Search

Abstract Background Antimicrobial resistance is a global patient safety priority and inappropriate antimicrobial use is a key contributing factor. Evidence have shown that delayed (back-up) antibiotic prescriptions (DP) are an effective and safe strategy for reducing unnecessary antibiotic consumption but its use is controversial. Methods We conducted a realist review to ask why, how, and in what contexts general practitioners (GPs) use DP. We searched five electronic databases for relevant articles and included DP-related data from interviews with healthcare professionals in a related study. Data were analysed using a realist theory-driven approach – theorising which context(s) influenced (mechanisms) resultant outcome(s) (context-mechanism-outcome-configurations: CMOCs). Results Data were included from 76 articles and 41 interviews to develop a program theory comprising nine key and 56 related CMOCs. These explain the reasons for GPs’ tolerance of risk to different uncertainties and how these may interact with GPs’ work environment, self-efficacy and perceived patient concordance to make using DP as a safety-net or social tool more or less likely, at a given time-point. For example, when a GP uses clinical scores or diagnostic tests: a clearly high or low score/test result may mitigate scientific uncertainty and lead to an immediate or no antibiotic decision; an intermediary result may provoke hermeneutic (interpretation-related) uncertainty and lead to DP becoming preferred and used as a safety net. Our program theory explains how DP can be used to mitigate some uncertainties but also provoke or exacerbate others. Conclusion This review explains how, why and in what contexts GPs are more or less likely to use DP, as well as various uncertainties GPs face which DP may mitigate or provoke. We recommend that efforts to plan and implement interventions to optimise antibiotic prescribing in primary care consider these uncertainties and the contexts when DP may be (dis)preferred over other interventions to reduce antibiotic prescribing. We also recommend the following and have included example activities for: (i) reducing demand for immediate antibiotics; (ii) framing DP as an ‘active’ prescribing option; (iii) documenting the decision-making process around DP; and (iv) facilitating social and system support.

Abstract Background Use of electronic health records (EHR) to provide real-world data for research is established, but using EHR to deliver randomised controlled trials (RCTs) more efficiently is less developed. The Allergy AntiBiotics And Microbial resistAnce (ALABAMA) RCT evaluated a penicillin allergy assessment pathway versus usual clinical care in a UK primary care setting. The aim of this paper is to describe how EHRs were used to facilitate efficient delivery of a large-scale randomised trial of a complex intervention embracing efficient participant identification, supporting minimising GP workload, providing accurate post-intervention EHR updates of allergy status, and facilitating participant follow up and outcome data collection. The generalisability of the EHR approach and health economic implications of EHR in clinical trials will be reported in the main ALABAMA trial cost-effectiveness analysis. Methods A descriptive account of the adaptation of functionality within SystmOne used to deliver/facilitate multiple trial processes from participant identification to outcome data collection. Results An ALABAMA organisation group within SystmOne was established which allowed sharing of trial functions/materials developed centrally by the research team. The ‘ALABAMA unit’ within SystmOne was also created and provided a secure efficient environment to access participants’ EHR data. Processes of referring consented participants, allocating them to a trial arm, and assigning specific functions to the intervention arm were developed by adapting tools such as templates, reports, and protocols which were already available in SystmOne as well as pathways to facilitate allergy de-labelling processes and data retrieval for trial outcome analysis. Conclusions ALABAMA is one of the first RCTs to utilise SystmOne EHR functionality and data across the RCT delivery, demonstrating feasibility and applicability to other primary care RCTs. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04108637, registered 05/03/2019. ISRCTN: ISRCTN20579216.

