The Differences in Antibiotic Decision-making Between Acute Surgical and Acute Medical Teams: An Ethnographic Study of Culture and Team Dynamics.

BACKGROUND: Cultural and social determinants influence antibiotic decision-making in hospitals. We investigated and compared cultural determinants of antibiotic decision-making in acute medical and surgical specialties. METHODS: An ethnographic observational study of antibiotic decision-making in acute medical and surgical teams at a London teaching hospital was conducted (August 2015-May 2017). Data collection included 500 hours of direct observations, and face-to-face interviews with 23 key informants. A grounded theory approach, aided by Nvivo 11 software, analyzed the emerging themes. An iterative and recursive process of analysis ensured saturation of the themes. The multiple modes of enquiry enabled cross-validation and triangulation of the findings. RESULTS: In medicine, accepted norms of the decision-making process are characterized as collectivist (input from pharmacists, infectious disease, and medical microbiology teams), rationalized, and policy-informed, with emphasis on de-escalation of therapy. The gaps in antibiotic decision-making in acute medicine occur chiefly in the transition between the emergency department and inpatient teams, where ownership of the antibiotic prescription is lost. In surgery, team priorities are split between 3 settings: operating room, outpatient clinic, and ward. Senior surgeons are often absent from the ward, leaving junior staff to make complex medical decisions. This results in defensive antibiotic decision-making, leading to prolonged and inappropriate antibiotic use. CONCLUSIONS: In medicine, the legacy of infection diagnosis made in the emergency department determines antibiotic decision-making. In surgery, antibiotic decision-making is perceived as a nonsurgical intervention that can be delegated to junior staff or other specialties. Different, bespoke approaches to optimize antibiotic prescribing are therefore needed to address these specific challenges.

Effect of adding a mobile health intervention to a multimodal antimicrobial stewardship programme across three teaching hospitals: an interrupted time series study.

Objectives: To evaluate the impact of adding a mobile health (mHealth) decision support system for antibiotic prescribing to an established antimicrobial stewardship programme (ASP). Methods: In August 2011, the antimicrobial prescribing policy was converted into a mobile application (app). A segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series was used to assess the impact of the app on prescribing indicators, using data (2008-14) from a biannual point prevalence survey of medical and surgical wards. There were six data points pre-implementation and six data points post-implementation. Results: There was an increase in compliance with policy (e.g. compliance with empirical therapy or expert advice) in the two specialties of medicine (6.48%, 95% CI = -1.25 to 14.20) and surgery (6.63%, 95% CI = 0.15-13.10) in the implementation period, with a significant sudden change in level in surgery ( P < 0.05). There was an increase, though not significant, in medicine (15.20%, 95% CI = -17.81 to 48.22) and surgery (35.97%, 95% CI = -3.72 to 75.66) in the percentage of prescriptions that had a stop/review date documented. The documentation of indication decreased in both medicine (-16.25%, 95% CI = -42.52 to 10.01) and surgery (-14.62%, 95% CI = -42.88 to 13.63). Conclusions: Introducing the app into an existing ASP had a significant impact on the compliance with policy in surgery, and a positive, but not significant, effect on documentation of stop/review date in both specialties. The negative effect on the third indicator may reflect a high level of compliance pre-intervention, due to existing ASP efforts. The broader value of providing an antimicrobial policy on a digital platform, e.g. the reach and access to the policy, should be measured using indicators more sensitive to mHealth interventions.

Understanding the determinants of antimicrobial prescribing within hospitals: the role of "prescribing etiquette".

BACKGROUND: There is limited knowledge of the key determinants of antimicrobial prescribing behavior (APB) in hospitals. An understanding of these determinants is required for the successful design, adoption, and implementation of quality improvement interventions in antimicrobial stewardship programs. METHODS: Qualitative semistructured interviews were conducted with doctors (n = 10), pharmacists (n = 10), and nurses and midwives (n = 19) in 4 hospitals in London. Interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was reached. Thematic analysis was applied to the data to identify the key determinants of antimicrobial prescribing behaviors. RESULTS: The APB of healthcare professionals is governed by a set of cultural rules. Antimicrobial prescribing is performed in an environment where the behavior of clinical leaders or seniors influences practice of junior doctors. Senior doctors consider themselves exempt from following policy and practice within a culture of perceived autonomous decision making that relies more on personal knowledge and experience than formal policy. Prescribers identify with the clinical groups in which they work and adjust their APB according to the prevailing practice within these groups. A culture of "noninterference" in the antimicrobial prescribing practice of peers prevents intervention into prescribing of colleagues. These sets of cultural rules demonstrate the existence of a "prescribing etiquette," which dominates the APB of healthcare professionals. Prescribing etiquette creates an environment in which professional hierarchy and clinical groups act as key determinants of APB. CONCLUSIONS: To influence the antimicrobial prescribing of individual healthcare professionals, interventions need to address prescribing etiquette and use clinical leadership within existing clinical groups to influence practice.

