Search

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the delivery of primary care services. We aimed to identify general practitioners’ (GPs’) perceptions and experiences of how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced antibiotic prescribing and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) in general practice in England. Twenty-four semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 GPs at two time-points: autumn 2020 (14 interviews) and spring 2021 (10 interviews). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically, taking a longitudinal approach. Participants reported a lower threshold for antibiotic prescribing (and fewer consultations) for respiratory infections and COVID-19 symptoms early in the pandemic, then returning to more usual (pre-pandemic) prescribing. They perceived the pandemic as having had less impact on antibiotic prescribing for urinary and skin infections. Participants perceived the changing ways of working and consulting (e.g., proportions of remote and in-person consultations) in addition to changing patient presentations and GP workloads as influencing the fluctuations in antibiotic prescribing. This was compounded by decreased engagement with, and priority of, AMS due to COVID-19-related urgent priorities. Re-engagement with AMS is needed, e.g., through reviving antibiotic prescribing feedback and targets/incentives. The pandemic disrupted, and required adaptations in, the usual ways of working and AMS. It is now important to identify opportunities, e.g., for re-organising ways of managing infections and AMS in the future.

Antibiotic prescribing in England varies considerably between Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) and general practices. We aimed to assess social and contextual factors affecting antibiotic prescribing and engagement with antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) initiatives. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 22 CCG professionals and 19 general practice professionals. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically. Social/contextual influences were grouped into the following four categories: (1) Immediate context, i.e., patients’ social characteristics (e.g., deprivation and culture), clinical factors, and practice and clinician characteristics (e.g., “struggling” with staff shortage/turnover) were linked to higher prescribing. (2) Wider context, i.e., pressures on the healthcare system, limited resources, and competing priorities were seen to reduce engagement with AMS. (3) Collaborative and whole system approaches, i.e., communication, multidisciplinary networks, leadership, and teamwork facilitated prioritizing AMS, learning, and consistency. (4) Relativity of appropriate prescribing, i.e., “high” or “appropriate” prescribing was perceived as relative, depending on comparators, and disregarding different contexts, but social norms around antibiotic use among professionals and patients seemed to be changing. Further optimization of antibiotic prescribing would benefit from addressing social/contextual factors and addressing wider health inequalities, not only targeting individual clinicians. Tailoring and adapting to local contexts and constraints, ensuring adequate time and resources for AMS, and collaborative, whole system approaches to promote consistency may help promote AMS.

Influenza-like illnesses (ILI) account for a significant portion of inappropriate antibiotic use. Patient expectations for antibiotics for ILI are likely to play a substantial role in ‘unnecessary’ antibiotic consumption. This study aimed to investigate trends in awareness of appropriate antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Three sequential online surveys of independent representative samples of adults in the United Kingdom investigated expectations for, and consumption of, antibiotics for ILI (May/June 2015 (n = 2064); Oct/Nov 2016 (n = 4000); Mar 2017 (n = 4000)). Respondents were asked whether they thought antibiotics were effective for ILI and about their antibiotic use. Proportions and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each question and interactions with respondent characteristics were tested using logistic regression. Over the three surveys, the proportion of respondents who believed antibiotics would “definitely/probably” help an ILI fell from 37% (95% CI 35–39%) to 28% (95% CI 26–29%). Those who would “definitely/probably” visit a doctor in this situation fell from 48% (95% CI 46–50%) to 36% (95% CI 34–37%), while those who would request antibiotics during a consultation fell from 39% (95% CI 37–41%) to 30% (95% CI 29–32%). The percentage of respondents who found the information we provided about AMR “new/surprising” fell from 34% (95% CI 32–36%) to 28% (95% CI 26–31%). Awareness improved more among black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) than white people, with little other evidence of differences in improvements between subgroups. Whilst a degree of selection bias is unavoidable in online survey samples, the results suggest that awareness of AMR and appropriate antibiotic use has recently significantly improved in the United Kingdom, according to a wide range of indicators.

Delayed antibiotic prescription in primary care has been shown to reduce antibiotic consumption, without increasing risk of complications, yet is not widely used in the UK. We sought to quantify the relative importance of factors affecting the decision to give a delayed prescription, using a stated-choice survey among UK general practitioners. Respondents were asked whether they would provide a delayed or immediate prescription in fifteen hypothetical consultations, described by eight attributes. They were also asked if they would prefer not to prescribe antibiotics. The most important determinants of choice between immediate and delayed prescription were symptoms, duration of illness, and the presence of multiple comorbidities. Respondents were more likely to choose a delayed prescription if the patient preferred not to have antibiotics, but consultation length had little effect. When given the option, respondents chose not to prescribe antibiotics in 51% of cases, with delayed prescription chosen in 21%. Clinical features remained important. Patient preference did not affect the decision to give no antibiotics. We suggest that broader dissemination of the clinical evidence supporting use of delayed prescription for specific presentations may help increase appropriate use. Establishing patient preferences regarding antibiotics may help to overcome concerns about patient acceptance. Increasing consultation length appears unlikely to affect the use of delayed prescription.

