Jennifer Broom1, Alex Broom2, Emma Kirby3, Jeffrey J Post4. 1. Sunshine Coast University Hospital, The University of Queensland, 6 Doherty Street, Birtinya, QLD, 4575, Australia. jennifer.broom@health.qld.gov.au. 2. Centre for Social Research in Health, UNSW, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia. 3. School of Social Sciences, UNSW, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia. 4. Prince of Wales Hospital, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) is a common area of antimicrobial misuse. The aim of this study was to explore the social dynamics that influence the use of SAP. METHODS: 20 surgeons and anaesthetists from a tertiary referral hospital in Australia participated in semi-structured interviews focusing on experiences and perspectives on SAP prescribing. Interview data were analysed using the framework approach. RESULTS: Systematic analysis of the participants' account of the social factors influencing SAP revealed four themes. First, antibiotic prophylaxis is treated as a low priority with the competing demands of the operating theatre environment. Second, whilst guidelines have increased in prominence in recent years, there exists a lack of confidence in their ability to protect the surgeon from responsibility for infectious complications (thus driving SAP over-prescribing). Third, non-concordance prolonged duration of SAP is perceived to be driven by benevolence for the individual patient. Finally, improvisation with novel SAP strategies is reported as ubiquitous, and acknowledged to confer a sense of reassurance to the surgeon despite potential non-concordance with guidelines or clinical efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical-specific concerns have thus far not been meaningfully integrated into antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes, including important dynamics of confidence, trust and mitigating fear of adverse infective events. Surgeons require specific forms of AMS support to enact optimisation, including support for strong collaborative ownership of the surgical risk of infection, and intra-specialty (within surgical specialties) and inter-specialty (between surgery, anaesthetics and infectious diseases) intervention strategies to establish endorsement of and address barriers to guideline implementation.
PURPOSE: Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) is a common area of antimicrobial misuse. The aim of this study was to explore the social dynamics that influence the use of SAP. METHODS: 20 surgeons and anaesthetists from a tertiary referral hospital in Australia participated in semi-structured interviews focusing on experiences and perspectives on SAP prescribing. Interview data were analysed using the framework approach. RESULTS: Systematic analysis of the participants' account of the social factors influencing SAP revealed four themes. First, antibiotic prophylaxis is treated as a low priority with the competing demands of the operating theatre environment. Second, whilst guidelines have increased in prominence in recent years, there exists a lack of confidence in their ability to protect the surgeon from responsibility for infectious complications (thus driving SAP over-prescribing). Third, non-concordance prolonged duration of SAP is perceived to be driven by benevolence for the individual patient. Finally, improvisation with novel SAP strategies is reported as ubiquitous, and acknowledged to confer a sense of reassurance to the surgeon despite potential non-concordance with guidelines or clinical efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical-specific concerns have thus far not been meaningfully integrated into antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes, including important dynamics of confidence, trust and mitigating fear of adverse infective events. Surgeons require specific forms of AMS support to enact optimisation, including support for strong collaborative ownership of the surgical risk of infection, and intra-specialty (within surgical specialties) and inter-specialty (between surgery, anaesthetics and infectious diseases) intervention strategies to establish endorsement of and address barriers to guideline implementation.
Authors: Stephan Ariyan; Janet Martin; Avtar Lal; Davy Cheng; Gregory L Borah; Kevin C Chung; John Conly; Robert Havlik; W P Andrew Lee; Mary H McGrath; Julian Pribaz; V Leroy Young Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: E Charani; E Castro-Sanchez; N Sevdalis; Y Kyratsis; L Drumright; N Shah; A Holmes Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2013-04-09 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Elizabeth E Mmari; Eunice S Pallangyo; Athar Ali; Dereck A Kaale; Isaac H Mawalla; Muzdalifat S Abeid Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-08-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Hazel Parker; Julia Frost; Jo Day; Rob Bethune; Anu Kajamaa; Kieran Hand; Sophie Robinson; Karen Mattick Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-07-20 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Robin M E Janssen; Anke J M Oerlemans; Johannes G Van Der Hoeven; Jaap Ten Oever; Jeroen A Schouten; Marlies E J L Hulscher Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2022-07-28 Impact factor: 5.758
Authors: Gosha Wojcik; Nicola Ring; Corrienne McCulloch; Diane S Willis; Brian Williams; Kalliopi Kydonaki Journal: Arch Public Health Date: 2021-07-23
Authors: Adina Fésüs; Ria Benkő; Mária Matuz; Orsolya Kungler-Gorácz; Márton Á Fésüs; Tamás Bazsó; Zoltán Csernátony; Gábor Kardos Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) Date: 2021-12-09