The appropriateness of prescribing antibiotics in the community in Europe: study design

Contains fulltext : 97417.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Over 90% of all antibiotics in Europe are prescribed in primary care. It is important that antibiotics are prescribed that are likely to be effective; however, information about antibiotic resistance in the community is incomplete. The aim of our study is to investigate the appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing in primary care in Europe by collecting and combining patterns of antibiotic resistance patterns and antibiotic prescription patterns in primary care. We will also evaluate the appropriateness of national antibiotic prescription guidelines in relation to resistance patterns. METHODS/DESIGN: Antibiotic resistance will be studied in an opportunistic sample from the community in nine European countries. Resistance data will be collected by taking a nose swab of persons (N = 4,000 per country) visiting a primary care practice for a non-infectious disease. Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae will be isolated and tested for resistance to a range of antibiotics in one central laboratory. Data on antibiotic prescriptions over the past 5 years will be extracted from the electronic medical records of General Practitioners (GPs). The results of the study will include the prevalence and resistance data of the two species and 5 years of antibiotic prescription data in nine European countries.The odds of receiving an effective antibiotic in each country will be calculated as a measure for the appropriateness of prescribing. Multilevel analysis will be used to assess the appropriateness of prescribing. Relevant treatment guidelines of the nine participating countries will be evaluated using a standardized instrument and related to the resistance patterns in that country. DISCUSSION: This study will provide valuable and unique data concerning resistance patterns and prescription behaviour in primary care in nine European countries. It will provide evidence-based recommendations for antibiotic treatment guidelines that take resistance patterns into account which will be useful for both clinicians and policy makers. By improving antibiotic use we can move towards controlling the resistance problem globally

Perceived barriers and facilitators to infection prevention and control in Dutch residential care facilities for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities: a cross-sectional study

Abstract Background Adequate implementation of infection prevention and control (IPC) in residential care facilities (RCFs) for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDDs) is crucial to safeguarding this vulnerable population. Studies in this field are scarce. This study aimed to identify perceived barriers to and facilitators of IPC among professionals working in these settings, along with recommendations to improve IPC, to inform the development of targeted interventions. Methods We administered an online questionnaire to 319 professionals from 16 Dutch RCFs for people with IDDs (March 2021-March 2022). Perceived multilevel barriers and facilitators (guideline, client, interpersonal, organisational, care sector, and policy level) were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (totally disagree-totally agree). Recommendations were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale (not at all helpful-extremely helpful), supplemented by an open-ended question. Barriers, facilitators, and recommendations were analysed by descriptive statistics. Open answers to recommendations were analysed through thematic coding. Results Barriers to IPC implementation included the client group (e.g., lack of hygiene awareness) (63%), competing values between IPC and the home-like environment (42%), high work pressure (39%), and the overwhelming quantity of IPC guidelines/protocols (33%). Facilitators included perceived social support on IPC between professionals and from supervisors (90% and 80%, respectively), procedural clarity of IPC guidelines/protocols (83%), and the sense of urgency for IPC in the organisation (74%). Main recommendations included the implementation of clear IPC policies and regulations (86%), the development of a practical IPC guideline (84%), and the introduction of structural IPC education and training programmes (for new staff members) (85%). Professionals also emphasised the need for IPC improvement efforts to be tailored to the local care context, and to involve clients and their relatives. Conclusions To improve IPC in disability care settings, multifaceted strategies should be adopted. Initial efforts should involve clients (and relatives), develop a practical and context-specific IPC guideline, encourage social support among colleagues through interprofessional coaching, reduce workload, and foster an IPC culture including shared responsibility within the organisation

Psychosocial determinants associated with healthcare workers’ self-reported compliance with infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study in Dutch residential care facilities for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities

Abstract Background Healthcare workers’ (HCWs) compliance with infection prevention and control (IPC) is crucial to reduce the infection transmission risk. However, HCWs’ compliance with IPC in residential care facilities (RCFs) for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDDs) is known to be suboptimal. Therefore, this study examined sociodemographic and psychosocial determinants associated with IPC non-compliance in this setting, to inform IPC policy and promotion programmes for adequate IPC behaviour. Methods An online questionnaire was administered to 285 HCWs from 16 RCFs between March 2021 and March 2022. Determinants associated with IPC non-compliance were assessed using logistic regression analyses. Results Being a woman (OR: 3.57; 1.73–7.37), and being a non-medical professional were associated with increased odds of non-compliance (social workers, OR: 2.83; 1.65–4.85; behavioural specialists, OR: 6.09; 1.98–18.72). Perceived inadequate education/training (aOR: 1.62; 1.15–2.27) and perceived time constraints/competing priorities (aOR: 1.43; 1.03–1.98) were also associated with increased odds of non-compliance, independent of sociodemographic variables. In contrast, the belief that the supervisor complies with IPC (descriptive norm supervisor) was associated with decreased odds of non-compliance (aOR: 0.60; 0.41–0.88). Conclusions To improve IPC in disability care settings, the implementation of tailored and structural IPC education and training programmes (e.g., on-the-job training) is recommended to increase HCWs’ capabilities and bridge the IPC compliance gap between medical and non-medical professionals. In addition, role models, particularly supervisors, are crucial for promoting IPC behaviour. Facilities should create a culture of IPC compliance by norm setting, acting on, and modelling IPC behaviours at all levels of the organisation (management, medical, and non-medical staff)