1
|
Owens R, Bamford K, Pinion S, Garry E, Cranmer E, Pearce C, Wint HH, Gill S, Philips R, Khan A, Roy Bentley S, Roberts N, Keating B, Askaroff N, Morphew M, Orr C, Mouket T, Pope K, Powell N. Assessment of the appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing in an acute UK hospital using a national audit tool: a single centre retrospective survey. Eur J Hosp Pharm 2024; 31:505-510. [PMID: 37117009 PMCID: PMC11672330 DOI: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2022-003569] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/04/2022] [Accepted: 03/28/2023] [Indexed: 04/30/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Antibiotic use drives antibiotic resistance. The UK antimicrobial resistance (AMR) strategy aims to reduce antibiotic use. We aimed to quantify excess antibiotic use in a district general hospital in south-west England. METHODS Medical patients discharged in August 2020 who had received antibiotics were included. An audit tool of antibiotic prescribing appropriateness was used to collect relevant clinical information regarding each patient case. The appropriateness of antibiotic use was then determined by two infection specialists and excess days of therapy (DOTs) calculated. RESULTS 647 patients were discharged in August 2020. Of the 1658 antibiotic DOTs for the 184 patients reviewed, 403 (24%) were excess DOTs. The excess antibiotic DOTs were prescribed in 92 patients (50%); 112/403 (27.8%) excess DOTs originated at the initiation of antibiotic therapy (time point A); 184/403 (45.7%) of excess DOTs occurred at the antibiotic review pre-72 hours (time point B); and 107/403 (26.6%) of excess DOTs were due to protracted antibiotic courses (time point C). CONCLUSION 24% of antibiotic DOTs were deemed unnecessary. The greatest opportunity to reduce antibiotic use safely was the pre-72 hours antibiotic review, which may provide a target for reducing excess antimicrobial therapy in line with the national AMR strategy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rhys Owens
- Emergency Department, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, Truro, Cornwall, UK
| | - Kathy Bamford
- Medical Microbiology, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, Truro, Cornwall, UK
| | - Sophie Pinion
- Anaesthetics, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, Truro, Cornwall, UK
| | - Emma Garry
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, Truro, Cornwall, UK
| | - Emily Cranmer
- Eldercare, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, Truro, Cornwall, UK
| | - Catharine Pearce
- Respiratory department, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, Truro, Cornwall, UK
| | - Htet htet Wint
- Neurology department, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, Truro, Cornwall, UK
| | - Simon Gill
- Respiratory department, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, Truro, Cornwall, UK
| | - Ryan Philips
- Acute Medicine, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, Truro, Cornwall, UK
| | - Adnan Khan
- Eldercare, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, Truro, Cornwall, UK
| | - Selina Roy Bentley
- Enhanced Perioperative Care Unit, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, Truro, Cornwall, UK
| | - Neil Roberts
- University Hositals Plymouth NHS Trust, Plymouth, UK
| | | | - Natasha Askaroff
- Oncology Department, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, Truro, Cornwall, UK
| | - Megan Morphew
- Oncology, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, Truro, Cornwall, UK
| | - Charles Orr
- Emergency Department, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, Truro, Cornwall, UK
| | - Tarek Mouket
- Acute Medicine, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, Truro, Cornwall, UK
| | - Katherine Pope
- Acute Medicine, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, Truro, Cornwall, UK
| | - Neil Powell
- Pharmacy Department, Royal Cornwall Hospital NHS Trust, Cornwall, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Knowles R, Chandler C, O’Neill S, Sharland M, Mays N. A systematic review of national interventions and policies to optimize antibiotic use in healthcare settings in England. J Antimicrob Chemother 2024; 79:1234-1247. [PMID: 38507232 PMCID: PMC11144483 DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkae061] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/23/2023] [Accepted: 02/19/2024] [Indexed: 03/22/2024] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To identify and assess the effectiveness of national antibiotic optimization interventions in primary and secondary care in England (2013-2022). METHODS A systematic scoping review was conducted. Literature databases (Embase and Medline) were used to identify interventions and evaluations. Reports included the UK AMR Strategy (2013-2018), National Action Plan (2019-2024) and English Surveillance Programme for Antimicrobial Utilisation and Resistance (ESPAUR) reports (2014-2022). The design, focus and quality of evaluations and the interventions' effectiveness were extracted. FINDINGS Four hundred and seventy-seven peer-reviewed studies and 13 reports were screened. One hundred and three studies were included for review, identifying 109 interventions in eight categories: policy and commissioning (n = 9); classifications (n = 1); guidance and toolkits (n = 22); monitoring and feedback (n = 17); professional engagement and training (n = 19); prescriber tools (n = 12); public awareness (n = 17); workforce and governance (n = 12).Most interventions lack high-quality effectiveness evidence. Evaluations mainly focused on clinical, microbiological or antibiotic use outcomes, or intervention implementation, often assessing how interventions were perceived to affect behaviour. Only 16 interventions had studies that quantified effects on prescribing, of which six reported reductions. The largest reduction was reported with structural-level interventions and attributed to a policy and commissioning intervention (primary care financial incentives). Behavioural interventions (guidance and toolkits) reported the greatest impact in hospitals. CONCLUSIONS Many interventions have targeted antibiotic use, each pulling different levers across the health system simultaneously. On the basis of these studies, structural-level interventions may have the greatest impact. Collectively, the combination of interventions may explain England's decline in prescribing but direct evidence of causality is unavailable.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca Knowles
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Clare Chandler
- Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Stephen O’Neill
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Mike Sharland
- Centre for Neonatal and Paediatric Infection, Institute for Infection and Immunity, St George’s, University of London, London, UK
