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.

Development of consensus-based national antimicrobial stewardship competencies for UK undergraduate healthcare professional education

BACKGROUND

Healthcare professionals are involved in an array of patient- and medicine-related stewardship activities, for which an understanding and engagement with antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) is important. Undergraduate education provides an ideal opportunity to prepare healthcare professionals for these roles and activities.

AIM

To provide UK national consensus on a common set of antimicrobial stewardship competencies appropriate for undergraduate healthcare professional education.

METHODS

A modified Delphi approach comprising two online surveys delivered to a UK national panel of 21 individuals reflecting expertise in prescribing and medicines management with regards to the education and practice of nurses and midwives, pharmacists, physiotherapists, and podiatrists; and antimicrobial prescribing and stewardship. Data collection took place between October and December 2017.

FINDINGS

A total of 21 participants agreed to become members of the expert panel, of whom 19 (90%) completed round 1 questionnaire, and 17 (89%) completed round 2. Panelists reached a consensus, with consistently high levels of agreement reached, on six overarching competency statements (subdivided into six domains), and 55 individual descriptors essential for antimicrobial stewardship by healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSION

Due to the consistently high levels of agreement reached on competency statements and their associated descriptors, this competency framework should be used to direct education for undergraduate healthcare professionals, and those working in new clinical roles to support healthcare delivery where an understanding of, and engagement with, AMS is important. Although the competencies target basic education, they can also be used for continuing education.

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.

Innovative tools for quality assessment: integrated quality criteria for review of multiple study designs (ICROMS)

OBJECTIVES

With the aim to facilitate a more comprehensive review process in public health including patient safety, we established a tool that we have termed ICROMS (Integrated quality Criteria for the Review Of Multiple Study designs), which unifies, integrates and refines current quality criteria for a large range of study designs including qualitative research.

STUDY DESIGN

Review, pilot testing and expert consensus.

METHODS

The tool is the result of an iterative four phase process over two years: 1) gathering of established criteria for assessing controlled, non-controlled and qualitative study designs; 2) pilot testing of a first version in two systematic reviews on behavioural change in infection prevention and control and in antibiotic prescribing; 3) further refinement and adding of additional study designs in the context of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control funded project 'Systematic review and evidence-based guidance on organisation of hospital infection control programmes' (SIGHT); 4) scrutiny by the pan-European expert panel of the SIGHT project, which had the objective of ensuring robustness of the systematic review.

RESULTS

ICROMS includes established quality criteria for randomised studies, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series, and incorporates criteria for non-controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies and qualitative studies. The tool consists of two parts: 1) a list of quality criteria specific for each study design, as well as criteria applicable across all study designs by using a scoring system; 2) a 'decision matrix', which specifies the robustness of the study by identifying minimum requirements according to the study type and the relevance of the study to the review question. The decision matrix directly determines inclusion or exclusion of a study in the review. ICROMS was applied to a series of systematic reviews to test its feasibility and usefulness in the appraisal of multiple study designs. The tool was applicable across a wide range of study designs and outcome measures.

CONCLUSION

ICROMS is a comprehensive yet feasible appraisal of a large range of study designs to be included in systematic reviews addressing behaviour change studies in patient safety and public health. The tool is sufficiently flexible to be applied to a variety of other domains in health-related research. Beyond its application to systematic reviews, we envisage that ICROMS can have a positive effect on researchers to be more rigorous in their study design and more diligent in their reporting.

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

Prescribing etiquette is an important determinant of antimicrobial prescribing behaviors. Prescribing etiquette recognizes clinical decision-making autonomy and the role of hierarchy in influencing practice. Existing clinical groups and clinical leadership should be utilized to influence antimicrobial prescribing behaviors.

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.