Suchergebnisse

Background: Within infectious diseases in secondary care, understanding of the potential for behavioural changes arising from patient involvement in antimicrobial decision making is lacking. Shared decision making is becoming part of international policy. The United States have passed it into legislation and the United Kingdom has implemented a number of national interventions across healthcare pathways. This study aims to understand the level of patient involvement in decision making around antimicrobial use in secondary care and the potential consequences associated with it. Methods & Materials: Fourteen members of the public who had received antimicrobials from secondary care in the preceding 12 months were recruited to participate in group interviews. Group interactions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed. Results: Participants reported feelings of disempowerment during episodes of infection in secondary care. Information is currently communicated in a unilateral manner with individuals 'told' that they have an infection and will receive an antimicrobial (often unnamed), leading to loss of ownership, frustration, anxiety and ultimately distancing them from participation in decision making. This poor communication drives individuals to seek information from alternative sources, including on-line resources, which are associated with concerns over reliability and individualisation. This failure of communication and information provision from clinicians in secondary care influences individual's future ideas about infections and their management. This alters their future actions towards infections and antimicrobials and can drive non-adherence to prescribed antimicrobial regimes and loss-to-follow-up after discharge from secondary care. Conclusion: Current infection management and antimicrobial prescribing practices in secondary care may be failing to engage patients in the decision making process. It is vital that secondary care physicians do not view infection management episodes as discrete events, but as cumulative experiences which have the potential to drive future non-adherence to prescribed antimicrobial regimes and thus poor individual outcomes and antimicrobial resistance. This lesson is transferable to all settings of healthcare, where poor communication and information provision having the potential to influence future health seeking behaviours. We call for the development of clear, pragmatic mechanism to support healthcare professionals and patients engage in infection related decision making during consultations.

Background The global concern over antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is gathering pace. Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are at the epicentre of this growing public health threat and governmental and healthcare organizations are at different stages of implementing action plans to tackle AMR. The South Indian state of Kerala was one of the first in India to implement strategies and prioritize activities to address this public health threat. Strategies Through a committed and collaborative effort from all healthcare related disciplines and its professional societies from both public and private sector, the Kerala Public Private Partnership (PPP) has been able to deliver a state-wide strategy to tackle AMR A multilevel strategic leadership model and a multilevel implementation approach that included developing state-wide antibiotic clinical guidelines, a revision of post-graduate and undergraduate medical curriculum, and a training program covering all general practitioners within the state the PPP proved to be a successful model for ensuring state-wide implementation of an AMR action plan. Collaborative work of multi-professional groups ensured co-design and development of disease based clinical treatment guidelines and state-wide infection prevention policy. Knowledge exchange though international and national platforms in the form of workshops for sharing of best practices is critical to success. Capacity building at both public and private institutions included addressing practical and local solutions to the barriers e.g. good antibiotic prescription practices from primary to tertiary care facility and infection prevention at all levels. Conclusion Through 7 years of stakeholder engagement, lobbying with government, and driving change through co-development and implementation, the PPP successfully delivered an antimicrobial stewardship plan across the state. The roadmap for the implementation of the Kerala PPP strategic AMR plan can provide learning for other states and countries aiming to implement action plans for AMR.

Background Variation in the approaches taken to contain the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic at country level has been shaped by economic and political considerations, technical capacity, and assumptions about public behaviours. To address the limited application of learning from previous pandemics, this study aimed to analyse perceived facilitators and inhibitors during the pandemic and to inform the development of an assessment tool for pandemic response planning. Methods A cross-sectional electronic survey of health and non-health care professionals (5 May - 5 June 2020) in six languages, with respondents recruited via email, social media and website posting. Participants were asked to score inhibitors (-10 to 0) or facilitators (0 to +10) impacting country response to COVID-19 from the following domains – Political, Economic, Sociological, Technological, Ecological, Legislative, and wider Industry (the PESTELI framework). Participants were then asked to explain their responses using free text. Descriptive and thematic analysis was followed by triangulation with the literature and expert validation to develop the assessment tool, which was then compared with four existing pandemic planning frameworks. Results 928 respondents from 66 countries (57% health care professionals) participated. Political and economic influences were consistently perceived as powerful negative forces and technology as a facilitator across high- and low-income countries. The 103-item tool developed for guiding rapid situational assessment for pandemic planning is comprehensive when compared to existing tools and highlights the interconnectedness of the 7 domains. Conclusions The tool developed and proposed addresses the problems associated with decision making in disciplinary silos and offers a means to refine future use of epidemic modelling.