- Paediatric Infectious Diseases Department, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Nicholas Mays
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Hogg HDJ, Al-Zubaidy M, Keane PA, Hughes G, Beyer FR, Maniatopoulos G. Evaluating the translation of implementation science to clinical artificial intelligence: a bibliometric study of qualitative research. FRONTIERS IN HEALTH SERVICES 2023; 3:1161822. [PMID: 37492632 PMCID: PMC10364639 DOI: 10.3389/frhs.2023.1161822] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2023] [Accepted: 06/26/2023] [Indexed: 07/27/2023]
Abstract
Introduction Whilst a theoretical basis for implementation research is seen as advantageous, there is little clarity over if and how the application of theories, models or frameworks (TMF) impact implementation outcomes. Clinical artificial intelligence (AI) continues to receive multi-stakeholder interest and investment, yet a significant implementation gap remains. This bibliometric study aims to measure and characterize TMF application in qualitative clinical AI research to identify opportunities to improve research practice and its impact on clinical AI implementation. Methods Qualitative research of stakeholder perspectives on clinical AI published between January 2014 and October 2022 was systematically identified. Eligible studies were characterized by their publication type, clinical and geographical context, type of clinical AI studied, data collection method, participants and application of any TMF. Each TMF applied by eligible studies, its justification and mode of application was characterized. Results Of 202 eligible studies, 70 (34.7%) applied a TMF. There was an 8-fold increase in the number of publications between 2014 and 2022 but no significant increase in the proportion applying TMFs. Of the 50 TMFs applied, 40 (80%) were only applied once, with the Technology Acceptance Model applied most frequently (n = 9). Seven TMFs were novel contributions embedded within an eligible study. A minority of studies justified TMF application (n = 51,58.6%) and it was uncommon to discuss an alternative TMF or the limitations of the one selected (n = 11,12.6%). The most common way in which a TMF was applied in eligible studies was data analysis (n = 44,50.6%). Implementation guidelines or tools were explicitly referenced by 2 reports (1.0%). Conclusion TMFs have not been commonly applied in qualitative research of clinical AI. When TMFs have been applied there has been (i) little consensus on TMF selection (ii) limited description of selection rationale and (iii) lack of clarity over how TMFs inform research. We consider this to represent an opportunity to improve implementation science's translation to clinical AI research and clinical AI into practice by promoting the rigor and frequency of TMF application. We recommend that the finite resources of the implementation science community are diverted toward increasing accessibility and engagement with theory informed practices. The considered application of theories, models and frameworks (TMF) are thought to contribute to the impact of implementation science on the translation of innovations into real-world care. The frequency and nature of TMF use are yet to be described within digital health innovations, including the prominent field of clinical AI. A well-known implementation gap, coined as the "AI chasm" continues to limit the impact of clinical AI on real-world care. From this bibliometric study of the frequency and quality of TMF use within qualitative clinical AI research, we found that TMFs are usually not applied, their selection is highly varied between studies and there is not often a convincing rationale for their selection. Promoting the rigor and frequency of TMF use appears to present an opportunity to improve the translation of clinical AI into practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- H. D. J. Hogg
- Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom
- The Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom
- Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - M. Al-Zubaidy
- The Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom
| | - P. A. Keane
- Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
- Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - G. Hughes
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford University, Oxford, United Kingdom
- University ofLeicester School of Business, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
| | - F. R. Beyer
- Evidence Synthesis Group, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom
| | - G. Maniatopoulos
- Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom
- University ofLeicester School of Business, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Kureshi RR, Thakker D, Mishra BK, Barnes J. From Raising Awareness to a Behavioural Change: A Case Study of Indoor Air Quality Improvement Using IoT and COM-B Model. SENSORS (BASEL, SWITZERLAND) 2023; 23:3613. [PMID: 37050669 PMCID: PMC10098860 DOI: 10.3390/s23073613] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/03/2022] [Revised: 03/24/2023] [Accepted: 03/27/2023] [Indexed: 06/19/2023]
Abstract
The topic of indoor air pollution has yet to receive the same level of attention as ambient pollution. We spend considerable time indoors, and poorer indoor air quality affects most of us, particularly people with respiratory and other health conditions. There is a pressing need for methodological case studies focusing on informing households about the causes and harms of indoor air pollution and supporting changes in behaviour around different indoor activities that cause it. The use of indoor air quality (IAQ) sensor data to support behaviour change is the focus of our research in this paper. We have conducted two studies-first, to evaluate the effectiveness of the IAQ data visualisation as a trigger for the natural reflection capability of human beings to raise awareness. This study was performed without the scaffolding of a formal behaviour change model. In the second study, we showcase how a behaviour psychology model, COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation-Behaviour), can be operationalised as a means of digital intervention to support behaviour change. We have developed four digital interventions manifested through a digital platform. We have demonstrated that it is possible to change behaviour concerning indoor activities using the COM-B model. We have also observed a measurable change in indoor air quality. In addition, qualitative analysis has shown that the awareness level among occupants has improved due to our approach of utilising IoT sensor data with COM-B-based digital interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rameez Raja Kureshi
- School of Computer Science, University of Hull, Kingston upon Hull HU6 7RX, UK; (R.R.K.); (B.K.M.)