Abstract Background Tuberculosis (TB) is a stigmatised disease with intersectional associations with poverty, HIV, transmission risk and mortality. The use of visible TB infection prevention and control (IPC) measures, such as masks or isolation, can contribute to stigma. Methods To explore stigma in this condition, we conducted in-depth individual interviews with 18 health workers and 15 patients in the rural Eastern Cape of South Africa using a semi-structured interview guide and narrative approach. We used reflexive thematic analysis guided by line-by-line coding. We then interpreted these key findings using Link and Phelan’s theoretical model of stigma, related this to stigma mitigation recommendations from participants and identified levels of intervention with the Health Stigma and Discrimination Framework. Results Participants shared narratives of how TB IPC measures can contribute to stigma, with some describing feeling ‘less than human’. We found TB IPC measures sometimes exacerbated stigma, for example through introducing physical isolation that became prolonged or through a mask marking the person out as being ill with TB. In this context, stigma emerged from the narrow definition of what mask-wearing symbolises, in contrast with broader uses of masks as a preventative measure. Patient and health workers had contrasting perspectives on the implications of TB IPC-related stigma, with patients focussing on communal benefit, while health workers focussed on the negative impact on the health worker-patient relationship. Participant recommendations to mitigate TB IPC-related stigma included comprehensive information on TB IPC measures, respectful communication between health workers and patients, shifting the focus of TB IPC messages to communal safety (which could draw on ubuntu, a humanist framework) and using universal IPC precautions instead of measures targeted at someone with infectious TB. Conclusions Health facilities may unwittingly perpetuate stigma through TB IPC implementation, but they also have the potential to reduce it. Evoking ‘ubuntu’ as an African humanist conceptual framework could provide a novel perspective to guide future TB IPC stigma mitigation interventions, including policy changes to universal IPC precautions.

BackgroundSepsis is a common cause of serious illness and death. Sepsis management remains challenging and suboptimal. To support rapid sepsis diagnosis and treatment, screening tools have been embedded into hospital digital systems to appear as digital alerts. The implementation of digital alerts to improve the management of sepsis and deterioration is a complex intervention that has to fit with team workflow and the views and practices of hospital staff. Despite the importance of human decision-making and behavior in optimal implementation, there are limited qualitative studies that explore the views and experiences of health care professionals regarding digital alerts as sepsis or deterioration computerized clinician decision support systems (CCDSSs). ObjectiveThis study aims to explore the views and experiences of health care professionals on the use of sepsis or deterioration CCDSSs and to identify barriers and facilitators to their implementation and use in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals. MethodsWe conducted a qualitative, multisite study with unstructured observations and semistructured interviews with health care professionals from emergency departments, outreach teams, and intensive or acute units in 3 NHS hospital trusts in England. Data from both interviews and observations were analyzed together inductively using thematic analysis. ResultsA total of 22 health care professionals were interviewed, and 12 observation sessions were undertaken. A total of four themes regarding digital alerts were identified: (1) support decision-making as nested in electronic health records, but never substitute professionals’ knowledge and experience; (2) remind to take action according to the context, such as the hospital unit and the job role; (3) improve the alerts and their introduction, by making them more accessible, easy to use, not intrusive, more accurate, as well as integrated across the whole health care system; and (4) contextual factors affecting views and use of alerts in the NHS trusts. Digital alerts are more optimally used in general hospital units with a lower senior decision maker:patient ratio and by health care professionals with experience of a similar technology. Better use of the alerts was associated with quality improvement initiatives and continuous sepsis training. The trusts’ features, such as the presence of a 24/7 emergency outreach team, good technological resources, and staffing and teamwork, favored a more optimal use. ConclusionsTrust implementation of sepsis or deterioration CCDSSs requires support on multiple levels and at all phases of the intervention, starting from a prego-live analysis addressing organizational needs and readiness. Advancements toward minimally disruptive and smart digital alerts as sepsis or deterioration CCDSSs, which are more accurate and specific but at the same time scalable and accessible, require policy changes and investments in multidisciplinary research.

