EP use in acute NHS hospitals; number of different EP systems in each hospital; stages of the patient pathway in which EP used; extent of deployment across the hospital; comprehensiveness regarding the drugs prescribed; decision support functionalities used. RESULTS: We received responses from 101 trusts (61%). Seventy (69%) respondent hospitals had at least one form of EP in use. More than half (39;56%) of hospitals with EP had more than one system in use, representing 60 different systems. The most common were systems used only for discharge prescribing, used in 48 (48% of respondent hospitals). Specialist chemotherapy EP systems were second most common (34; 34%). Sixteen specialist inpatient systems were used across 15 hospitals, most commonly in adult critical care. Only 13 (13%) respondents used inpatient electronic prescribing across all adult medical and surgical wards. Overall, 24 (40%) systems were developed 'in-house'. Decision support functionality varied widely. CONCLUSIONS: It is UK government policy to encourage the adoption of EP in hospitals. Our work shows that EP is prevalent in English hospitals, although often in limited clinical areas and for limited types of prescribing. The diversity of systems in use, often within the same hospital, may create challenges for staff training and patient safety.