Search

Objective: The irrational use of antibiotics is a leading contributor to antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic stewardship (AS) interventions predominantly focus on prescribers. This study investigated the influence and participation of inpatients in infection‐related care, including antibiotic decision‐making, within and across two tertiary hospitals in South Africa (Cape Town) and India (Kerala). Methods: Through ethnographic enquiry of clinical practice in surgical pathways, including direct nonparticipant observation of clinical practices, healthcare worker (HCW), patient and carer interactions in surgical ward rounds and face‐to‐face interviews with participants (HCWs and patients), we sought to capture the implicit and explicit influence that patients and carers have in infection‐related care. Field notes and interview transcripts were thematically coded, aided by NVivo 12® Pro software. Results: Whilst observational data revealed the nuanced roles that patients/carers play in antibiotic decision‐making, HCWs did not recognize these roles. Patients and carers, though invested in patient care, are not routinely involved, nor are they aware of the opportunities for engagement in infection‐related decision‐making. Patients associated clinical improvement with antibiotic use and did not consider hospitalization to be associated with infection acquisition or transmission, highlighting a lack of understanding of the threat of infection and antibiotic resistance. Patients' economic and cultural positionalities may influence their infection‐related behaviours. In the study site in India, cultural norms mean that carers play widespread but unrecognized roles in inpatient care, participating in infection prevention activities. Conclusion: For patients to have a valuable role in AS and make informed decisions regarding their infection‐related care, a mutual understanding of their role in this process among HCWs and patients is crucial. The observed differences between the two study sites indicate the critical need for understanding and addressing the contextual drivers that impact effective patient‐centred healthcare delivery. Patient or Public Contribution: Ethnographic observations and interviews conducted in this study involved patients as participants. Patients were recruited for interviews after obtaining signed informed consent forms. Patients' identities were completely anonymized when presenting the study findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: No standardized written or volumetric definition exists for 'loss of domain' (LOD). This limits the utility of LOD as a morphological descriptor and as a predictor of peri- and postoperative outcomes. Consequently, our aim was to establish definitions for LOD via consensus of expert abdominal wall surgeons. Methods: A Delphi study involving 20 internationally recognized abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) surgeons was performed. Four written and two volumetric definitions of LOD were identified via systematic review. Panelists completed a questionnaire that suggested these definitions as standardized definitions of LOD. Consensus on a preferred term was pre-defined as achieved when selected by ≥80% of panelists. Terms scoring <20% were removed. Results: Voting commenced August 2018 and was completed in January 2019. Written definition: During Round 1, two definitions were removed and seven new definitions were suggested, leaving nine definitions for consideration. For Round 2, panelists were asked to select all appealing definitions. Thereafter, common concepts were identified during analysis, from which the facilitators advanced a new written definition. This received 100% agreement in Round 3. Volumetric definition: Initially, panelists were evenly split, but consensus for the Sabbagh method was achieved. Panelists could not reach consensus regarding a threshold LOD value that would preclude surgery. Conclusions: Consensus for written and volumetric definitions of LOD was achieved from 20 internationally recognized AWR surgeons. Adoption of these definitions will help standardize the use of LOD for both clinical and academic activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]