Trust, openness and continuity of care influence acceptance of antibiotics for children with respiratory tract infections: a four country qualitative study

Background. Clinician–parent interaction and health system influences on parental acceptance of prescribing decisions for children with respiratory tract infections (RTIs) may be important determinants of antibiotic use. Objective. To achieve a deeper understanding of parents’ acceptance, or otherwise, of clinicians’ antibiotic prescribing decisions for children with RTIs. Methods. Qualitative interviews with parents of child patients who had recently consulted in primary care with a RTI in four European countries, with a five-stage analytic framework approach (familiarization, developing a thematic framework from interview questions and emerging themes, indexing, charting and interpretation). Results. Fifty of 63 parents accepted clinicians’ management decisions, irrespective of antibiotic prescription. There were no notable differences between networks. Parents ascribed their acceptance to a trusting and open clinician–patient relationship, enhanced through continuity of care, in which parents felt able to express their views. There was a lack of congruence about antibiotics between parents and clinicians in 13 instances, mostly when parents disagreed about clinicians’ decision to prescribe (10 accounts) rather than objecting to withholding antibiotics (three accounts). All but one parent adhered to the prescribing decision, although some modified how the antibiotic was administered. Conclusions. Parents from contrasting countries indicated that continuity of care, open communication in consultations and clinician–patient trust was important in acceptance of management of RTI in their children and in motivating adherence. Interventions to promote appropriate antibiotic use in children should consider a focus on eliciting parents’ perspectives and promoting and building on continuity of care within a trusting clinician–patient relationship

Pragmatic RAndomised controlled trial of a trauma-focused guided self-help Programme versus InDividual trauma-focused cognitive Behavioural therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder (RAPID): trial protocol

There is good evidence that trauma-focused therapies for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder are effective. However, they are not always feasible to deliver due a shortage of trained therapists and demands on the patient. An online trauma-focused Guided Self-Help (GSH) programme which could overcome these barriers has shown promise in a pilot study. This study will be the first to evaluate GSH against standard face-to-face therapy to assess its suitability for use in the NHS.The study is a large-scale multi-centre pragmatic randomised controlled non-inferiority trial, with assessors masked to treatment allocation. One hundred and ninety-two participants will be randomly allocated to receive either face-to-face trauma-focused cognitive behaviour therapy (TFCBT) or trauma-focused online guided self-help (GSH). The primary outcome will be the severity of symptoms of PTSD over the previous week as measured by the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM5 (CAPS-5) at 16 weeks post-randomisation. Secondary outcome measures include PTSD symptoms over the previous month as measured by the CAPS-5 at 52 weeks plus the Impact of Event Scale - revised (IES-R), Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7), Alcohol Use Disorders Test (AUDIT-O), Multidimensional Scale for Perceived Social Support (MSPSS), short Post-Traumatic Cognitions Inventory (PTCI), Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) and General Self Efficacy Scale (GSES) measured at 16 and 52 weeks post-randomisation. Changes in health-related quality of life will be measured by the EQ-5D and the level of healthcare resource utilisation for health economic analysis will be determined by an amended version of the Client Socio-Demographic and Service Receipt Inventory European Version. The Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ) will be collected at 16 weeks post-randomisation to evaluate treatment satisfaction.This study will be the first to compare online GSH with usual face-to-face therapy for PTSD. The strengths are that it will test a rigorously developed intervention in a real world setting to inform NHS commissioning. The potential challenges of delivering such a pragmatic study may include participant recruitment, retention and adherence, therapist retention, and fidelity of intervention delivery.ISRCTN13697710 registered on 20/12/2016

Developing a model for decision-making around antibiotic prescribing for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in acute NHS hospitals during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: Qualitative results from the Procalcitonin Evaluation of Antibiotic use in COVID-19 Hospitalised patients (PEACH Study)