An analysis of the development and implementation of a smartphone application for the delivery of antimicrobial prescribing policy: lessons learnt.

OBJECTIVES: Smartphone usage amongst clinicians is widespread. Yet smartphones are not widely used for the dissemination of policy or as clinical decision support systems. We report here on the development, adoption and implementation process of the Imperial Antimicrobial Prescribing Application across five teaching hospitals in London. METHODS: Doctors and clinical pharmacists were recruited to this study, which employed a mixed methods in-depth case-study design with focus groups, structured pre- and post-intervention survey questionnaires and live data on application uptake. The primary outcome measure was uptake of the application by doctors and its acceptability. The development and implementation processes were also mapped. RESULTS: The application was downloaded by 40% (376) of junior doctors with smartphones (primary target user group) within the first month and by 100% within 12 months. There was an average of 1900 individual access sessions per month, compared with 221 hits on the Intranet version of the policy. Clinicians (71%) reported that using the application improved their antibiotic knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians rapidly adopted the mobile application for antimicrobial prescribing at the point of care, enabling the policy to reach a much wider audience in comparison with paper- and desktop-based versions of the policy. Organizations seeking to optimize antimicrobial prescribing should consider utilizing mobile technology to deliver point-of-care decision support. The process revealed a series of barriers, which will need to be addressed at individual and organizational levels to ensure safe and high-quality delivery of local policy at the point of care.

Point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 serological assays for enhanced case finding in a UK inpatient population.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has become a global pandemic. Case identification is currently made by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) during the acute phase and largely restricted to healthcare laboratories. Serological assays are emerging but independent validation is urgently required to assess their utility. We evaluated five different point-of-care (POC) SARS-CoV-2 antibody test kits against PCR, finding concordance across the assays (n = 15). We subsequently tested 200 patients using the OrientGene COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette and find a sensitivity of 74% in the early infection period (day 5-9 post symptom onset), with 100% sensitivity not seen until day 13, demonstrating inferiority to PCR testing in the infectious period. Negative rate was 96%, but in validating the serological tests uncovered potential false-negatives from PCR testing late-presenting cases. A positive predictive value (PPV) of 37% in the general population precludes any use for general screening. Where a case definition is applied however, the PPV is substantially improved (95.4%), supporting use of serology testing in carefully targeted, high-risk populations. Larger studies in specific patient cohorts, including those with mild infection are urgently required to inform on the applicability of POC serological assays to help control the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and improve case finding of patients that may experience late complications.

New-onset anosmia and ageusia in adult patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated the prevalence of anosmia and ageusia in adult patients with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of infection with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: This was a retrospective observational analysis of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 admitted to hospital or managed in the community and their household contacts across a London population during the period March 1st to April 1st, 2020. Symptomatology and duration were extracted from routinely collected clinical data and follow-up telephone consultations. Descriptive statistics were used. RESULTS: Of 386 patients, 141 (92 community patients, 49 discharged inpatients) were included for analysis; 77/141 (55%) reported anosmia and ageusia, nine reported only ageusia and three only anosmia. The median onset of anosmia in relation to onset of SARS-CoV-2 disease (COVID-19) symptoms (as defined by the Public Health England case definition) was 4 days (interquartile range (IQR) 5). Median duration of anosmia was 8 days (IQR 16). Median duration of COVID-19 symptoms in community patients was 10 days (IQR 8) versus 18 days (IQR 13.5) in admitted patients. As of April 1, 45 patients had ongoing COVID-19 symptoms and/or anosmia; 107/141 (76%) patients had household contacts, and of 185 non-tested household contacts 79 (43%) had COVID-19 symptoms with 46/79 (58%) reporting anosmia. Six household contacts had anosmia only. CONCLUSIONS: Over half of the positive patients reported anosmia and ageusia, suggesting that these should be added to the case definition and used to guide self-isolation protocols. This adaptation may be integral to case findings in the absence of population-level testing. Until we have successful population-level vaccination coverage, these steps remain critical in the current and future waves of this pandemic.

Building resilient and responsive research collaborations to tackle antimicrobial resistance-Lessons learnt from India, South Africa, and UK.