Background Despite climate change being described as a code red for humanity, health systems have been particularly slow in both climate mitigation and adaptation responses. The effects of climate change on health and health systems will not be felt equally, with underserved and marginalised communities disproportionately impacted. The circumpolar region is warming at 3–4 times the global rate, amplifying already existing socioeconomic barriers and health inequities, with particular amplified effects for the substantial Indigenous population in the area.Objectives and setting We therefore sought to explore perspectives of physicians around patient-planetary health (P-PH) co-benefit prescribing in a circumpolar region in the Northwest Territories (NWT), Canada, known to be one of the ground zero levels for climate change.Methods Thirteen semi-structured physician interviews were carried out in the NWT region between May 2022 and March 2023 using purposive sampling. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and reflexive thematic analysis was carried out to identify key themes.Results There were three main themes identified including (1) current healthcare system does not support planetary health, (2) supporting patient-planetary health is currently difficult for clinicians and (3) considering change in the NWT to support patient-planetary health. Participants noted key opportunities to move planetary health forward, with the NWT having the potential to be an innovative model for planetary health-informed change for other health systems.Conclusion The NWT health system has unique features due to its rural and remote nature and smaller population base. Despite this, our study identified some key opportunities for advancing P-PH co-benefit efforts. The identified opportunities may be considered in future intervention, organisational change and policy-making efforts with potential relevance in other settings.

AbstractBackground Access to testing during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was limited, impacting patients with COVID-19-like symptoms. Current qualitative studies have been limited to one country or were conducted outside Europe.Objectives To explore - in eight European countries - the experiences of patients consulting in primary care with COVID-19-like symptoms during the first wave of the pandemic.Methods Sixty-six semi-structured interviews, informed by a topic guide, were conducted by telephone or in person between April and July 2020. Patients with COVID-19-like symptoms were purposively recruited in primary care sites in eight countries and sampled based on age, gender, and symptom presentation. Deductive and inductive thematic analysis techniques were used to develop a framework representing data across settings. Data adequacy was attained by collecting rich data.Results Seven themes were identified, which described the experiences of patients consulting. Two themes are reported in this manuscript describing the role of COVID-19 testing in this experience. Patients described significant distress due to their symptoms, especially those at higher risk of complications from COVID-19, and those with severe symptoms. Patients wanted access to testing to identify the cause of their illness and minimise the burden of managing uncertainty. Some patients testing positive for COVID-19 assumed they would be immune from future infection.Conclusion Patients experiencing novel and severe symptoms, particularly those with comorbidities, experienced a significant emotional and psychological burden due to concerns about COVID-19. Testing provided reassurance over health status and helped patients identify which guidance to follow. Testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 led to some patients thinking they were immune from future infection, thus influencing subsequent behaviour.

Objectives: Penicillin allergy records are often incorrect and may result in harm. We aimed to systematically review the effectiveness and safety of nonallergist health care worker delivery of penicillin allergy delabeling. Methods: We searched EMBASE/MEDLINE/CINAHL (Ovid), PsycInfo, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception to January 21, 2022 and unpublished studies and gray literature. The proportion of patients allergic to penicillin delabeled and harmed was calculated using random-effects models. Results: Overall, 5019 patients were delabeled. Using allergy history alone, 14% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9-21%) of 4350 assessed patients were delabeled without reported harm. Direct drug provocation testing resulted in delabeling in 27% (95% CI, 18-37%) of 4207 assessed patients. Of the 1373 patients tested, 98% were delabeled (95% CI, 97-99%), and nonserious harm was reported in 1% (95% CI, 0-2%). Using skin testing, followed by drug provocation testing, 41% (95% CI, 24-59%) of 2890 assessed patients were delabeled. Of the 1294 tested patients, 95.0% (95% CI, 90-99%) were delabeled, and the reported harm was low (0%; (95% CI 0-1%). Conclusion: Penicillin allergy delabeling by nonallergists is efficacious and safe. The proportion of assessed patients who can be delabeled increases with the complexity of testing method, but substantial numbers can be delabeled without skin testing.

