Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, Imperial College London, London, UK.
BMC Fam Pract. 2021 Jan 23;22(1):25. doi: 10.1186/s12875-021-01371-6.
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.
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.
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.
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.
试验表明,延迟开抗生素处方(DPs)和即时 C 反应蛋白检测(POC-CRPT)在减少一般实践中的抗生素使用方面非常有效,但这些方法在高处方实践中并未得到普遍应用。我们旨在探讨高处方实践中的专业人员对 DPs 和 POC-CRPT 的采用和实施的看法,以减少抗生素的使用。
这是在英国一般实践中进行的定性焦点小组研究。邀请西米德兰兹地区最高抗生素处方实践参加。临床和非临床专业人员参加了由两位研究人员共同主持的焦点小组。对焦点小组进行了录音,逐字记录并进行了主题分析。
9 家诊所(50 名专业人员)参与了研究。确定了四个主要主题。策略与临床角色和经验的兼容性 - 参与者认为这些策略作为“临床工具”的价值有限,仅在临床不确定性“罕见”情况下或对于经验较少的人,他们认为这些策略是有用的。策略作为“社会工具” - 参与者认为这些策略有助于协商治疗决策和教育患者,特别是那些期望使用抗生素的患者。模糊性 - 参与者对何时应使用这些策略以及对抗生素使用的影响存在模糊性。背景的影响 - 在实施这些策略时,提出了各种其他情境和实际问题。
高处方实践并没有将 DPs 和 POC-CRPT 视为足以作为支持减少临床不确定性和改善抗菌药物管理的当前政策方法所倡导的“临床工具”。相反,政策重点应放在如何将这些策略用作“社会工具”来减少不必要的抗生素使用上。还应关注对这些策略的使用存在许多模糊性(关注和问题)以及背景障碍,需要解决这些问题以支持更广泛和更一致的实施。