Understanding the policy dynamics of COVID-19 in the UK: Early findings from interviews with policy makers and health care professionals

The UK government response to COVID-19 has been heavily criticised. We report witnesses’ perceptions of what has shaped UK policies and how these policies have been received by healthcare workers. Such studies are usually affected by hindsight. Here we deploy a novel prospective approach to capture real-time information.

We are historians, social scientists and biomedical researchers who study how societies cope with infectious disease. In February 2020 we began regular semi-structured calls with prominent members of policy communities, and health care professionals, to elicit their roles in, and reactions to, the pandemic response.

We report witnesses’ perceptions that personal protective equipment (PPE) stocks were too small, early warnings have not led to sufficiently rapid policy decisions, and a lack of transparency is sapping public trust. Significant successes include research mobilisation. The early experiences and reactions of our witnesses suggest important issues for investigation, notably a perception of delay in decision making.

•

UK coronavirus response delayed after the alarm was raised.

•

Politicians abdicated responsibility by their early ‘follow the science’ rhetoric.

•

Science advice to policy making needs people who bridge the two worlds.

•

Centralised responses wasted valuable local public health skills.

•

Pandemic response needs to move faster than the infectious disease.

Factors associated with antibiotic prescribing for adults with acute conditions: an umbrella review across primary care and a systematic review focusing on primary dental care

INTRODUCTION

One way to slow the spread of resistant bacteria is by improved stewardship of antibiotics: using them more carefully and reducing the number of prescriptions. With an estimated 7%-10% of antibiotic prescriptions globally originating from dental practices and up to 80% prescribed unnecessarily, dentistry has an important role to play. To support the design of new stewardship interventions through knowledge transfer between contexts, this study aimed to identify factors associated with the decision to prescribe antibiotics to adults presenting with acute conditions across primary care (including dentistry).

METHODS

Two reviews were undertaken: an umbrella review across primary healthcare and a systematic review in dentistry. Two authors independently selected and quality assessed the included studies. Factors were identified using an inductive thematic approach and mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Comparisons between dental and other settings were explored. Registration number: PROSPERO_CRD42016037174.

RESULTS

Searches identified 689 publications across primary care and 432 across dental care. Included studies (nine and seven, respectively) were assessed as of variable quality. They covered 46 countries, of which 12 were low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Across the two reviews, 30 factors were identified, with 'patient/condition characteristics', 'patient influence' and 'guidelines & information' the most frequent. Two factors were unique to dental studies: 'procedure possible' and 'treatment skills'. No factor related only to LMICs.

CONCLUSIONS

A comprehensive list of factors associated with antibiotic prescribing to adults with acute conditions in primary care settings around the world has been collated and should assist theory-informed design of new context-specific stewardship interventions.

General practitioner and nurse prescriber experiences of prescribing antibiotics for respiratory tract infections in UK primary care out-of-hours services (the UNITE study)

Background

Interventions are needed to reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections (RTIs). Although community antibiotic prescribing appears to be decreasing in the UK, figures for out-of-hours (OOH) prescribing have substantially increased. Understanding the factors influencing prescribing in OOH and any perceived differences between general practitioner (GP) and nurse prescriber (NP) prescribing habits may enable the development of tailored interventions promoting optimal prescribing in this setting.

Objectives

To explore UK GP and NP views on and experiences of prescribing antibiotics for RTIs in primary care OOH services.

Methods

Thirty semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs and NPs working in primary care OOH services. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyse data.

Results

The research shows that factors particular to OOH influence antibiotic prescribing, including a lack of patient follow-up, access to patient GP records, consultation time, working contracts and implementation of feedback, audit and supervision. NPs reported perceptions of greater accountability for their prescribing compared with GPs and reported they had longer consultations during which they were able to discuss decisions with patients. Participants agreed that more complex cases should be seen by GPs and highlighted the importance of consistency of decision making, illness explanations to patients as well as a perception that differences in clinical training influence communication with patients and antibiotic prescribing decisions.

Conclusions

Environmental and social factors in OOH services and a mixed healthcare workforce provide unique influences on antibiotic prescribing for RTIs, which would need to be considered in tailoring interventions that promote prudent antibiotic prescribing in OOH services.