Background: In England, clinical commissioning group (CCG; now replaced by Integrated Care Systems [ICSs]) and primary care network (PCN) professionals support primary care prescribers to optimise antimicrobial stewardship (AMS). Aim: To explore views and experiences of CCG and PCN staff in supporting AMS, and the impact of COVID-19 on this support. Design & setting: Qualitative interview study in primary care in England. Method: Semi-structured interviews with staff from CCG and PCNs responsible for AMS were conducted at two timepoints via telephone. These were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically. Results: Twenty-seven interviews were conducted with 14 participants (nine CCG, five PCN) in December 2020–January 2021 and February–May 2021. The study found that AMS support was (1) deprioritised in order to keep general practice operational and deliver COVID-19 vaccines; (2) disrupted as social distancing made it harder to build relationships, conduct routine AMS activities, and challenge prescribing decisions; and (3) adapted, with opportunities identified for greater use of technology and changing patient and public perceptions of viruses and self-care. It was also found that resources to support AMS were valued if they were both novel, to counter AMS ‘fatigue’, and sufficiently familiar to fit with existing and/or future AMS. Conclusion: AMS needs to be reprioritised in general practice in the post-pandemic era and within the new ICSs in England. This should include interventions and strategies that combine novel elements with already familiar strategies to refresh prescribers’ motivation and opportunities for AMS. Behaviour change interventions should be aimed at improving the culture and processes for how PCN pharmacists voice concerns about AMS to prescribers in general practice and take advantage of the changed patient and public perceptions of viruses and self-care.

Introduction Incorrect penicillin allergy records are recognised as an important barrier to the safe treatment of infection and affect an estimated 2.7 million people in England. Penicillin allergy records are associated with worse health outcome and antimicrobial resistance. The ALlergy AntiBiotics And Microbial resistAnce (ALABAMA) trial aims to determine if an intervention package, centred around a penicillin allergy assessment pathway (PAAP) initiated in primary care, is safe and effective in improving patient health outcomes and antibiotic prescribing.Methods and analysis The ALABAMA trial is a multicentre, parallel-arm, open-label, randomised pragmatic trial with a nested pilot study. Adults (≥18 years) with a penicillin allergy record and who have received antibiotics in the previous 24 months will be eligible for participation. Between 1592 and 2090 participants will be recruited from participating National Health Service general practices in England. Participants will be randomised to either usual care or intervention to undergo a pre-emptive PAAP using a 1:1 allocation ratio. The primary outcome measure is the percentage of treatment response failures within 28 days of an index prescription. 2090 and 1592 participants are estimated to provide 90% and 80% power, respectively, to detect a clinically important absolute difference of 7.9% in primary outcome at 1 year between groups. The trial includes a mixed-methods process evaluation and cost-effectiveness evaluation.Ethics and dissemination This trial has been approved by London Bridge Research Ethics Committee (ref: 19/LO/0176). It will be conducted in compliance with Good Clinical Practice guidelines according to the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent will be obtained from all subjects involved in the study. The primary trial results will be submitted for publication to an international, peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration ISRCTN20579216.

BackgroundThe majority of antibiotics are prescribed in primary care for respiratory tract infections. Point-of-care tests (POCTs) for the management of community-acquired acute respiratory tract infections (CA-ARTI) have been developed to help optimize antibiotic prescribing. While some countries in Europe have adopted these tests in primary care settings, most have not. Stakeholders, such as policy-makers, regulators, the diagnostic industry, and scientific associations, have roles in the implementation of new diagnostics in primary care. The aim of this study is to explore these stakeholders’ views and experiences, and identify areas of unmet need relating to POCT implementation.MethodsStakeholders were recruited using purposive sampling and snowballing. Between March 2021 and May 2022, semi-structured interviews were conducted online with stakeholders in Belgium, the UK and from European Union (EU) -level organizations. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed inductively and deductively using thematic analysis.ResultsTwenty-six stakeholders participated: eleven from EU-level organizations, seven from Belgium, and eight from the UK. Five themes were identified. Stakeholders felt a balance of top-down and bottom-up approaches were an optimal strategy to the implementation of POCTs. Stakeholders stressed the need to engage with clinicians to act as champions for tests to help raise awareness and generate new evidence on how tests are used. While acknowledging the potential of POCTs for improving patient outcomes and impacting antibiotic prescribing behavior, some raised concerns on how tests would be used in practice and wished to see national data on effectiveness. COVID-19 catalyzed the use of tests, but stakeholders were pessimistic that processes for approving diagnostics during the pandemic would be replicated in the future.ConclusionStakeholders provided recommendations for research and practice. Robust reimbursement policies could alleviate financial burden from clinicians and patients, encouraging practices to adopt POCTs. Industry is likely to benefit from engaging as early on as possible with other stakeholders. Due to uncertainty among stakeholders on the impact of POCTs on antibiotic prescribing, further evidence is needed to understand how practices adopt POCTs and the implications for stewardship. Monitoring how POCTs are used can inform future guidelines on successful diagnostic implementation.