\ua9 Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.Objective To explore and model factors affecting antibiotic prescribing decision-making early in the pandemic. Design Semistructured qualitative interview study. Setting National Health Service (NHS) trusts/health boards in England and Wales. Participants Clinicians from NHS trusts/health boards in England and Wales. Method Individual semistructured interviews were conducted with clinicians in six NHS trusts/health boards in England and Wales as part of the Procalcitonin Evaluation of Antibiotic use in COVID-19 Hospitalised patients study, a wider study that included statistical analysis of procalcitonin (PCT) use in hospitals during the first wave of the pandemic. Thematic analysis was used to identify key factors influencing antibiotic prescribing decisions for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia during the first wave of the pandemic (March to May 2020), including how much influence PCT test results had on these decisions. Results During the first wave of the pandemic, recommendations to prescribe antibiotics for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were based on concerns about secondary bacterial infections. However, as clinicians gained more experience with COVID-19, they reported increasing confidence in their ability to distinguish between symptoms and signs caused by SARS-CoV-2 viral infection alone, and secondary bacterial infections. Antibiotic prescribing decisions were influenced by factors such as clinician experience, confidence, senior support, situational factors and organisational influences. A decision-making model was developed. Conclusion This study provides insight into the decision-making process around antibiotic prescribing for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia during the first wave of the pandemic. The importance of clinician experience and of senior review of decisions as factors in optimising antibiotic stewardship is highlighted. In addition, situational and organisational factors were identified that could be optimised. The model presented in the study can be used as a tool to aid understanding of the complexity of the decision-making process around antibiotic prescribing and planning antimicrobial stewardship support in the context of a pandemic. Trial registration number ISRCTN66682918

The cost-effectiveness of procalcitonin for guiding antibiotic prescribing in individuals hospitalized with COVID-19: part of the PEACH study

\ua9 The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.Background: Many hospitals introduced procalcitonin (PCT) testing to help diagnose bacterial coinfection in individuals with COVID-19, and guide antibiotic decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Objectives: Evaluating cost-effectiveness of using PCT to guide antibiotic decisions in individuals hospitalized with COVID-19, as part of a wider research programme. Methods: Retrospective individual-level data on patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were collected from 11 NHS acute hospital Trusts and Health Boards from England and Wales, which varied in their use of baseline PCT testing during the first COVID-19 pandemic wave. A matched analysis (part of a wider analysis reported elsewhere) created groups of patients whose PCT was/was not tested at baseline. A model was created with combined decision tree/Markov phases, parameterized with quality-of-life/unit cost estimates from the literature, and used to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost-effectiveness was judged at a \ua320000/QALY threshold. Uncertainty was characterized using bootstrapping. Results: People who had baseline PCT testing had shorter general ward/ICU stays and spent less time on antibiotics, though with overlap between the groups’ 95% CIs. Those with baseline PCT testing accrued more QALYs (8.76 versus 8.62) and lower costs (\ua39830 versus \ua310 700). The point estimate was baseline PCT testing being dominant over no baseline testing, though with uncertainty: the probability of cost-effectiveness was 0.579 with a 1 year horizon and 0.872 with a lifetime horizon. Conclusions: Using PCT to guide antibiotic therapy in individuals hospitalized with COVID-19 is more likely to be cost-effective than not, albeit with uncertainty

A retrospective propensity-score-matched cohort study of the impact of procalcitonin testing on antibiotic use in hospitalized patients during the first wave of COVID-19

