Improving healthcare professionals' interactions with patients to tackle antimicrobial resistance: a systematic review of interventions, barriers, and facilitators.

Introduction: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a major public health threat. With the growing emphasis on patient-centred care/ shared decision making, it is important for healthcare professionals' (HCPs) who prescribe, dispense, administer and/or monitor antimicrobials to be adequately equipped to facilitate appropriate antimicrobial use. We systematically identified existing interventions which aim to improve HCPs interaction with patients and examined barriers and facilitators of appropriate the use of such interventions and appropriate antimicrobial use among both HCPs and patientsantimicrobial use while using these interventions. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and internet (via Google search engine). We included primary studies, published in English from 2010 to 2023 [PROSPERO (CRD42023395642)]. The protocol was preregistered with PROSPERO (CRD42023395642). We performed quality assessment using mixed methods appraisal tool. We applied narrative synthesis and used the COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation -Behaviour) as a theoretical framework for barriers and facilitators at HCP and patient levels. Results: Of 9,172 citations retrieved from database searches, From 4,979 citations remained after removal of duplicates. We included 59 studies spanning over 13 countries. Interventions often involved multiple components beyond HCPs' interaction with patients. From 24 studies reporting barriers and facilitators, we identified issues relating to capability (such as, knowledge/understanding about AMR, diagnostic uncertainties, awareness of interventions and forgetfulness); opportunity (such as, time constraint and intervention accessibility) and motivation (such as, patient's desire for antibiotics and fear of litigation). Conclusion: The findings of this review should be considered by intervention designers/adopters and policy makers to improve utilisation and effectiveness.

A SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in a public order and safety training facility in England, June 2021.

BACKGROUND: The public order and safety (POS) sector remains susceptible to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreaks, as workplace attendance is typically compulsory and close physical contact is often needed. Here, we report on a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak with an attack rate of 39% (9/23), which occurred between 19 and 29 June 2021 among a cohort of new POS recruits participating in a mandatory 18-week training programme in England. METHODS: The COVID-OUT (COVID-19 Outbreak investigation to Understand Transmission) study team undertook a multidisciplinary outbreak investigation, including viral surface sampling, workplace environmental assessment, participant viral and antibody testing, and questionnaires, at the two associated training facilities between 5 July and 24 August 2021. RESULTS: Environmental factors, such as ventilation, were deemed inadequate in some areas of the workplace, with carbon dioxide (CO2) levels exceeding 1,500 ppm on multiple occasions within naturally ventilated classrooms. Activities during safety training required close contact, with some necessitating physical contact, physical exertion, and shouting. Furthermore, most participants reported having physical contact with colleagues (67%) and more than one close work contact daily (97%). CONCLUSIONS: Our investigation suggests that site- and activity-specific factors likely contributed to the transmission risks within the POS trainee cohort. Potential interventions for mitigating SARS-CoV-2 transmission in this POS training context could include implementing regular rapid lateral flow testing, optimizing natural ventilation, using portable air cleaning devices in classrooms, and expanding use of well-fitted FFP2/FFP3 respirators during activities where prolonged close physical contact is required.

Sepsis and case fatality rates and associations with deprivation, ethnicity, and clinical characteristics: population-based case-control study with linked primary care and hospital data in England.

PURPOSE: Sepsis is a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by dysregulated host response to infection. The purpose of the study was to measure the associations of specific exposures (deprivation, ethnicity, and clinical characteristics) with incident sepsis and case fatality. METHODS: Two research databases in England were used including anonymized patient-level records from primary care linked to hospital admission, death certificate, and small-area deprivation. Sepsis cases aged 65-100 years were matched to up to six controls. Predictors for sepsis (including 60 clinical conditions) were evaluated using logistic and random forest models; case fatality rates were analyzed using logistic models. RESULTS: 108,317 community-acquired sepsis cases were analyzed. Severe frailty was strongly associated with the risk of developing sepsis (crude odds ratio [OR] 14.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] 14.37-15.52). The quintile with most deprived patients showed an increased sepsis risk (crude OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.45-1.51) compared to least deprived quintile. Strong predictors for sepsis included antibiotic exposure in prior 2 months, being house bound, having cancer, learning disability, and diabetes mellitus. Severely frail patients had a case fatality rate of 42.0% compared to 24.0% in non-frail patients (adjusted OR 1.53; 95% CI 1.41-1.65). Sepsis cases with recent prior antibiotic exposure died less frequently compared to non-users (adjusted OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.72-0.76). Case fatality strongly decreased over calendar time. CONCLUSION: Given the variety of predictors and their level of associations for developing sepsis, there is a need for prediction models for risk of developing sepsis that can help to target preventative antibiotic therapy.