Background: Antibiotic treatment duration may be longer than sometimes needed. Stopping antibiotics early, rather than completing pre-set antibiotic courses, may help reduce unnecessary exposure to antibiotics and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Aim: To identify clinicians' and patients' views on stopping antibiotics when better (SAWB) for urinary tract infections (UTIs), and to explore comparisons with other acute infections. Design & setting: An exploratory qualitative study with general practice clinicians and patients in England. Method: Primary care clinicians and patients who had recent UTI experience were recruited in England. Remote one-to-one interviews with clinicians and patients, and one focus group with patients, were conducted. Data were audiorecorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically. Results: Eleven clinicians (seven GPs) and 19 patients (14 with experience of recurrent and/or chronic UTIs) were included. All participants considered SAWB unfamiliar and contradictory to well-known advice to complete antibiotic courses, but were interested in the evidence for risks and benefits of SAWB. Clinicians were amenable if evidence and guidelines supported it, whereas patients were more averse because of concerns about the risk of UTI recurrence and/or complications and AMR. Participants viewed SAWB as potentially more appropriate for longer antibiotic courses and other infections (with longer courses and lower risk of recurrence and/or complications). Participants stressed the need for unambiguous advice and SAWB as part of shared decision making and personalised advice. Conclusion: Patients were less accepting of SAWB, whereas clinicians were more amenable to it. Patients and clinicians require good evidence that this novel approach to self-determining antibiotic duration is safe and beneficial. If evidence based, SAWB should be offered with an explanation of why the advice differs from the ‘complete the course’ instruction, and a clear indication of when exactly to stop antibiotics should be given.

Abstract Background Opportunistic recruitment in primary care is challenging due to the inherent unpredictability of incident conditions, and workload and time pressures. Many clinical trials do not recruit to target, leading to equivocal answers to research questions. Learning from the experiences of patients and recruiters to trials of incident conditions has the potential to improve recruitment and retention to future trials, thereby enhancing the quality and impact of research findings. The aim of this research was to learn from the trial experiences of UTI patients and recruiters to the Cranberry for UTI (CUTI) trial, to help plan an adequately powered trial of similar design. Methods One-to-one semi-structured interviews were embedded within the CUTI feasibility trial, an open-label, randomised feasibility trial of cranberry extract for symptoms of acute, uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) in primary care. Interviews were conducted with a sample of: CUTI trial participants; non-CUTI trial UTI patients; and, recruiters to the CUTI trial. Verbatim transcripts were analysed thematically. Results Twenty-six patients with UTI and eight recruiters (nurses and GPs) to the CUTI trial were interviewed. Three themes were developed around: reasons for participating in research; barriers to opportunistic recruitment; and, UTI patients’ experiences of trial procedures. Recruiters found that targeted electronic prompts directed at healthcare practitioners based in clinics where patients with incident conditions were likely to present (e.g. minor illness clinic) were more effective than generic prompts (e.g. desk prompts) at filtering patients from their usual clinical pathway to research clinics. Using a script to explain the delayed antibiotic trial group to patients was found to be helpful, and may have served to boost recruitment. For UTI patients, using an electronic diary to rate their symptoms was considered an acceptable medium, and often preferable to using a paper diary or mobile phone application. Conclusions The use of targeted prompts directed at clinicians, a script to explain trial groups that may be deemed less desirable, and an appropriate diary format for patient-reported outcomes, may help to improve trial recruitment and retention.