Research, collaboration, and knowledge exchange are critical to global efforts to tackle antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Different healthcare economies are faced with different challenges in implementing effective strategies to address AMR. Building effective capacity for research to inform AMR-related strategies and policies is recognised as an important contributor to success. Interdisciplinary, intersector, as well as international collaborations are needed to span global to local efforts to tackle AMR. The development of reciprocal, long-term partnerships between collaborators in high-income and in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) needs to be built on principles of capacity building. Using case studies spanning local and international research collaborations to codesign, implement, and evaluate strategies to tackle AMR, we have evaluated and build upon the ESSENCE criteria for capacity building in LMICs. The first case study describes the local codesign and implementation of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) in the state of Kerala in India. The second case study describes an international research collaboration investigating AMR surgical patient pathways in India, the UK, and South Africa. We describe the steps undertaken to develop robust, agile, and flexible AMS research and implementation teams. Notably, investing in capacity building ensured that the programmes described in these case studies were sustained through the current severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus pandemic. Describing the strategies adopted by a local and an international collaboration to tackle AMR, we provide a model for capacity building in LMICs that can support sustainable and agile AMS programmes.

Implementation of antibiotic stewardship in different settings - results of an international survey.

Background: Antibiotic stewardship interventions are being implemented across different healthcare settings. We report the findings of a global survey of healthcare professionals on the implementation of antibiotic stewardship programmes. Methods: Learners of a Massive Online Open Course (MOOC) on antibiotic stewardship were invited to complete an online survey on the core available organisational resources for stewardship. The categorical variables were analysed using chi-squared test, and Likert questions were analysed using an ordinal regression model. The p-values were considered as two-tailed. Significance was set at p-value of < 0.05. Results: The response rate was 55% (505/920), from 53 countries. The responders were 36% (182) doctors, 26% (130) pharmacists, 18% (89) nurses and 20% (104) other (researchers, students and members of the public). Post-graduate training in infection management and stewardship was reported by 56% of doctors compared with 43% (OR 0.59, 95%CI 0.35-1.00) nurses and 35% (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.24-0.62) of pharmacists. Hospitals were significantly (83% in teaching hospitals, 79% in regional hospitals, p = < 0.01) more likely to have antibiotic policies, when compared to primary care. A surveillance mechanism for antibiotic consumption was reported in 58% (104/178) of teaching hospitals and 62% (98/159) of regional hospitals. Antimicrobial resistance, patient needs, policy, peer influence and specialty level culture and practices were deemed important determinants for decision-making. Conclusion: Postgraduate training and support in antibiotic prescribing remains low amongst nurses and pharmacists. Whilst antibiotic policies and committees are established in most institutions, surveillance of antibiotic use is not. The impact of specialty level culture, and peer influence appears to be important factors of antibiotic prescribing.

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.

Developing core elements and checklist items for global hospital antimicrobial stewardship programmes: a consensus approach.

OBJECTIVES: With increasing global interest in hospital antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes, there is a strong demand for core elements of AMS to be clearly defined on the basis of principles of effectiveness and affordability. To date, efforts to identify such core elements have been limited to Europe, Australia, and North America. The aim of this study was to develop a set of core elements and their related checklist items for AMS programmes that should be present in all hospitals worldwide, regardless of resource availability. METHODS: A literature review was performed by searching Medline and relevant websites to retrieve a list of core elements and items that could have global relevance. These core elements and items were evaluated by an international group of AMS experts using a structured modified Delphi consensus procedure, using two-phased online in-depth questionnaires. RESULTS: The literature review identified seven core elements and their related 29 checklist items from 48 references. Fifteen experts from 13 countries in six continents participated in the consensus procedure. Ultimately, all seven core elements were retained, as well as 28 of the initial checklist items plus one that was newly suggested, all with ≥80% agreement; 20 elements and items were rephrased. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus on core elements for hospital AMS programmes is relevant to both high- and low-to-middle-income countries and could facilitate the development of national AMS stewardship guidelines and adoption by healthcare settings worldwide.

Prioritizing research areas for antibiotic stewardship programmes in hospitals: a behavioural perspective consensus paper.