Rapid systematic review on risks and outcomes of sepsis: the influence of risk factors associated with health inequalities.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Sepsis is a serious and life-threatening condition caused by a dysregulated immune response to an infection. Recent guidance issued in the UK gave recommendations around recognition and antibiotic treatment of sepsis, but did not consider factors relating to health inequalities. The aim of this study was to summarise the literature investigating associations between health inequalities and sepsis. METHODS: Searches were conducted in Embase for peer-reviewed articles published since 2010 that included sepsis in combination with one of the following five areas: socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, community factors, medical needs and pregnancy/maternity. RESULTS: Five searches identified 1,402 studies, with 50 unique studies included in the review after screening (13 sociodemographic, 14 race/ethnicity, 3 community, 3 care/medical needs and 20 pregnancy/maternity; 3 papers examined multiple health inequalities). Most of the studies were conducted in the USA (31/50), with only four studies using UK data (all pregnancy related). Socioeconomic factors associated with increased sepsis incidence included lower socioeconomic status, unemployment and lower education level, although findings were not consistent across studies. For ethnicity, mixed results were reported. Living in a medically underserved area or being resident in a nursing home increased risk of sepsis. Mortality rates after sepsis were found to be higher in people living in rural areas or in those discharged to skilled nursing facilities while associations with ethnicity were mixed. Complications during delivery, caesarean-section delivery, increased deprivation and black and other ethnic minority race were associated with post-partum sepsis. CONCLUSION: There are clear correlations between sepsis morbidity and mortality and the presence of factors associated with health inequalities. To inform local guidance and drive public health measures, there is a need for studies conducted across more diverse setting and countries.

Assessment of global antimicrobial resistance campaigns conducted to improve public awareness and antimicrobial use behaviours: a rapid systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Public health campaigns with a well-defined outcome behaviour have been shown to successfully alter behaviour. However, the complex nature of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) creates challenges when evaluating campaigns aimed at raising awareness and changing behaviour. AIMS: To determine what campaigns have been conducted and which reported being effective at improving awareness of antimicrobial resistance and changing behaviour around antimicrobial use in members of the public. It also sought to determine the outcome measures studies have used to assess campaign effectiveness. METHODS: A systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE and Embase, was conducted in October 2022 using a predefined search strategy. Studies which were published between 2010 and September 2022 that outlined a campaign or invention aimed at the public and focusing on AMR or antibiotic usage were eligible for inclusion and studies which solely targeted healthcare professionals (HCP) were excluded. RESULTS: Literature searches retrieved 6961 results. De-duplication and screening removed 6925 articles, five articles from grey literature and reference screening were included, giving a total of 41 studies and 30 unique interventions. There was a distribution of campaigns globally with the majority run in Europe (n = 15) with most campaigns were conducted nationally (n = 14). Campaigns tended to focus on adult members of the public (n = 14) or targeted resources towards both the public and HCPs (n = 13) and predominately assessed changes in knowledge of and/or attitudes towards AMR (n = 16). Campaigns where an improvement was seen in their primary outcome measure tended to use mass media to disseminate information, targeted messaging towards a specific infection, and including the use of HCP-patient interactions. DISCUSSION: This review provides some evidence that campaigns can significantly improve outcome measures relating to AMR and antibiotic usage. Despite a lack of homogeneity between studies some common themes emerged between campaigns reported as being effective. However, the frequent use of observational study designs makes it difficult to establish causation between the campaign and changes seen in the studies outcome measures. It is important that clear evaluation processes are embedded as part of the design process for future campaigns; a campaign evaluation framework for use by campaign developers may facilitate this.

Consideration of factors associated with inequalities in interventions that support health-care professionals' interaction with patients to reduce inappropriate antimicrobial use: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Tackling the public health challenge of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) requires promotion of appropriate antimicrobial use by health-care professionals. The objective of this review was to identify interventions that facilitate appropriate antimicrobial behaviours when health-care professionals interact with patients and any considerations for factors associated with health inequalities. METHODS: For this systematic review, we searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Google Scholar) from Jan 31, 2023, to Feb 8, 2023. We included search terms such as antimicrobial use/prescribing, health-care professionals, and AMR programmes. We included any relevant primary study published from year 2010 and in English. We conducted forward and backward citation searching from included studies on March 27, 2023. We extracted information on the interventions following the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) guideline and examined reports on how the interventions might impact on inequalities. We performed quality assessment using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). We conducted descriptive synthesis. The protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023395642). FINDINGS: After screening 4979 records, we included 59 studies. Most studies were randomised trials (n=25) and qualitative/mixed methods studies (n=16). Included studies covered 16 countries, particularly the UK (n=16) and the USA (n=13). Most studies (n=34) fulfilled at least 80% of the relevant quality criteria, but 12 studies fulfilled less than 50%. Many interventions were established strategies (eg, TARGET: Treat Antibiotics Responsibly, Guidance, Education and Tools). Patient interaction elements of the interventions often involved using education materials (eg, digital/paper leaflets, and videos) and point-of-care testing. While many studies (n=49) included participants from disadvantaged groups, only three examined how outcomes differ between groups. In those studies, antimicrobial prescription was not associated with age, sex, and level of learning disability. Some other studies reported issues with language barriers and potential digital exclusion, especially for older people. INTERPRETATION: We might have missed some relevant studies due to publication year and language restrictions. Notwithstanding, this review showed that the potential impact of factors associated with health inequalities are not routinely considered during the implementation and evaluation of interventions to improve health-care professionals' interaction with patients. Future work should routinely consider this to help mitigate potential inequalities. FUNDING: UK Health Security Agency.

