Aleksandra J Borek1, Anne Campbell2, Monsey McLeod2,3,4, Sarah Tonkin-Crine5,6, Elle Dent5, Christopher C Butler5, Alison Holmes2, Michael Moore7, A Sarah Walker6,8,9. 1. Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK. Aleksandra.borek@phc.ox.ac.uk. 2. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, Imperial College London, London, UK. 3. Centre for Medication Safety and Service Quality, Pharmacy Department, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK. 4. NIHR Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Imperial College London, London, UK. 5. Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK. 6. NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 7. Primary Care Population Sciences and Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. 8. NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK. 9. Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Trials have shown that delayed antibiotic prescriptions (DPs) and point-of-care C-Reactive Protein testing (POC-CRPT) are effective in reducing antibiotic use in general practice, but these were not typically implemented in high-prescribing practices. We aimed to explore views of professionals from high-prescribing practices about uptake and implementation of DPs and POC-CRPT to reduce antibiotic use. METHODS: This was a qualitative focus group study in English general practices. The highest antibiotic prescribing practices in the West Midlands were invited to participate. Clinical and non-clinical professionals attended focus groups co-facilitated by two researchers. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Nine practices (50 professionals) participated. Four main themes were identified. Compatibility of strategies with clinical roles and experience - participants viewed the strategies as having limited value as 'clinical tools', perceiving them as useful only in 'rare' instances of clinical uncertainty and/or for those less experienced. Strategies as 'social tools' - participants perceived the strategies as helpful for negotiating treatment decisions and educating patients, particularly those expecting antibiotics. Ambiguities - participants perceived ambiguities around when they should be used, and about their impact on antibiotic use. Influence of context - various other situational and practical issues were raised with implementing the strategies. CONCLUSIONS: High-prescribing practices do not view DPs and POC-CRPT as sufficiently useful 'clinical tools' in a way which corresponds to the current policy approach advocating their use to reduce clinical uncertainty and improve antimicrobial stewardship. Instead, policy attention should focus on how these strategies may instead be used as 'social tools' to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use. Attention should also focus on the many ambiguities (concerns and questions) about, and contextual barriers to, using these strategies that need addressing to support wider and more consistent implementation.
BACKGROUND: Trials have shown that delayed antibiotic prescriptions (DPs) and point-of-care C-Reactive Protein testing (POC-CRPT) are effective in reducing antibiotic use in general practice, but these were not typically implemented in high-prescribing practices. We aimed to explore views of professionals from high-prescribing practices about uptake and implementation of DPs and POC-CRPT to reduce antibiotic use. METHODS: This was a qualitative focus group study in English general practices. The highest antibiotic prescribing practices in the West Midlands were invited to participate. Clinical and non-clinical professionals attended focus groups co-facilitated by two researchers. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Nine practices (50 professionals) participated. Four main themes were identified. Compatibility of strategies with clinical roles and experience - participants viewed the strategies as having limited value as 'clinical tools', perceiving them as useful only in 'rare' instances of clinical uncertainty and/or for those less experienced. Strategies as 'social tools' - participants perceived the strategies as helpful for negotiating treatment decisions and educating patients, particularly those expecting antibiotics. Ambiguities - participants perceived ambiguities around when they should be used, and about their impact on antibiotic use. Influence of context - various other situational and practical issues were raised with implementing the strategies. CONCLUSIONS: High-prescribing practices do not view DPs and POC-CRPT as sufficiently useful 'clinical tools' in a way which corresponds to the current policy approach advocating their use to reduce clinical uncertainty and improve antimicrobial stewardship. Instead, policy attention should focus on how these strategies may instead be used as 'social tools' to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use. Attention should also focus on the many ambiguities (concerns and questions) about, and contextual barriers to, using these strategies that need addressing to support wider and more consistent implementation.
Authors: F Christiaan K Dolk; Koen B Pouwels; David R M Smith; Julie V Robotham; Timo Smieszek Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Paul Little; Beth Stuart; Nick Francis; Elaine Douglas; Sarah Tonkin-Crine; Sibyl Anthierens; Jochen W L Cals; Hasse Melbye; Miriam Santer; Michael Moore; Samuel Coenen; Chris C Butler; Kerenza Hood; Mark Kelson; Maciek Godycki-Cwirko; Artur Mierzecki; Antoni Torres; Carl Llor; Melanie Davies; Mark Mullee; Gilly O'Reilly; Alike van der Velden; Adam W A Geraghty; Herman Goossens; Theo Verheij; Lucy Yardley Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Paul Little; Michael Moore; Jo Kelly; Ian Williamson; Geraldine Leydon; Lisa McDermott; Mark Mullee; Beth Stuart Journal: BMJ Date: 2014-03-06
Authors: Victoria Hardy; Matthew Thompson; Gina A Keppel; William Alto; M Ashworth Dirac; Jon Neher; Christopher Sanford; Jaime Hornecker; Allison Cole Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-01-25 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jan Y Verbakel; Joseph J Lee; Clare Goyder; Pui San Tan; Thanusha Ananthakumar; Philip J Turner; Gail Hayward; Ann Van den Bruel Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Paul Little; Beth Stuart; F D Richard Hobbs; Chris C Butler; Alastair D Hay; Brendan Delaney; John Campbell; Sue Broomfield; Paula Barratt; Kerenza Hood; Hazel Everitt; Mark Mullee; Ian Williamson; David Mant; Michael Moore Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Sibyl Anthierens; Sarah Tonkin-Crine; Elaine Douglas; Patricia Fernandez-Vandellos; Jaroslaw Krawczyk; Carl Llor; Jochen W L Cals; Nick A Francis; Lucy Yardley; Samuel Coenen; Theo Verheij; Herman Goossens; Paul Little Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2012-10-11 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Hilal Özcebe; Sarp Üner; Ozge Karadag; Achraf Daryani; Olga Gershuni; Katarzyna Czabanowska; Helmut Brand; Fabian Erdsiek; Tuğba Aksakal; Patrick Brzoska Journal: BMC Prim Care Date: 2022-02-15
Authors: Marta Wanat; Marta Santillo; Aleksandra J Borek; Christopher C Butler; Sibyl Anthierens; Sarah Tonkin-Crine Journal: JAC Antimicrob Resist Date: 2022-03-16