Unnecessary antibiotic prescribing contributes to Antimicrobial Resistance posing a major public health risk. Estimates suggest as many as half of antibiotics prescribed for respiratory infections may be unnecessary. We conducted a three-armed unblinded cluster randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN trial registry 83322985). Interventions were a commitment poster (CP) advocating safe antibiotic prescribing or a CP plus an antimicrobial stewardship message (AM) on telephone appointment booking lines, tested against a usual care control group. The primary outcome measure was antibiotic item dispensing rates per 1000 population adjusted for practice demographics. The outcome measures for post-hoc analysis were dispensing rates of antibiotics usually prescribed for upper respiratory tract infections and broad spectrum antibiotics. In total, 196 practice units were randomized to usual care (n = 60), CP (n = 66), and CP&AM (n = 70). There was no effect on the overall dispensing rates for either interventions compared to usual care (CP 5.673, 95%CI −9.768 to 21.113, p = 0.458; CP&AM, −12.575, 95%CI −30.726 to 5.576, p = 0.167). Secondary analysis, which included pooling the data into one model, showed a significant effect of the AM (−18.444, 95%CI −32.596 to −4.292, p = 0.012). Fewer penicillins and macrolides were prescribed in the CP&AM intervention compared to usual care (−12.996, 95% CI −34.585 to −4.913, p = 0.018). Commitment posters did not reduce antibiotic prescribing. An automated patient antimicrobial stewardship message showed effects and requires further testing.

Catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI) are common yet preventable. Healthcare professional behaviours, such as reducing unnecessary catheter use, are key for preventing CAUTI. Previous research has focused on identifying gaps in the national response to CAUTI in multiple settings in England. This study aimed to identify how national interventions could be optimised. We conducted a multi-method study comprising: a rapid review of research on interventions to reduce CAUTI; a behavioural analysis of effective research interventions compared to national interventions; and a stakeholder focus group and survey to identify the most promising options for optimising interventions. We identified 37 effective research interventions, mostly conducted in United States secondary care. A behavioural analysis of these interventions identified 39 intervention components as possible ways to optimise national interventions. Seven intervention components were prioritised by stakeholders. These included: checklists for discharge/admission to wards; information for patients and relatives about the pros/cons of catheters; setting and profession specific guidelines; standardised nationwide computer-based documentation; promotion of alternatives to catheter use; CAUTI champions; and bladder scanners. By combining research evidence, behavioural analysis and stakeholder feedback, we identified how national interventions to reduce CAUTI could be improved. The seven prioritised components should be considered for future implementation.

Background: In order to tackle the public health threat of antimicrobial resistance, improvement in antibiotic prescribing in primary care was included as one of the priorities of the Quality Premium (QP) financial incentive scheme for Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England. This paper briefly reports the outcome of a workshop exploring the experiences of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) leads within CCGs in selecting and adopting strategies to help achieve the QP antibiotic targets. Methods: We conducted a thematic analysis of the notes on discussions and observations from the workshop to identify key themes. Results: Practice visits, needs assessment, peer feedback and audits were identified as strategies integrated in increasing engagement with practices towards the QP antibiotic targets. The conceptual model developed by AMS leads demonstrated possible pathways for the impact of the QP on antibiotic prescribing. Participants raised a concern that the constant targeting of high prescribing practices for AMS interventions might lead to disengagement by these practices. Most of the participants suggested that the effect of the QP might be less about the financial incentive and more about having national targets and guidelines that promote antibiotic prudency. Conclusions: Our results suggest that national targets, rather than financial incentives are key for engaging stakeholders in quality improvement in antibiotic prescribing.

Many antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions have been implemented in England, facilitating decreases in antibiotic prescribing. Nevertheless, there is substantial variation in antibiotic prescribing across England and some healthcare organizations remain high prescribers of antibiotics. This study aimed to identify ways to improve AMS interventions to further optimize antibiotic prescribing in primary care in England. Stakeholders representing different primary care settings were invited to, and 15 participated in, a focus group or telephone interview to identify ways to improve existing AMS interventions. Forty-five intervention suggestions were generated and 31 were prioritized for inclusion in an online survey. Fifteen stakeholders completed the survey appraising each proposed intervention using the pre-defined APEASE (i.e., Affordability, Practicability, Effectiveness, Acceptability, Safety, and Equity) criteria. The highest-rated nine interventions were prioritized as most promising and feasible, including: quality improvement, multidisciplinary peer learning, appointing AMS leads, auditing individual-level prescribing, developing tools for prescribing audits, improving inductions for new prescribers, ensuring consistent local approaches to antibiotic prescribing, providing online AMS training to all patient-facing staff, and increasing staff time available for AMS work with standardizing AMS-related roles. These prioritized interventions could be incorporated into existing national interventions or developed as stand-alone interventions to help further optimize antibiotic prescribing in primary care in England.

About 10% of U.K. patients believe that they are allergic to penicillin and have a “penicillin allergy label” in their primary care health record. However, around 90% of these patients may be mislabelled. Removing incorrect penicillin allergy labels can help to reduce unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotic use. A rapid review was undertaken of papers exploring patient and/or clinician views and experiences of penicillin allergy testing (PAT) services and the influences on antibiotic prescribing behaviour in the context of penicillin allergy. We reviewed English-language publications published up to November 2017. Limited evidence on patients’ experiences of PAT highlighted advantages to testing as well as a number of concerns. Clinicians reported uncertainty about referral criteria for PAT. Following PAT and a negative result, a number of clinicians and patients remained reluctant to prescribe and consume penicillins. This appeared to reflect a lack of confidence in the test result and fear of subsequent reactions to penicillins. The findings suggest lack of awareness and knowledge of PAT services by both clinicians and patients. In order to ensure correct penicillin allergy diagnosis, clinicians and patients need to be supported to use PAT services and equipped with the skills to use penicillins appropriately following a negative allergy test result.