Abstract Current methods to assess asthma and guide inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dose titration mainly centre on patient-reported symptoms and lung function assessments. However, these methods correlate only weakly with airway inflammation making them unreliable predictors of future exacerbations and ICS requirement. Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide (FeNO) is a simple non-invasive objective measure of airways inflammation used predominantly in specialist clinics. Previous qualitative studies have mainly focused on the acceptability of FeNO in secondary care and there is limited insight to support clinicians and patients using FeNO in primary care asthma reviews. This study aimed to explore adult patient with asthma and primary care health care professional (HCP) views on introducing FeNO as part of routine asthma reviews. Twenty-three health care professionals and 22 patients were interviewed over the phone or online. Both groups reported that current asthma reviews are often seen as tick-box exercises and that introducing the FeNO test would make reviews more tailored to the individual patient, rather than relying on subjective patient reports of asthma control. Adults with asthma also highlighted support more open communication and their understanding of asthma, as they desired to feel more engaged in decisions and conversations about their asthma. HCPs reported valuing patient education and empowerment over a paternalistic approach, when time and resources allow. They also recognised FeNO to provide an objective measure of inflammation that could support them in the education and empowerment of patients. FeNO was seen by both groups as a potentially valuable addition to current asthma reviews mainly led by nurses, both for increasing their understanding of current risk of exacerbation and also to provide more tailored and personalised asthma management to patients. Our findings highlighted the need for open and clear communication about how to interpret FeNO results.

As the COVID-19 pandemic has shown, setting up studies in time to gather relevant, real-world data enables researchers to capture current views and experiences, focus on practicalities on the ground, and deliver actionable results. Delivering high quality rapid studies in healthcare poses several challenges even in non-emergency situations. There is an expanding literature discussing benefits and challenges of conducting rapid research, yet there are relatively few examples related to methodological dilemmas and decisions that researchers may face when conducting rapid studies. In rapidly-changing emergency contexts, some of these challenges may be more easily overcome, while others may be unique to the emergency, magnified, or emerge in different ways. In this manuscript, we discuss our reflections and lessons learnt across the research process when conducting rapid qualitative interview studies in the context of a healthcare emergency, focusing on methodological issues. By this we mean the challenging considerations and pragmatic choices we made, and their downstream impacts, that shaped our studies. We draw on our extensive combined experience of delivering several projects during the COVID-19 pandemic in both single and multi-country settings, where we implemented rapid studies, or rapidly adapted an existing study. In the context of these studies, we discuss two main considerations, with a particular focus on the complexities, multiple facets, and trade-offs involved in: (i) team-based approaches to qualitative studies; and (ii) timely and rapid data collection, analysis and dissemination. We contribute a transparent discussion of these issues, describing them, what helped us to deal with them, and which issues have been difficult to overcome. We situate our discussion of arising issues in relation to existing literature, to offer broader recommendations while also identifying gaps in current understandings of how to deal with these methodological challenges. We thus identify key considerations, lessons, and possibilities for researchers implementing rapid studies in healthcare emergencies and beyond. We aim to promote transparency in reporting, assist other researchers in making informed choices, and consequently contribute to the development of the rapid qualitative research.