SCOPE: Antibiotic stewardship programmes (ASPs) are necessary in hospitals to improve the judicious use of antibiotics. While ASPs require complex change of key behaviours on individual, team organization and policy levels, evidence from the behavioural sciences is underutilized in antibiotic stewardship studies across the world, including high-income countries (HICs). A consensus procedure was performed to propose research priority areas for optimizing effective implementation of ASPs in hospital settings using a behavioural perspective. METHODS: A workgroup for behavioural approaches to ASPs was convened in response to the fourth call for leading expert network proposals by the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance (JPIAMR). Eighteen clinical and academic specialists in antibiotic stewardship, implementation science and behaviour change from four HICs with publicly funded healthcare systems (e.g. Canada, Germany, Norway and the UK) met face-to-face to agree on broad research priority areas using a structured consensus method. Question addressed and recommendations: The consensus process assessing the ten identified research priority areas resulted in recommendations that need urgent scientific interest and funding to optimize effective implementation of ASPs for hospital inpatients in HICs with publicly funded healthcare systems. We suggest and detail behavioural science evidence-guided research efforts in the following areas: (a) comprehensively identifying barriers and facilitators to implementing ASPs and clinical recommendations intended to optimize antibiotic prescribing; (b) identifying actors ('who') and actions ('what needs to be done') of ASPs and clinical teams; (c) synthesizing available evidence to support future research and planning for ASPs; (d) specifying the activities in current ASPs with the purpose of defining a control group for comparison with new initiatives; (e) defining a balanced set of outcomes and measures to evaluate the effects of interventions focused on reducing unnecessary exposure to antibiotics; (f) conducting robust evaluations of ASPs with built-in process evaluations and fidelity assessments; (g) defining and designing ASPs; (h) establishing the evidence base for impact of ASPs on resistance; (i) investigating the role and impact of government and policy contexts on ASPs; and (j) understanding what matters to patients in ASPs in hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment, revisions and updates of our priority-setting exercise should be considered at intervals of 2 years. To propose research priority areas in low- and middle-income countries, the methodology reported here could be applied.

Understanding antibiotic decision making in surgery-a qualitative analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the characteristics and culture of antibiotic decision making in the surgical specialty. METHODS: A qualitative study including ethnographic observation and face-to-face interviews with participants from six surgical teams at a teaching hospital in London was conducted. Over a 3-month period: (a) 30 ward rounds (WRs) (100 h) were observed, (b) face-to-face follow-up interviews took place with 13 key informants, (c) multidisciplinary meetings on the management of surgical patients and daily practice on wards were observed. Applying these methods provided rich data for characterizing the antibiotic decision making in surgery and enabled cross-validation and triangulation of the findings. Data from the interview transcripts and the observational notes were coded and analysed iteratively until saturation was reached. RESULTS: The surgical team is in a state of constant flux with individuals having to adjust to the context in which they work. The demands placed on the team to be in the operating room, and to address the surgical needs of the patient mean that the responsibility for antibiotic decision making is uncoordinated and diffuse. Antibiotic decision making is considered by surgeons as a secondary task, commonly delegated to junior members of their team and occurs in the context of disjointed communication. CONCLUSION: There is lack of clarity around medical decision making for treating infections in surgical patients. The result is sub-optimal and uncoordinated antimicrobial management. Developing the role of a perioperative clinician may help to improve patient-level outcomes and optimize decision making.

A systematic review of clinical decision support systems for antimicrobial management: are we failing to investigate these interventions appropriately?

OBJECTIVES: Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) for antimicrobial management can support clinicians to optimize antimicrobial therapy. We reviewed all original literature (qualitative and quantitative) to understand the current scope of CDSS for antimicrobial management and analyse existing methods used to evaluate and report such systems. METHOD: PRISMA guidelines were followed. Medline, EMBASE, HMIC Health and Management and Global Health databases were searched from 1 January 1980 to 31 October 2015. All primary research studies describing CDSS for antimicrobial management in adults in primary or secondary care were included. For qualitative studies, thematic synthesis was performed. Quality was assessed using Integrated quality Criteria for the Review Of Multiple Study designs (ICROMS) criteria. CDSS reporting was assessed against a reporting framework for behaviour change intervention implementation. RESULTS: Fifty-eight original articles were included describing 38 independent CDSS. The majority of systems target antimicrobial prescribing (29/38;76%), are platforms integrated with electronic medical records (28/38;74%), and have a rules-based infrastructure providing decision support (29/38;76%). On evaluation against the intervention reporting framework, CDSS studies fail to report consideration of the non-expert, end-user workflow. They have narrow focus, such as antimicrobial selection, and use proxy outcome measures. Engagement with CDSS by clinicians was poor. CONCLUSION: Greater consideration of the factors that drive non-expert decision making must be considered when designing CDSS interventions. Future work must aim to expand CDSS beyond simply selecting appropriate antimicrobials with clear and systematic reporting frameworks for CDSS interventions developed to address current gaps identified in the reporting of evidence.

Opportunities for system level improvement in antibiotic use across the surgical pathway.