| | - Dhavalkumar Thakker
- School of Computer Science, University of Hull, Kingston upon Hull HU6 7RX, UK; (R.R.K.); (B.K.M.)
| | - Bhupesh Kumar Mishra
- School of Computer Science, University of Hull, Kingston upon Hull HU6 7RX, UK; (R.R.K.); (B.K.M.)
| | - Jo Barnes
- Air Quality Management Resource Centre, University of the West of England, Bristol BS16 1QY, UK;
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Antibiotic review kit for hospitals (ARK-Hospital): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial. THE LANCET. INFECTIOUS DISEASES 2023; 23:207-221. [PMID: 36206793 DOI: 10.1016/s1473-3099(22)00508-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/13/2022] [Revised: 07/04/2022] [Accepted: 07/15/2022] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Strategies to reduce antibiotic overuse in hospitals depend on prescribers taking decisions to stop unnecessary antibiotic use. There is scarce evidence for how to support these decisions. We evaluated a multifaceted behaviour change intervention (ie, the antibiotic review kit) designed to reduce antibiotic use among adult acute general medical inpatients by increasing appropriate decisions to stop antibiotics at clinical review. METHODS We performed a stepped-wedge, cluster (hospital)-randomised controlled trial using computer-generated sequence randomisation of eligible hospitals in seven calendar-time blocks in the UK. Hospitals were eligible for inclusion if they admitted adult non-elective general or medical inpatients, had a local representative to champion the intervention, and could provide the required study data. Hospital clusters were randomised to an implementation date occurring at 1-2 week intervals, and the date was concealed until 12 weeks before implementation, when local preparations were designed to start. The intervention effect was assessed using data from pseudonymised routine electronic health records, ward-level antibiotic dispensing, Clostridioides difficile tests, prescription audits, and an implementation process evaluation. Co-primary outcomes were monthly antibiotic defined daily doses per adult acute general medical admission (hospital-level, superiority) and all-cause mortality within 30 days of admission (patient level, non-inferiority margin of 5%). Outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (ie, excluding sites that withdrew before implementation). Intervention effects were assessed by use of interrupted time series analyses within each site, estimating overall effects through random-effects meta-analysis, with heterogeneity across prespecified potential modifiers assessed by use of meta-regression. This trial is completed and is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN12674243. FINDINGS 58 hospital organisations expressed an interest in participating. Three pilot sites implemented the intervention between Sept 25 and Nov 20, 2017. 43 further sites were randomised to implement the intervention between Feb 12, 2018, and July 1, 2019, and seven sites withdrew before implementation. 39 sites were followed up for at least 14 months. Adjusted estimates showed reductions in total antibiotic defined daily doses per acute general medical admission (-4·8% per year, 95% CI -9·1 to -0·2) following the intervention. Among 7 160 421 acute general medical admissions, the ARK intervention was associated with an immediate change of -2·7% (95% CI -5·7 to 0·3) and sustained change of 3·0% (-0·1 to 6·2) in adjusted 30-day mortality. INTERPRETATION The antibiotic review kit intervention resulted in sustained reductions in antibiotic use among adult acute general medical inpatients. The weak, inconsistent intervention effects on mortality are probably explained by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hospitals should use the antibiotic review kit to reduce antibiotic overuse. FUNDING UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.
Collapse
|
6
|
Roy-Bentley S, Bethune R, Powell N. Implementation of the Antimicrobial Review Kit (ARK) to optimise antimicrobial prescribing at the Royal Cornwall Hospital: a behavioural change odyssey. Clin Med (Lond) 2022; 22:455-460. [PMID: 38589067 PMCID: PMC9595014 DOI: 10.7861/clinmed.2021-0757] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
Antibiotic use drives antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The Antimicrobial Review Kit (ARK) study is a complex intervention based on national antibiotic stewardship guidance. We describe the implementation of ARK at a 760-bed teaching hospital that uses electronic prescribing. An online education module was disseminated to healthcare workers, and the ARK decision tool was incorporated into the medical clerking pro forma. From July 2018, junior doctors audited the frequency, the outcomes of pre-72-hour antibiotic reviews and the use of the ARK tool. The data were used to formulate specialty-level feedback and bench marking. First-phase data were plotted on statistical process control (SPC) charts to distinguish between common and special cause variation. There was significant improvement in antibiotic review rates (81% to 93%) and stop rates (10% to 15%). The stop rate reached 25% in the most recent data. Given the promising trends, it may be possible to achieve the target stop rate of 30%.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Neil Powell
- Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, Treliske, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Janssen RME, Oerlemans AJM, Van Der Hoeven JG, Ten Oever J, Schouten JA, Hulscher MEJL. Why we prescribe antibiotics for too long in the hospital setting: a systematic scoping review. J Antimicrob Chemother 2022; 77:2105-2119. [PMID: 35612930 PMCID: PMC9333408 DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkac162] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/17/2022] [Accepted: 05/02/2022] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In daily hospital practice, antibiotic therapy is commonly prescribed for longer than recommended in guidelines. Understanding the key drivers of prescribing behaviour is crucial to generate meaningful interventions to bridge this evidence-to-practice gap. OBJECTIVES To identify behavioural determinants that might prevent or enable improvements in duration of antibiotic therapy in daily practice. METHODS We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science for relevant studies that were published between January 2000 and August 2021. All qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method studies in adults in a hospital setting that reported determinants of antibiotic therapy duration were included. RESULTS Twenty-two papers were included in this review. A first set of studies provided 82 behavioural determinants that shape how health professionals make decisions about duration; most of these were related to individual health professionals' knowledge, skills and cognitions, and to professionals' interactions. A second set of studies provided 17 determinants that point to differences in duration regarding various pathogens, diseases, or patient, professional or hospital department characteristics, but do not explain why or how these differences occur. CONCLUSIONS Limited literature is available describing a wide range of determinants that influence duration of antibiotic therapy in daily practice. This review provides a stepping stone for the development of stewardship interventions to optimize antibiotic therapy duration, but more research is warranted. Stewardship teams must develop complex improvement interventions to address the wide variety of behavioural determinants, adapted to the specific pathogen, disease, patient, professional and/or hospital department involved.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robin M E Janssen
- Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Scientific Center for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare), Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Radboud Center for Infectious Diseases (RCI), Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Anke J M Oerlemans
- Scientific Center for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare), Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Johannes G Van Der Hoeven
- Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Jaap Ten Oever
- Radboud Center for Infectious Diseases (RCI), Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Department of Internal Medicine, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Jeroen A Schouten
- Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Scientific Center for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare), Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Radboud Center for Infectious Diseases (RCI), Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Marlies E J L Hulscher
- Scientific Center for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare), Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Radboud Center for Infectious Diseases (RCI), Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Sivyer K, Teasdale E, Greenwell K, Steele M, Ghio D, Ridd MJ, Roberts A, Chalmers JR, Lawton S, Langan SM, Cowdell F, Le Roux E, Wilczynska S, Williams HC, Thomas KS, Yardley L, Santer M, Muller I. Supporting families managing childhood eczema: developing and optimising eczema care online using qualitative research. Br J Gen Pract 2022; 72:e378-e389. [PMID: 35577586 PMCID: PMC9119812 DOI: 10.3399/bjgp.2021.0503] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/20/2021] [Accepted: 02/01/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Childhood eczema is often poorly controlled owing to underuse of emollients and topical corticosteroids (TCS). Parents/carers report practical and psychosocial barriers to managing their child's eczema, including child resistance. Online interventions could potentially support parents/carers; however, rigorous research developing such interventions has been limited. AIM To develop an online behavioural intervention to help parents/carers manage and co-manage their child's eczema. DESIGN AND SETTING Intervention development using a theory-, evidence-, and person-based approach (PBA) with qualitative research. METHOD A systematic review and qualitative synthesis of studies (n = 32) and interviews with parents/carers (n = 30) were used to identify barriers and facilitators to effective eczema management, and a prototype intervention was developed. Think-aloud interviews with parents/carers (n = 25) were then used to optimise the intervention to increase its acceptability and feasibility. RESULTS Qualitative research identified that parents/carers had concerns about using emollients and TCS, incomplete knowledge and skills around managing eczema, and reluctance to transitioning to co-managing eczema with their child. Think-aloud interviews highlighted that, while experienced parents/carers felt they knew how to manage eczema, some information about how to use treatments was still new. Techniques for addressing barriers included providing a rationale explaining how emollients and TCS work, demonstrating how to use treatments, and highlighting that the intervention provided new, up-to-date information. CONCLUSION Parents/carers need support in effectively managing and co-managing their child's eczema. The key output of this research is Eczema Care Online for Families, an online intervention for parents/carers of children with eczema, which is being evaluated in a randomised trial.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katy Sivyer
- Department of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton; lecturer, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth
| | | | | | | | - Daniela Ghio
- University of Manchester, Manchester; research fellow, University of Southampton, Southampton
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Lucy Yardley
- University of Bristol, Bristol; professor of health psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Krusche A, Wilde L, Ghio D, Morrissey C, Froom A, Chick D. Developing public transport messaging to provide crowding information during COVID-19: Application of the COM-B model and behaviour change wheel. TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 2022; 13:100564. [PMID: 35224474 PMCID: PMC8860671 DOI: 10.1016/j.trip.2022.100564] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/08/2021] [Revised: 01/27/2022] [Accepted: 02/06/2022] [Indexed: 05/20/2023]
Abstract
The COVID-19 outbreak meant that using public transport was potentially unsafe for risk of catching and transmitting the virus. UK anxiety is high with lockdowns preventing a normal way of life for over a year. A lack of ability to travel freely causes numerous declines in quality of life including social isolation and poor physical and mental health. People need crowding information to choose safer travel options and subdue coronavirus. To provide effective guidance, it is essential to empirically formulate messaging to create clarity and trust which can be acted upon in confidence. Behaviour Change Techniques incorporating the Behaviour Change Wheel and COM-B model have been utilised in vast areas of public health intervention development and messaging. There is consensus that public transport information needs to be clearer and more accessible but BCTs have not been utilised in the development of public transport advice. This paper outlines the development of crowding messaging for public transport on a platform available to UK travellers. Barriers and facilitators were explored; related behaviours, intervention functions and behaviour change techniques were mapped. Specific message phrasing was developed utilising the mapped functions and advice from the literature. With the COVID-19 outbreak, having accessible and effective messaging for safely using public transport is a continuation of the work recently conducted examining the best ways to present public health information. It is important to be transparent when developing messaging and interventions accessible to the public and this work forms a basis for continued exploration and development in this area.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adele Krusche
- Zipabout Limited, 1 Chapel Court, Holly Walk, Leamington Spa CV32 4YS, UK
| | - Laura Wilde
- Zipabout Limited, 1 Chapel Court, Holly Walk, Leamington Spa CV32 4YS, UK
- Centre for Intelligent Healthcare, Coventry University, Coventry, UK
| | - Daniela Ghio
- School of Health and Society, L818 Allerton Building, University of Salford, Manchester M6 6PU, UK
| | - Cora Morrissey
- Zipabout Limited, 1 Chapel Court, Holly Walk, Leamington Spa CV32 4YS, UK
| | - Alex Froom
- Zipabout Limited, 1 Chapel Court, Holly Walk, Leamington Spa CV32 4YS, UK
| | - Daniel Chick
- Zipabout Limited, 1 Chapel Court, Holly Walk, Leamington Spa CV32 4YS, UK
