4.2 Article

Implementing interventions to reduce antibiotic use: a qualitative study in high-prescribing practices

期刊

BMC FAMILY PRACTICE
卷 22, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12875-021-01371-6

关键词

General practice; Antibiotic resistance; Antimicrobial stewardship; Antibiotics; Back-up prescription; Point-of-care testing; Focus groups

资金

  1. Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) through the Antimicrobial Resistance Cross Council Initiative - seven research councils [ES/P008232/1]
  2. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance
  3. Public Health England [HPRU-2012-10041]
  4. NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre
  5. ESRC [ES/P008232/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Through focus group discussions in high-prescribing practices, professionals viewed delayed antibiotic prescriptions and point-of-care C-Reactive Protein testing not as effective clinical tools, but more as social tools for negotiating treatment decisions and educating patients. Ambiguities were identified regarding the timing and impact of these strategies, as well as contextual barriers to their 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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据