Background: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients’ and clinicians’ perceptions of healthcare-seeking behaviour and delivery of care is unclear. The pandemic accelerated the use of remote care, and understanding its benefits and drawbacks may inform its implementation during current and future healthcare emergencies. Aim: To explore patients’ and primary care professionals’ (PCPs) experiences of primary care delivery in the first wave of the pandemic. Design & setting: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews in primary care in eight European countries (England, Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Greece, Poland, Sweden, and Germany). Method: A total of 146 interviews were conducted with 80 PCPs and 66 patients consulting for respiratory tract infection (RTI) symptoms, in eight European countries. Data were collected between April and July 2020, and analysed using thematic analysis. Results: It was found that patients accepted telemedicine when PCPs spent time to understand and address their concerns, but a minority preferred in-person consultations. PCPs felt that remote consultations created emotional distance between themselves and patients, and they reported having to manage diverse COVID-19-related medical and social concerns. Conclusion: Remote consultations for RTI symptoms may be acceptable long term if both groups are happy to use this format, but it is important that PCPs take time to address patients’ concerns and provide safety-netting advice.

An estimated 2.7 million people in the UK are potentially prevented from accessing highly effective and inexpensive penicillins as a result of incorrect penicillin allergy records. Removing incorrect penicillin allergy records may lead to improved patient outcomes and contribute to the tackling of antibiotic resistance. We aim to develop and evaluate whether the ‘Penicillin Allergy Assessment Pathway’ (PAAP) is effective in improving patient outcomes. At the first stage of this work, we have focused on understanding patients’ and primary care clinicians’ views of attending and referring to penicillin allergy testing, and then prescribing and consuming penicillin following a negative test result.

The impacts of healthcare professionals (HCPs) being research participants are often neglected. As professionals, they tend to be perceived as ‘immune’ to many negative effects of sharing their experiences. However, in the context of an ongoing global pandemic such as COVID-19, these assumptions can be clearly challenged. This article draws on researchers’ experiences of conducting single and longitudinal qualitative interviews with HCPs during the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe during 2020. Reflecting on the methodological and ethical implications of doing such research during a pandemic allows researchers to surface assumptions about and question categories of ‘vulnerability’ and ‘sensitivity’. We explore these categories in relation to three issues we have identified: (i) Blurred boundaries in researcher-participant relationships; (ii) Interviews as spaces to process experiences; and (iii) Motivations to conduct and participate in research. We demonstrate that qualitative interviews during a pandemic are embedded in sense-making processes for both the interviewer and participant, and as such may play an important role in coping and resilience. We therefore argue for ethically active research that critically engages with the concepts of ‘vulnerability’ and ‘sensitivity’, and underpinning assumptions, in context over time throughout the research process for current and future research with HCPs and other groups beyond pandemic situations. We thus aim to prepare researchers for managing these potential facets during the research process. We conclude with practical implications for managing emerging ethical tensions, methodological challenges and the wide-ranging possibilities and responsibilities for research with HCPs, urging researchers to consider the issues in advance.

Implementation of TB infection prevention and control (IPC) measures in health facilities is frequently inadequate, despite nosocomial TB transmission to patients and health workers causing harm. We aimed to review qualitative evidence of the complexity associated with implementing TB IPC, to help guide the development of TB IPC implementation plans. We undertook a qualitative evidence synthesis of studies that used qualitative methods to explore the experiences of health workers implementing TB IPC in health facilities. We searched eight databases in November 2021, complemented by citation tracking. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts and reviewed full texts of potentially eligible papers. We used the Critical Appraisals Skills Programme checklist for quality appraisal, thematic synthesis to identify key findings and the GRADE-CERQual method to appraise the certainty of review findings. The review protocol was pre-registered on PROSPERO, ID CRD42020165314. We screened 1062 titles and abstracts and reviewed 102 full texts, with 37 studies included in the synthesis. We developed 10 key findings, five of which we had high confidence in. We describe several components of TB IPC as a complex intervention. Health workers were influenced by their personal occupational TB risk perceptions when deciding whether to implement TB IPC and neglected the contribution of TB IPC to patient safety. Health workers and researchers expressed multiple uncertainties (for example the duration of infectiousness of people with TB), assumptions and misconceptions about what constitutes effective TB IPC, including focussing TB IPC on patients known with TB on treatment who pose a small risk of transmission. Instead, TB IPC resources should target high risk areas for transmission (crowded, poorly ventilated spaces). Furthermore, TB IPC implementation plans should support health workers to translate TB IPC guidelines to local contexts, including how to navigate unintended stigma caused by IPC, and using limited IPC resources effectively.

