Individual care versus broader public health: A qualitative study of hospital doctors' antibiotic decisions.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine how hospital doctors balance competing concerns around antibiotic use and resistance, with a focus on individual care versus broader public health considerations. METHODS: Sixty-four doctors across two hospitals in Australia participated in semi-structured interviews about their perspectives on antibiotic resistance and prescribing decisions. Results were analysed using the framework approach. RESULTS: The first theme focused on the significance of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and the role of hospital doctors. Participants did not perceive resistance to be central to clinical decision-making, and externalised the resistance threat. They perceived themselves as separated from the issue of escalating resistance, viewing the key drivers to be overseas use, use in agriculture, and community prescribing. The second theme was around balancing risks. Immediate clinical risks were described as prioritised over long term population risk. Participants described concern around reputational and legal risks, which were perceived to be associated with under-prescribing of antibiotics. Over-prescribing was described by participants to be easier and without perceived immediate risk to them or to patients. CONCLUSION: Hospital doctors perceived antimicrobial resistance as externally produced and described clinical concerns taking precedence in individual antibiotic decisions. These dual processes mean that a population health model has limited traction in the hospital context. The externalisation of resistance leads to a sense of futility in changing practice, which combines with the pressures of acute medicine to prioritise immediate patient outcomes. Such dynamics are leading to antibiotic optimisation as a low or absent priority in hospital clinician antibiotic decision-making.