Assessing the impact of a national social marketing campaign for antimicrobial resistance on public awareness, attitudes, and behaviour, and as a supportive tool for healthcare professionals, England, 2017 to 2019.

BackgroundPrevious United Kingdom campaigns targeting antimicrobial resistance (AMR) recommended running multimedia campaigns over an increased timeframe. The 3-year-long Keep Antibiotics Working (KAW) campaign was a mass media campaign in England targeting the public and general practitioners (GPs).MethodsEvery year, pre- and post-campaign questionnaire data were collected from the public, whereas post-campaign interview data were obtained from GPs. Data were weighted to allow pre- and post-campaign comparisons between independent samples. Significant changes in nominal and ordinal data were determined using Pearson's chi-squared (X2) and Mann-Whitney U tests, respectively.ResultsPrompted campaign recognition was high, increasing by 6% from 2018 to 2019 (2017: data unavailable; 2018: 68% (680/1,000); 2019: 74% (740/1,000); X2 = 8.742, p = 0.003). Knowledge regarding declining antibiotic effectiveness when taken inappropriately improved following the campaign (net true: pre-2017 = 69.1% (691/1,000); post-2019 = 77.6%; (776/1,000); X2 = 5.753, p = 0.016). The proportion of individuals reporting concern for themselves or for children (≤ 16 years) about AMR increased by 11.2% (Z = -5.091, p < 0.001) and 6.0% (Z = -3.616, p < 0.001) respectively, pre- to post-campaign. Finally, in 2017, reported confidence to say no to patients requesting antibiotics differed significantly between GPs who were and were not aware of the campaign (net agree: 98.9% (182/184) vs 92.4% (97/105) respectively; X2 = 4.000, p = 0.045).ConclusionA high level of prompted campaign recognition was achieved. The KAW campaign improved aspects of AMR knowledge and certain attitudes towards appropriate antimicrobial use. It increased awareness of and concern about AMR, supporting GP confidence to appropriately prescribe antibiotics. Future determination of measurable behaviour changes resulting from AMR campaigns is important.

Clinical and health inequality risk factors for non-COVID-related sepsis during the global COVID-19 pandemic: a national case-control and cohort study.

Background: Sepsis, characterised by significant morbidity and mortality, is intricately linked to socioeconomic disparities and pre-admission clinical histories. This study aspires to elucidate the association between non-COVID-19 related sepsis and health inequality risk factors amidst the pandemic in England, with a secondary focus on their association with 30-day sepsis mortality. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we harnessed the OpenSAFELY platform to execute a cohort study and a 1:6 matched case-control study. A sepsis diagnosis was identified from the incident hospital admissions record using ICD-10 codes. This encompassed 248,767 cases with non-COVID-19 sepsis from a cohort of 22.0 million individuals spanning January 1, 2019, to June 31, 2022. Socioeconomic deprivation was gauged using the Index of Multiple Deprivation score, reflecting indicators like income, employment, and education. Hospitalisation-related sepsis diagnoses were categorised as community-acquired or hospital-acquired. Cases were matched to controls who had no recorded diagnosis of sepsis, based on age (stepwise), sex, and calendar month. The eligibility criteria for controls were established primarily on the absence of a recorded sepsis diagnosis. Associations between potential predictors and odds of developing non-COVID-19 sepsis underwent assessment through conditional logistic regression models, with multivariable regression determining odds ratios (ORs) for 30-day mortality. Findings: The study included 224,361 (10.2%) cases with non-COVID-19 sepsis and 1,346,166 matched controls. The most socioeconomic deprived quintile was associated with higher odds of developing non-COVID-19 sepsis than the least deprived quintile (crude OR 1.80 [95% CI 1.77-1.83]). Other risk factors (after adjusting comorbidities) such as learning disability (adjusted OR 3.53 [3.35-3.73]), chronic liver disease (adjusted OR 3.08 [2.97-3.19]), chronic kidney disease (stage 4: adjusted OR 2.62 [2.55-2.70], stage 5: adjusted OR 6.23 [5.81-6.69]), cancer, neurological disease, immunosuppressive conditions were also associated with developing non-COVID-19 sepsis. The incidence rate of non-COVID-19 sepsis decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic and rebounded to pre-pandemic levels (April 2021) after national lockdowns had been lifted. The 30-day mortality risk in cases with non-COVID-19 sepsis was higher for the most deprived quintile across all periods. Interpretation: Socioeconomic deprivation, comorbidity and learning disabilities were associated with an increased odds of developing non-COVID-19 related sepsis and 30-day mortality in England. This study highlights the need to improve the prevention of sepsis, including more precise targeting of antimicrobials to higher-risk patients. Funding: The UK Health Security Agency, Health Data Research UK, and National Institute for Health Research.