Optimizing antibiotic prescribing across the surgical pathway (before, during, and after surgery) is a key aspect of tackling important drivers of antimicrobial resistance and simultaneously decreasing the burden of infection at the global level. In the UK alone, 10 million patients undergo surgery every year, which is equivalent to 60% of the annual hospital admissions having a surgical intervention. The overwhelming majority of surgical procedures require effectively limited delivery of antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent infections. Evidence from around the world indicates that antibiotics for surgical prophylaxis are administered ineffectively, or are extended for an inappropriate duration of time postoperatively. Ineffective antibiotic prophylaxis can contribute to the development of surgical site infections (SSIs), which represent a significant global burden of disease. The World Health Organization estimates SSI rates of up to 50% in postoperative surgical patients (depending on the type of surgery), with a particular problem in low- and middle-income countries, where SSIs are the most frequently reported healthcare-associated infections. Across European hospitals, SSIs alone comprise 19.6% of all healthcare-acquired infections. Much of the scientific research in infection management in surgery is related to infection prevention and control in the operating room, surgical prophylaxis, and the management of SSIs, with many studies focusing on infection within the 30-day postoperative period. However it is important to note that SSIs represent only one of the many types of infection that can occur postoperatively. This article provides an overview of the surgical pathway and considers infection management and antibiotic prescribing at each step of the pathway. The aim was to identify the implications for research and opportunities for system improvement.

Behaviour change interventions to influence antimicrobial prescribing: a cross-sectional analysis of reports from UK state-of-the-art scientific conferences.

BACKGROUND: To improve the quality of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions the application of behavioural sciences supported by multidisciplinary collaboration has been recommended. We analysed major UK scientific research conferences to investigate AMS behaviour change intervention reporting. METHODS: Leading UK 2015 scientific conference abstracts for 30 clinical specialties were identified and interrogated. All AMS and/or antimicrobial resistance(AMR) abstracts were identified using validated search criteria. Abstracts were independently reviewed by four researchers with reported behavioural interventions classified using a behaviour change taxonomy. RESULTS: Conferences ran for 110 days with >57,000 delegates. 311/12,313(2.5%) AMS-AMR abstracts (oral and poster) were identified. 118/311(40%) were presented at the UK's infectious diseases/microbiology conference. 56/311(18%) AMS-AMR abstracts described behaviour change interventions. These were identified across 12/30(40%) conferences. The commonest abstract reporting behaviour change interventions were quality improvement projects [44/56 (79%)]. In total 71 unique behaviour change functions were identified. Policy categories; "guidelines" (16/71) and "service provision" (11/71) were the most frequently reported. Intervention functions; "education" (6/71), "persuasion" (7/71), and "enablement" (9/71) were also common. Only infection and primary care conferences reported studies that contained multiple behaviour change interventions. The remaining 10 specialties tended to report a narrow range of interventions focusing on "guidelines" and "enablement". CONCLUSION: Despite the benefits of behaviour change interventions on antimicrobial prescribing, very few AMS-AMR studies reported implementing them in 2015. AMS interventions must focus on promoting behaviour change towards antimicrobial prescribing. Greater focus must be placed on non-infection specialties to engage with the issue of behaviour change towards antimicrobial use.

Towards changing healthcare workers' behaviour: a qualitative study exploring non-compliance through appraisals of infection prevention and control practices.

BACKGROUND: Improving behaviour in infection prevention and control (IPC) practice remains a challenge, and understanding the determinants of healthcare workers' (HCWs) behaviour is fundamental to develop effective and sustained behaviour change interventions. AIM: To identify behaviours of HCWs that facilitated non-compliance with IPC practices, focusing on how appraisals of IPC duties and social and environmental circumstances shaped and influenced non-compliant behaviour. This study aimed to: (1) identify how HCWs rationalized their own behaviour and the behaviour of others; (2) highlight challenging areas of IPC compliance; and (3) describe the context of the working environment that may explain inconsistencies in IPC practices. METHODS: Clinical staff at a National Health Service hospital group in London, UK were interviewed between December 2010 and July 2011 using qualitative methods. Responses were analysed using a thematic framework. FINDINGS: Three ways in which HCWs appraised their behaviour were identified through accounts of IPC policies and practices: (1) attribution of responsibilities, with ambiguity about responsibility for certain IPC practices; (2) prioritization and risk appraisal, which demonstrated a divergence in values attached to some IPC policies and practices; and (3) hierarchy of influence highlighted that traditional clinical roles challenged work relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, behaviours are not entirely independent of policy rules, but often an amalgamation of local normative practices, individual preferences and a degree of professional isolation.