BackgroundWorking under pandemic conditions exposes health care workers (HCWs) to infection risk and psychological strain. A better understanding of HCWs' experiences of following local infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures during COVID-19 is urgently needed to inform strategies for protecting the psychical and psychological health of HCWs. The objective of this study was therefore to capture the perceptions of hospital HCWs on local IPC procedures and the impact on their emotional wellbeing during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe.MethodsParticipants were recruited in two sampling rounds of an international cross-sectional survey. Sampling took place between 31 March and 17 April 2020 via existing research networks and between 14 May and 31 August 2020 via online convenience sampling. Main outcome measures were behavioural determinants of HCWs' adherence to IPC guidelines and the WHO-5 Well-Being Index, a validated scale of 0-100 reflecting emotional wellbeing. The WHO-5 was interpreted as a score below or above 50 points, a cut-off score used in previous literature to screen for depression.Results2289 HCWs from 40 countries in Europe participated. Mean age was 42 (±11) years, 66% were female, 47% and 39% were medical doctors and nurses, respectively. 74% (n = 1699) of HCWs were directly treating patients with COVID-19, of which 32% (n = 527) reported they were fearful of caring for these patients. HCWs reported high levels of concern about COVID-19 infection risk to themselves (71%) and their family (82%) as a result of their job. 40% of HCWs considered that getting infected with COVID-19 was not within their control. This feeling was more common among junior than senior HCWs (46% versus 38%, P value < .01). Sufficient COVID-19-specific IPC training, confidence in PPE use and institutional trust were positively associated with the feeling that becoming infected with COVID-19 was within their control. Female HCWs were more likely than males to report a WHO-5 score below 50 points (aOR 1.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-1.8).ConclusionsIn Europe, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a differential impact on those providing direct COVID-19 patient care, junior staff and women. Health facilities must be aware of these differential impacts, build trust and provide tailored support for this vital workforce during the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective To identify the experiences and concerns of health workers (HWs), and how they changed, throughout the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Methods Longitudinal, qualitative study with HWs involved in patient management or delivery of care related to COVID-19 in general practice, emergency departments and hospitals. Participants were identified through snowballing. Semi-structured telephone or video interviews were conducted between February 2020 and February 2021, audio-recorded, summarised, and transcribed. Data were analysed longitudinally using framework and thematic analysis. Results We conducted 105 interviews with 14 participants and identified three phases corresponding with shifts in HWs’ experiences and concerns. (1) Emergency and mobilisation phase (late winter-spring 2020), with significant rapid shifts in responsibilities, required skills, and training, and challenges in patient care. (2) Consolidation and preparation phase (summer-autumn 2020), involving gradual return to usual care and responsibilities, sense of professional development and improvement in care, and focus on learning and preparing for future. (3) Exhaustion and survival phase (autumn 2020-winter 2021), entailing return of changes in responsibilities, focus on balancing COVID-19 and non-COVID care (until becoming overwhelmed with COVID-19 cases), and concerns about longer-term impacts of unceasing pressure on health services. Participants’ perceptions of COVID-19 risk and patient/public attitudes changed throughout the year, and tiredness and weariness turned into exhaustion. Conclusions Results showed a long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on UK HWs’ experiences and concerns related to changes in their roles, provision of care, and personal wellbeing. Despite mobilisation in the emergency phase, and trying to learn from this, HWs’ experiences seemed to be similar or worse in the second wave partly due to many COVID-19 cases. The findings highlight the importance of supporting HWs and strengthening system-level resilience (e.g., with resources, processes) to enable them to respond to current and future demands and emergencies.

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.