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Borek AJ, Santillo M, Wanat M, Butler CC, Tonkin-Crine S. How can behavioural science contribute to qualitative research on antimicrobial stewardship in primary care? JAC Antimicrob Resist 2022; 4:dlac007. [PMID: 35156031 PMCID: PMC8826758 DOI: 10.1093/jacamr/dlac007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Antibiotic use (and misuse) accelerates antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and addressing this complex problem necessitates behaviour change related to infection prevention and management and to antibiotic prescribing and use. As most antibiotic courses are prescribed in primary care, a key focus of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) is on changing behaviours outside of hospital. Behavioural science draws on behaviour change theories, techniques and methods developed in health psychology, and can be used to help understand and change behaviours related to AMR/AMS. Qualitative methodologies can be used together with a behavioural science approach to explore influences on behaviour and develop and evaluate behavioural interventions. This paper provides an overview of how the behavioural science approach, together with qualitative methods, can contribute and add value to AMS projects. First, it introduces and explains the relevance of the behavioural science approach to AMR/AMS. Second, it provides an overview of behaviour change 'tools': behaviour change theories/models, behavioural determinants and behaviour change techniques. Third, it explains how behavioural methods can be used to: (i) define a clinical problem in behavioural terms and identify behavioural influences; (ii) develop and implement behavioural AMS interventions; and (iii) evaluate them. These are illustrated with examples of using qualitative methods in AMS studies in primary care. Finally, the paper concludes by summarizing the main contributions of taking the behavioural science approach to qualitative AMS research in primary care and discussing the key implications and future directions for research and practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aleksandra J. Borek
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Marta Santillo
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Marta Wanat
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Christopher C. Butler
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Sarah Tonkin-Crine
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Hemenway AN, DuBois DL. A Scoping Review of the Use of Social and Behavioral Change in Acute Care Antimicrobial Stewardship Initiatives. Hosp Pharm 2022; 57:138-145. [PMID: 35521015 PMCID: PMC9065515 DOI: 10.1177/0018578721990887] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
Purpose: Antimicrobial stewardship (AS) initiatives are implemented with a goal of reducing antimicrobial resistance. It is unknown exactly how many acute care AS initiatives have since been based on social and behavioral theory. The purpose of this scoping review is to provide an updated review of theory-informed acute care AS initiatives in the published literature, including how social and behavioral theories have been used in the described interventions. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and ProQuest Dissertations were searched using a combination of AS, acute care, and social and behavioral theory search terms from April 2011 to November 2019. Using both an initial review of titles and abstracts and a second review of full text, a total of 4 articles were identified after a review of 2014 records. Each article was coded using a guide that abstracted details of study methods, the AS intervention, and use of theory based on a validated theory coding scheme. Results: The interventions included combinations of decision-making tools, provider education, and prospective audit and feedback. Two studies included an evaluation of the described initiative, with findings indicating improvement in antimicrobial use. All interventions utilized theory in developing AS interventions. However, gaps were evident in the use of theory in the evaluations, including inconsistent measurement of theory constructs and lack of testing of the theory. Conclusion: AS interventions are frequently published; however, theory-based acute care AS interventions are not commonly described. More consistent and comprehensive utilization of social and behavioral theories may enhance effectiveness of AS programs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alice N. Hemenway
- College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois Chicago—Rockford Health Sciences Campus, Rockford, IL, USA
| | - David L. DuBois
- School of Public Health, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Parker G, Shahid N, Rappon T, Kastner M, Born K, Berta W. Using theories and frameworks to understand how to reduce low-value healthcare: a scoping review. Implement Sci 2022; 17:6. [PMID: 35057832 PMCID: PMC8772067 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-021-01177-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/13/2021] [Accepted: 11/30/2021] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is recognition that the overuse of procedures, testing, and medications constitutes low-value care which strains the healthcare system and, in some circumstances, can cause unnecessary stress and harm for patients. Initiatives across dozens of countries have raised awareness about the harms of low-value care but have had mixed success and the levels of reductions realized have been modest. Similar to the complex drivers of implementation processes, there is a limited understanding of the individual and social behavioral aspects of de-implementation. While researchers have begun to use theory to elucidate the dynamics of de-implementation, the research remains largely atheoretical. The use of theory supports the understanding of how and why interventions succeed or fail and what key factors predict success. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify and characterize the use of theoretical approaches used to understand and/or explain what influences efforts to reduce low-value care. METHODS We conducted a review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Scopus databases from inception to June 2021. Building on previous research, 43 key terms were used to search the literature. The database searches identified 1998 unique articles for which titles and abstracts were screened for inclusion; 232 items were selected for full-text review. RESULTS Forty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Over half of the included articles were published in the last 2 years. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was the most commonly used determinant framework (n = 22). Of studies that used classic theories, the majority used the Theory of Planned Behavior (n = 6). For implementation theories, Normalization Process Theory and COM-B were used (n = 7). Theories or frameworks were used primarily to identify determinants (n = 37) and inform data analysis (n = 31). Eleven types of low-value care were examined in the included studies, with prescribing practices (e.g., overuse, polypharmacy, and appropriate prescribing) targeted most frequently. CONCLUSIONS This scoping review provides a rigorous, comprehensive, and extensive synthesis of theoretical approaches used to understand and/or explain what factors influence efforts to reduce low-value care. The results of this review can provide direction and insight for future primary research to support de-implementation and the reduction of low-value care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gillian Parker
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M6 Canada
| | - Nida Shahid
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M6 Canada
| | - Tim Rappon
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M6 Canada
| | - Monika Kastner
- Centre for Research and Innovation, North York General Hospital, 4001, Leslie Street, Toronto, Ontario M2K 1E1 Canada
