Patient and public understanding and knowledge of antimicrobial resistance and stewardship in a UK hospital: should public campaigns change focus?

BACKGROUND: The rising global tide of antimicrobial resistance is a well-described phenomenon. Employing effective and innovative antimicrobial stewardship strategies is an essential approach to combat this public health threat. Education of the public and patients is paramount to enable the success of such strategies. METHODS: A panel of hospital multidisciplinary healthcare professionals was set up and a short quiz containing true/false statements around antimicrobial stewardship and resistance was designed and piloted. An educational leaflet with the correct replies and supporting information was also produced and disseminated. Participants were recruited on a single day (18 November 2015) from the hospital outpatient clinics and the hospital outpatient pharmacy waiting room. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-five completed quizzes were returned, providing a total of 1450 answers. Overall, 934 of 1450 (64%) statements were scored correctly whilst 481 (33%) were scored incorrectly; 35 (3%) statements were left unscored. We speculate that these results may demonstrate that respondents understood the statements, as only a small proportion of statements were left unanswered. The question dealing with the definition of antimicrobial resistance and the question dealing with the definition of antimicrobial stewardship obtained the most incorrect replies (85% and 72%, respectively). However, a specific factual recall question regarding only one microorganism (MRSA) received the most correct responses (99%). CONCLUSIONS: We describe a simple, innovative method of engagement with patients and the general public to help educate and disseminate important public health messages around antimicrobial resistance and stewardship. We also identified the need for public health campaigns to address the knowledge gaps found around this topic.

Factors influencing implementation and adoption of direct oral penicillin challenge for allergy delabelling: a qualitative evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Over 95% of penicillin allergy labels are inaccurate and may be addressed in low-risk patients using direct oral penicillin challenge (DPC). This study explored the behaviour, attitudes and acceptability of patients, healthcare professionals (HCPs) and managers of using DPC in low-risk patients. METHODS: Mixed-method, investigation involving patient interviews and staff focus groups at three NHS acute hospitals. Transcripts were coded using inductive and deductive thematic analysis informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework. FINDINGS: Analysis of 43 patient interviews and three focus groups (28 HCPs: clinicians and managers) highlighted themes of 'knowledge', 'beliefs about capabilities and consequences', 'environmental context', 'resources', 'social influences', 'professional role and identity', 'behavioural regulation and reinforcement' and a cross-cutting theme of digital systems. Overall, study participants supported the DPC intervention. Patients expressed reassurance about being in a monitored, hospital setting. HCPs acknowledged the need for robust governance structures for ensuring clarity of roles and responsibilities and confidence. CONCLUSION: There were high levels of acceptability among patients and HCPs. HCPs recognised the importance of DPC. Complexities of penicillin allergy (de)labelling were highlighted, and issues of knowledge, risk, governance and workforce were identified as key determinants. These should be considered in future planning and adoption strategies for DPC.

A multicentre observational study to investigate feasibility of a direct oral penicillin challenge in de-labelling 'low risk' patients with penicillin allergy by non-allergy healthcare professionals (SPACE study): Implications for healthcare systems.

OBJECTIVE: The huge burden of inaccurate penicillin allergy labels (PALs) is an important driver of antimicrobial resistance. This is magnified by insufficient allergy specialists and lack of 'point-of-care' tests. We investigated the feasibility of non-allergy healthcare professionals (HCPs) delivering direct oral penicillin challenges (DPCs) for penicillin allergy de-labelling. METHODS: This prospective observational study was conducted in three hospitals in England across three settings (acute medical, pre-surgical and haematology-oncology). Patients with a PAL were screened and stratified as low risk/high risk. Low risk patients (non-immune mediated symptoms, benign rash, tolerated amoxicillin since and family history) underwent a DPC. RESULTS: N = 2257 PALs were screened, 1054 were eligible; 643 were approached, 373 declined, 270 consented and 259 risk stratified (low risk = 155; high risk = 104). One hundred and twenty-six low risk patients underwent DPC, 122 (96.8%) were de-labelled with no serious allergic reactions. Conversion rate from screening-to-consent was 12% [3.3% and 17.9% in acute and elective settings respectively; odds ratios for consent were 3.42 (p < 0.001) and 5.53 (p < 0.001) in haematology-oncology and pre-surgical setting respectively. Common reasons for failure to progress in the study included difficulty in reaching patients, clinical instability/medical reasons, lacking capacity to consent and psychological factors. INTERPRETATION: DPCs can be delivered by non-allergy HCPs. A high proportion of patients with PALs did not progress in the study pathway. Strategies to deliver DPC at optimal points of the care pathway are needed to enhance uptake. Elective settings offer greater opportunities than acute settings for DPC. The safety and simplicity of DPCs lends itself to adoption by healthcare systems beyond the UK, including in resource-limited settings.

Antifungal Drug Usage in European Neonatal Units: A Multicenter Weekly Point Prevalence Study.

BACKGROUND: Data on antifungal prescribing in neonatal patients are limited to either single-center or single-country studies or to 1-day recording. Therefore, we assessed antifungal longitudinal usage in neonatal units (NUs) within Europe. METHODS: CALYPSO, a prospective weekly point prevalence study on antifungal drug usage in NUs in 18 hospitals (8 European countries), was conducted in 2020 during a 12-week period. All patients receiving systemic antifungals were included. Ward demographics were collected at the beginning; ward and patient data including indication, risk factors and antifungal regimen were weekly collected prospectively. RESULTS: Among 27 participating NUs, 15 (56%) practiced antifungal prophylaxis for neonates with birth weight <1000 g or <1500 g and additional risk factors. In total, 174 patients received antifungals with a median frequency per week of 10.5% ranging from 6.9% to 12.6%. Indication for antifungal prescribing was prophylaxis in 135/174 (78%) courses and treatment in 22% [39 courses (69% empirical, 10% preemptive, 21% targeted)]. Fluconazole was the most frequent systemic agent used both for prophylaxis (133/135) and treatment (15/39, 39%). Among neonates receiving prophylaxis, the most common risk factors were prematurity (119/135, 88%), mechanical ventilation (109/135, 81%) and central vascular catheters (89/135, 66%). However, gestational age <28 weeks was only recorded in 55/135 (41%) courses and birth weight <1000 g in 48/135 (35%). Most common reason for empirical treatment was late-onset sepsis; all 8 targeted courses were prescribed for invasive candidiasis. CONCLUSION: Antifungal usage in European NUs is driven by prophylaxis and empirical treatment with fluconazole being the most prescribed agent for both indications.