Background Variation in the approaches taken to contain the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic at country level has been shaped by economic and political considerations, technical capacity, and assumptions about public behaviours. To address the limited application of learning from previous pandemics, this study aimed to analyse perceived facilitators and inhibitors during the pandemic and to inform the development of an assessment tool for pandemic response planning. Methods A cross-sectional electronic survey of health and non-healthcare professionals (5 May - 5 June 2020) in six languages, with respondents recruited via email, social media and website posting. Participants were asked to score inhibitors (-10 to 0) or facilitators (0 to +10) impacting country response to COVID-19 from the following domains – Political, Economic, Sociological, Technological, Ecological, Legislative, and wider Industry (the PESTELI framework). Participants were then asked to explain their responses using free text. Descriptive and thematic analysis was followed by triangulation with the literature and expert validation to develop the assessment tool, which was then compared with four existing pandemic planning frameworks. Results 928 respondents from 66 countries (57% healthcare professionals) participated. Political and economic influences were consistently perceived as powerful negative forces and technology as a facilitator across high- and low-income countries. The 103-item tool developed for guiding rapid situational assessment for pandemic planning is comprehensive when compared to existing tools and highlights the interconnectedness of the 7 domains. Conclusions The tool developed and proposed addresses the problems associated with decision making in disciplinary silos and offers a means to refine future use of epidemic modelling.

A recent symposium and workshop in Khartoum, the capital of the Republic of Sudan, brought together broad expertise from three universities to address the current burden of communicable and non-communicable diseases facing the Sudanese healthcare system. These meetings identified common challenges that impact the burden of diseases in the country, most notably gaps in data and infrastructure which are essential to inform and deliver effective interventions. Non-communicable diseases, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, renal disease and cancer are increasing dramatically, contributing to multimorbidity. At the same time, progress against communicable diseases has been slow, and the burden of chronic and endemic infections remains considerable, with parasitic diseases (such as malaria, leishmaniasis and schistosomiasis) causing substantial morbidity and mortality. Antimicrobial resistance has become a major threat throughout the healthcare system, with an emerging impact on maternal, neonatal, and paediatric populations. Meanwhile, malnutrition, micronutrient deficiency, and poor perinatal outcomes remain common and contribute to a lifelong burden of disease. These challenges echo the UN sustainable development goals and concentrating on them in a unified strategy will be necessary to address the national burden of disease. At a time when the country is going through societal and political transition, we draw focus on the country and the need for resolution of its healthcare needs.

SCOPE: Antibiotic stewardship programmes (ASPs) are necessary in hospitals to improve the judicious use of antibiotics. While ASPs require complex change of key behaviours on individual, team, organisation and policy levels, evidence from the behavioural sciences is underutilised in antibiotic stewardship studies across the world, including high-income countries (HICs). A consensus procedure was performed to propose research priority areas for optimising effective implementation of ASPs in hospital settings, using a behavioural perspective. METHODS: A workgroup for behavioural approaches to ASPs was convened in response to the fourth call for leading expert network proposals by the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance (JPIAMR). Eighteen clinical and academic specialists in antibiotic stewardship, implementation science and behaviour change from four high-income countries with publicly-funded health care systems (that is Canada, Germany, Norway and the UK), met face-to-face to agree on broad research priority areas using a structured consensus method. QUESTION ADDRESSED AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The consensus process on the 10 identified research priority areas resulted in recommendations that need urgent scientific interest and funding to optimise effective implementation of antibiotic stewardship programmes for hospital inpatients in HICs with publicly-funded health care systems. We suggest and detail, behavioural science evidence-guided research efforts in the following areas: 1) Comprehensively identifying barriers and facilitators to implementing antibiotic stewardship programmes and clinical recommendations intended to optimise antibiotic prescribing; 2) Identifying actors ('who') and actions ('what needs to be done') of antibiotic stewardship programmes and clinical teams; 3) Synthesising available evidence to support future research and planning for antibiotic stewardship programmes; 4) Specifying the activities in current antibiotic stewardship programmes with the purpose of defining a 'control group' for comparison with new initiatives; 5) Defining a balanced set of outcomes and measures to evaluate the effects of interventions focused on reducing unnecessary exposure to antibiotics; 6) Conducting robust evaluations of antibiotic stewardship programmes with built-in process evaluations and fidelity assessments; 7) Defining and designing antibiotic stewardship programmes; 8) Establishing the evidence base for impact of antibiotic stewardship programmes on resistance; 9) Investigating the role and impact of government and policy contexts on antibiotic stewardship programmes; and 10) Understanding what matters to patients in antibiotic stewardship programmes in hospitals. Assessment, revisions and updates of our priority-setting exercise should be considered, at intervals of 2 years. To propose research priority areas in low- and medium income countries (LIMCs), the methodology reported here could be applied.