| | - Karen Born
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M6 Canada
| | - Whitney Berta
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M6 Canada
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
McDonald MA. Art therapy for children following adverse childhood experiences: an intervention development study. ARTS IN PSYCHOTHERAPY 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.aip.2022.101880] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/02/2022]
|
14
|
Leveraging implementation science to advance antibiotic stewardship practice and research. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2021; 43:139-146. [PMID: 34852212 DOI: 10.1017/ice.2021.480] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
|
15
|
Borek AJ, Campbell A, Dent E, Moore M, Butler CC, Holmes A, Walker AS, McLeod M, Tonkin-Crine S. Development of an intervention to support the implementation of evidence-based strategies for optimising antibiotic prescribing in general practice. Implement Sci Commun 2021; 2:104. [PMID: 34526140 PMCID: PMC8441243 DOI: 10.1186/s43058-021-00209-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/24/2021] [Accepted: 08/30/2021] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aleksandra J Borek
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
| | - Anne Campbell
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Elle Dent
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK
| | - Michael Moore
- Primary Care Population Sciences and Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Christopher C Butler
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK
| | - Alison Holmes
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - A Sarah Walker
- NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK
- Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Monsey McLeod
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, Imperial College London, London, UK
- Centre for Medication Safety and Service Quality, Pharmacy Department, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
- NIHR Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Sarah Tonkin-Crine
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Wernli D, Jørgensen PS, Parmley EJ, Troell M, Majowicz S, Harbarth S, Léger A, Lambraki I, Graells T, Henriksson PJG, Carson C, Cousins M, Skoog Ståhlgren G, Mohan CV, Simpson AJH, Wieland B, Pedersen K, Schneider A, Chandy SJ, Wijayathilaka TP, Delamare-Deboutteville J, Vila J, Stålsby Lundborg C, Pittet D. Evidence for action: a One Health learning platform on interventions to tackle antimicrobial resistance. THE LANCET. INFECTIOUS DISEASES 2020; 20:e307-e311. [PMID: 32853549 PMCID: PMC7444982 DOI: 10.1016/s1473-3099(20)30392-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/27/2019] [Revised: 04/20/2020] [Accepted: 04/23/2020] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
Improving evidence for action is crucial to tackle antimicrobial resistance. The number of interventions for antimicrobial resistance is increasing but current research has major limitations in terms of efforts, methods, scope, quality, and reporting. Moving the agenda forwards requires an improved understanding of the diversity of interventions, their feasibility and cost-benefit, the implementation factors that shape and underpin their effectiveness, and the ways in which individual interventions might interact synergistically or antagonistically to influence actions against antimicrobial resistance in different contexts. Within the efforts to strengthen the global governance of antimicrobial resistance, we advocate for the creation of an international One Health platform for online learning. The platform will synthesise the evidence for actions on antimicrobial resistance into a fully accessible database; generate new scientific insights into the design, implementation, evaluation, and reporting of the broad range of interventions relevant to addressing antimicrobial resistance; and ultimately contribute to the goal of building societal resilience to this central challenge of the 21st century.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Didier Wernli
- Geneva Transformative Governance Lab, Global Studies Institute, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland; School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.
| | - Peter S Jørgensen
- Global Economic Dynamics and the Biosphere, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden; Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - E Jane Parmley
- Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
| | - Max Troell
- Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden; Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Shannon Majowicz
- School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
| | - Stephan Harbarth
- Infection Control Program and World Health Organization Collaborating Centre on Patient Safety, University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Anaïs Léger
- Geneva Transformative Governance Lab, Global Studies Institute, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Irene Lambraki
- School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
| | - Tiscar Graells
- Global Economic Dynamics and the Biosphere, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden; Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Patrik J G Henriksson
- Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden; Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden; WorldFish, Penang, Malaysia
| | - Carolee Carson
- Centre for Foodborne, Environmental and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Public Health Agency of Canada, Guelph, ON, Canada
| | - Melanie Cousins
- School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
| | - Gunilla Skoog Ståhlgren
- Unit for Antibiotics and Infection Control, The Public Health Agency of Sweden, Solna, Sweden
| | | | - Andrew J H Simpson
- Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine Research Building, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Lao-Oxford-Mahosot Hospital-Wellcome Trust Research Unit, Microbiology Laboratory, Mahosot Hospital, Vientiane, Laos
| | | | | | - Annegret Schneider
- Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Sujith J Chandy
- Department of Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India
| | | | | | - Jordi Vila
- Department of Clinical Microbiology, Biomedical Diagnostic Center, Hospital Clinic School of Medicine and Barcelona Institute for Global Health, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | - Didier Pittet
- Infection Control Program and World Health Organization Collaborating Centre on Patient Safety, University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Mowbray F, Sivyer K, Santillo M, Jones N, Peto TEA, Walker AS, Llewelyn MJ, Yardley L. Patient engagement with antibiotic messaging in secondary care: a qualitative feasibility study of the ‘review and revise’ experience. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2020; 6:43. [PMID: 32280483 PMCID: PMC7126355 DOI: 10.1186/s40814-020-00590-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/18/2019] [Accepted: 03/24/2020] [Indexed: 01/22/2023] Open
Abstract
Abstract
Background
We aimed to investigate and optimise the acceptability and usefulness of a patient leaflet about antibiotic prescribing decisions made during hospitalisation, and to explore individual patient experiences and preferences regarding the process of antibiotic prescription ‘review and revise’ which is a key strategy to minimise antibiotic overuse in hospitals.