\ua9 The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.BACKGROUND: Procalcitonin (PCT) is a blood marker used to help diagnose bacterial infections and guide antibiotic treatment. PCT testing was widely used/adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. OBJECTIVES: Primary: to measure the difference in length of early (during first 7 days) antibiotic prescribing between patients with COVID-19 who did/did not have baseline PCT testing during the first wave of the pandemic. Secondary: to measure differences in length of hospital/ICU stay, mortality, total days of antibiotic prescribing and resistant bacterial infections between these groups. METHODS: Multi-centre, retrospective, observational, cohort study using patient-level clinical data from acute hospital Trusts/Health Boards in England/Wales. Inclusion: patients ≥16 years, admitted to participating Trusts/Health Boards and with a confirmed positive COVID-19 test between 1 February 2020 and 30 June 2020. RESULTS: Data from 5960 patients were analysed: 1548 (26.0%) had a baseline PCT test and 4412 (74.0%) did not. Using propensity-score matching, baseline PCT testing was associated with an average reduction in early antibiotic prescribing of 0.43 days [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.22-0.64 days, P < 0.001) and of 0.72 days (95% CI: 0.06-1.38 days, P = 0.03] in total antibiotic prescribing. Baseline PCT testing was not associated with increased mortality or hospital/ICU length of stay or with the rate of antimicrobial-resistant secondary bacterial infections. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline PCT testing appears to have been an effective antimicrobial stewardship tool early in the pandemic: it reduced antibiotic prescribing without evidence of harm. Our study highlights the need for embedded, rapid evaluations of infection diagnostics in the National Health Service so that even in challenging circumstances, introduction into clinical practice is supported by evidence for clinical utility. STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN66682918

Spreading the message of antimicrobial resistance: A detailed account of a successful public engagement event.

The increase in Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) microorganisms has been exacerbated by exposure to antimicrobial drugs (e.g. antibiotics). A solution to AMR may require academic researchers to not only contribute to the drug discovery pipeline through laboratory research, but also to engage and inform non-specialist audiences using a variety of interventions in order to change behaviour towards our use of antibiotics. In this paper, the authors describe a hands-on public engagement event focusing on AMR. 'A Spoonful of Soil', was created by drawing on the past experiences of the delivering team (also described), with planning focusing on clear concise messages, selection of an appropriate audience and ensuring the event would be of significant interest to the audience. The event had a significant footfall of over 300 visitors. Key messages which aimed to raise awareness of AMR and educate visitors on the actions and behaviours that can help address the global issue of AMR were delivered by appropriate experts successfully, however success in reaching audience cannot be concluded from the feedback and evaluation gathered

Resource use and direct medical costs of acute respiratory illness in the UK based on linked primary and secondary care records from 2001 to 2009

BackgroundPrevious studies have shown that influenza is associated with a substantial healthcare burden in the United Kingdom (UK), but more studies are needed to evaluate the resource use and direct medical costs of influenza in primary care and secondary care.MethodsA retrospective observational database study in the UK to describe the primary care and directly-associated secondary care resource use, and direct medical costs of acute respiratory illness (ARI), according to age, and risk status (NCT Number: 01521416). Patients with influenza, ARI or influenza-related respiratory infections during 9 consecutive pre-pandemic influenza peak seasons were identified by READ codes in the linked Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) dataset. The study period was from 21st January 2001 to 31st March 2009.ResultsA total of 156,193 patients had ≥1 general practitioner (GP) episode of ARI, and a total of 82,204 patients received ≥1 GP prescription, at a mean of 2.5 (standard deviation [SD]: 3.0) prescriptions per patient. The total cost of GP consultations and prescriptions equated to £462,827 per year per 100,000 patients. The yearly cost of prescribed medication for ARI was £319,732, at an estimated cost of £11,596,350 per year extrapolated to the UK, with 40% attributable to antibiotics. The mean cost of hospital admissions equated to a yearly cost of £981,808 per 100,000 patients. The total mean direct medical cost of ARI over 9 influenza seasons was £21,343,445 (SD: £10,441,364), at £136.65 (SD: £66.85) per case.ConclusionsExtrapolating to the UK population, for pre-pandemic influenza seasons from 2001 to 2009, the direct medical cost of ARI equated to £86 million each year. More studies are needed to assess the costs of influenza disease to help guide public health decision-making for seasonal influenza in the UK