Methods
In this qualitative study, run within the feasibility study of a large, cluster-randomised stepped wedge trial of 36 hospital organisations, a series of semi-structured, think-aloud telephone interviews were conducted and data were analysed using thematic analysis. Fifteen adult patients who had experienced a recent acute medical hospital admission during which they had been prescribed antimicrobials and offered a patient leaflet about antibiotic prescribing were recruited to the study.
Results
Participants reacted positively to the leaflet, reporting that it was both an accessible and important source of information which struck the appropriate balance between informing and reassuring. Participants all valued open communication with clinicians, and were keen to be involved in antibiotic prescribing decisions, with individuals reporting positive experiences regarding antibiotic prescription changes or stopping. Many participants had prior experience or knowledge of antibiotics and resistance, and generally welcomed efforts to reduce antibiotic usage. Overall, there was a feeling that healthcare professionals (HCPs) are trusted experts providing the most appropriate treatment for individual patient conditions.
Conclusions
This study offers novel insights into how patients within secondary care are likely to respond to messages advocating a reduction in the use of antibiotics through the ‘review and revise’ approach. Due to the level of trust that patients place in their care provider, encouraging HCPs within secondary care to engage patients with greater communication and information provision could provide great advantages in the drive to reduce antibiotic use. It may also be beneficial for HCPs to view patient experiences as cumulative events that have the potential to impact future behaviour around antibiotic use. Finally, pre-testing messages about antibiotic prescribing and resistance is vital to dispelling any misconceptions either around effectiveness of treatment for patients, or perceptions of how messages may be received.
Trial registration
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12674243 (10 April 2017),
Collapse
|
18
|
Santillo M, Wanat M, Davoudianfar M, Bongard E, Savic S, Savic L, Porter C, Fielding J, Butler CC, Pavitt S, Sandoe J, Tonkin-Crine S. Developing a behavioural intervention package to identify and amend incorrect penicillin allergy records in UK general practice and subsequently change antibiotic use. BMJ Open 2020; 10:e035793. [PMID: 33004384 PMCID: PMC7534681 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035793] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2019] [Revised: 07/29/2020] [Accepted: 08/14/2020] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To develop a behavioural intervention package to support clinicians and patients to amend incorrect penicillin allergy records in general practice. The intervention aimed to: (1) support clinicians to refer patients for penicillin allergy testing (PAT), (2) support patients to attend for PAT and (3) support clinicians and patients to prescribe or consume penicillin, when indicated, following a negative PAT result. METHODS Theory-based, evidence-based and person-based approaches were used in the intervention development. We used evidence from a rapid review, two qualitative studies, and expert consultations with the clinical research team to identify the intervention 'guiding principles' and develop an intervention plan. Barriers and facilitators to the target behaviours were mapped to behaviour change theory in order to describe the proposed mechanisms of change. In the final stage, think-aloud interviews were conducted to optimise intervention materials. RESULTS The collated evidence showed that the key barriers to referral of patients by clinicians were limited experience of referral and limited knowledge of referral criteria and PAT. Barriers for patients attending PAT were lack of knowledge of the benefits of testing and lack of motivation to get tested. The key barriers to the prescription and consumption of first-line penicillin following a negative test result were patient and clinician beliefs about the accuracy of PAT and whether taking penicillin was safe. Intervention materials were designed and developed to address these barriers. CONCLUSIONS We present a novel behavioural intervention package designed to address the multiple barriers to uptake of PAT in general practice by clinicians and patients. The intervention development details how behaviour change techniques have been incorporated to hypothesise how the intervention is likely to work to help amend incorrect penicillin allergy records. The intervention will go on to be tested in a feasibility trial and randomised controlled trial in England.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marta Santillo
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
| | - Marta Wanat
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
| | - Mina Davoudianfar
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
| | - Emily Bongard
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
| | - Sinisa Savic
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Louise Savic
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Catherine Porter
- Healthcare Associated Infection Group, University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
| | - Joanne Fielding
- Healthcare Associated Infection Group, University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
| | - Christopher C Butler
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Jonathan Sandoe
- Healthcare Associated Infection Group, University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
| | - Sarah Tonkin-Crine
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Roope LSJ, Buchanan J, Morrell L, Pouwels KB, Sivyer K, Mowbray F, Abel L, Cross ELA, Yardley L, Peto T, Walker AS, Llewelyn MJ, Wordsworth S. Why do hospital prescribers continue antibiotics when it is safe to stop? Results of a choice experiment survey. BMC Med 2020; 18:196. [PMID: 32727604 PMCID: PMC7391515 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-020-01660-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2020] [Accepted: 06/08/2020] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Deciding whether to discontinue antibiotics at early review is a cornerstone of hospital antimicrobial stewardship practice worldwide. In England, this approach is described in government guidance ('Start Smart then Focus'). However, < 10% of hospital antibiotic prescriptions are discontinued at review, despite evidence that 20-30% could be discontinued safely. We aimed to quantify the relative importance of factors influencing prescriber decision-making at review. METHODS We conducted an online choice experiment, a survey method to elicit preferences. Acute/general hospital prescribers in England were asked if they would continue or discontinue antibiotic treatment in 15 hypothetical scenarios. Scenarios were described according to six attributes, including patients' presenting symptoms and whether discontinuation would conflict with local prescribing guidelines. Respondents' choices were analysed using conditional logistic regression. RESULTS One hundred respondents completed the survey. Respondents were more likely to continue antibiotics when discontinuation would 'strongly conflict' with local guidelines (average marginal effect (AME) on the probability of continuing + 0.194 (p < 0.001)), when presenting symptoms more clearly indicated antibiotics (AME of urinary tract infection symptoms + 0.173 (p < 0.001) versus unclear symptoms) and when patients had severe frailty/comorbidities (AME = + 0.101 (p < 0.001)). Respondents were less likely to continue antibiotics when under no external pressure to continue (AME = - 0.101 (p < 0.001)). Decisions were also influenced by the risks to patient health of continuing/discontinuing antibiotic treatment. CONCLUSIONS Guidelines that conflict with antibiotic discontinuation (e.g. pre-specify fixed durations) may discourage safe discontinuation at review. In contrast, guidelines conditional on patient factors/treatment response could help hospital prescribers discontinue antibiotics if diagnostic information suggesting they are no longer needed is available.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laurence S J Roope
- Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK. .,NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. .,NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at the University of Oxford in partnership with Public Health England (PHE), Oxford, UK.
| | - James Buchanan
- Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.,NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.,NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at the University of Oxford in partnership with Public Health England (PHE), Oxford, UK
| | - Liz Morrell
- Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK
| | - Koen B Pouwels
- Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.,NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at the University of Oxford in partnership with Public Health England (PHE), Oxford, UK
| | - Katy Sivyer
- Centre for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Fiona Mowbray
- Centre for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Lucy Abel
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Elizabeth L A Cross
- Department of Microbiology and Infection, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Eastern Road, Brighton, UK
| | - Lucy Yardley
- Centre for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.,School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Clifton, UK
| | - Tim Peto
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.,Nuffield Department of Medicine, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.,Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - A Sarah Walker
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.,NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at the University of Oxford in partnership with Public Health England (PHE), Oxford, UK.,Nuffield Department of Medicine, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Martin J Llewelyn
- Department of Microbiology and Infection, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Eastern Road, Brighton, UK.,Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK
| | - Sarah Wordsworth
- Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.,NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Cross ELA, Sivyer K, Islam J, Santillo M, Mowbray F, Peto TEA, Walker AS, Yardley L, Llewelyn MJ. Adaptation and implementation of the ARK (Antibiotic Review Kit) intervention to safely and substantially reduce antibiotic use in hospitals: a feasibility study. J Hosp Infect 2019; 103:268-275. [PMID: 31394146 DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2019.07.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/25/2019] [Accepted: 07/30/2019] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Antimicrobial stewardship initiatives in secondary care depend on clinicians undertaking antibiotic prescription reviews but decisions to limit antibiotic treatment at review are complex. AIM To assess the feasibility and acceptability of implementing ARK (Antibiotic Review Kit), a behaviour change intervention made up of four components (brief online tool, prescribing decision aid, regular data collection and feedback process, and patient leaflet) to support stopping antibiotic treatment when it is safe to do so among hospitalized patients; before definitive evaluation through a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized controlled trial. METHODS Acceptability of the different intervention elements was assessed for a period of 12 weeks by uptake of the online tool, adoption of the decision aid into prescribing practice, and rates of decisions to stop antibiotics at review (assessed through repeated point-prevalence surveys). Patient perceptions of the information leaflet were assessed through a brief questionnaire. FINDINGS All elements of the intervention were successfully introduced into practice. A total of 132 staff encompassing a broad range of prescribers and non-prescribers completed the online tool (19.4 per 100 acute beds), including 97% (32/33) of the pre-specified essential clinical staff. Among 588 prescription charts evaluated in seven point-prevalence surveys over the 12-week implementation period, 82% overall (76-90% at each survey) used the decision aid. The median antibiotic stop rate post implementation was 36% (range: 29-40% at each survey) compared with 9% pre implementation (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION ARK provides a feasible and acceptable mechanism to support stopping antibiotics safely at post-prescription reviews in an acute hospital setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E L A Cross
- Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Falmer, UK
| | - K Sivyer
- Centre for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - J Islam
- Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Falmer, UK
| | - M Santillo
- Centre for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - F Mowbray
- Centre for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - T E A Peto
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK; Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; NIHR Biomedical Centre, Oxford, UK
| | - A S Walker
- Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; NIHR Biomedical Centre, Oxford, UK
| | - L Yardley
- School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - M J Llewelyn
- Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Falmer, UK.
| |
Collapse
|