Attitudes and behaviours of adolescents towards antibiotics and self-care for respiratory tract infections: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: To understand attitudes and behaviours of adolescents towards antibiotics, antimicrobial resistance and respiratory tract infections. DESIGN: Qualitative approach informed by the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were undertaken. We aimed to inform the development of an intervention in an international setting to improve antibiotic use among adolescents; therefore on completion of thematic analysis, findings were triangulated with qualitative data from similar studies in France, Saudi Arabia and Cyprus to elucidate differences in the behaviour change model and adaptation to diverse contexts. SETTING: 7 educational establishments from the south of England. PARTICIPANTS: 53 adolescents (16-18 years) participated in seven focus groups and 21 participated in interviews. RESULTS: Most participants had taken antibiotics and likened them to other common medications such as painkillers; they reported that their peers treat antibiotics like a 'cure-all' and that they themselves were not interested in antibiotics as a discussion topic. They demonstrated low knowledge of the difference between viral and bacterial infections.Participants self-cared for colds and flu but believed antibiotics are required to treat other RTIs such as tonsillitis, which they perceived as more 'serious'. Past history of taking antibiotics for RTIs instilled the belief that antibiotics were required for future RTIs. Those who characterised themselves as 'non-science students' were less informed about antibiotics and AMR. Most participants felt that AMR was irrelevant to them and their peers. Some 'non-science' students thought resistance was a property of the body, rather than bacteria. CONCLUSION: Addressing adolescents' misperceptions about antibiotics and the treatment of RTIs using a behaviour change intervention should help improve antibiotic awareness and may break the cycle of patient demand for antibiotics to treat RTIs amongst this group. Schools should consider educating all students in further education about antibiotic usage and AMR, not only those taking science

Epidemiology and predictors of spinal injury in adult major trauma patients: European cohort study

This is a European cohort study on predictors of spinal injury in adult (≥16 years) major trauma patients, using prospectively collected data of the Trauma Audit and Research Network from 1988 to 2009. Predictors for spinal fractures/dislocations or spinal cord injury were determined using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. 250,584 patients were analysed. 24,000 patients (9.6%) sustained spinal fractures/dislocations alone and 4,489 (1.8%) sustained spinal cord injury with or without fractures/dislocations. Spinal injury patients had a median age of 44.5 years (IQR = 28.8–64.0) and Injury Severity Score of 9 (IQR = 4–17). 64.9% were male. 45% of patients suffered associated injuries to other body regions. Age <45 years (≥45 years OR 0.83–0.94), Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) 3–8 (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.02–1.19), falls >2 m (OR 4.17, 95% CI 3.98–4.37), sports injuries (OR 2.79, 95% CI 2.41–3.23) and road traffic collisions (RTCs) (OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.83–2.00) were predictors for spinal fractures/dislocations. Age <45 years (≥45 years OR 0.78–0.90), male gender (female OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.72–0.85), GCS <15 (OR 1.36–1.93), associated chest injury (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01–1.20), sports injuries (OR 3.98, 95% CI 3.04–5.21), falls >2 m (OR 3.60, 95% CI 3.21–4.04), RTCs (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.96–2.46) and shooting (OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.21–3.00) were predictors for spinal cord injury. Multilevel injury was found in 10.4% of fractures/dislocations and in 1.3% of cord injury patients. As spinal trauma occurred in >10% of major trauma patients, aggressive evaluation of the spine is warranted, especially, in males, patients <45 years, with a GCS <15, concomitant chest injury and/or dangerous injury mechanisms (falls >2 m, sports injuries, RTCs and shooting). Diagnostic imaging of the whole spine and a diligent search for associated injuries are substantial

Evaluation of appendicitis risk prediction models in adults with suspected appendicitis

Background Appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency worldwide, but its diagnosis remains challenging. The aim of this study was to determine whether existing risk prediction models can reliably identify patients presenting to hospital in the UK with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain who are at low risk of appendicitis. Methods A systematic search was completed to identify all existing appendicitis risk prediction models. Models were validated using UK data from an international prospective cohort study that captured consecutive patients aged 16–45 years presenting to hospital with acute RIF in March to June 2017. The main outcome was best achievable model specificity (proportion of patients who did not have appendicitis correctly classified as low risk) whilst maintaining a failure rate below 5 per cent (proportion of patients identified as low risk who actually had appendicitis). Results Some 5345 patients across 154 UK hospitals were identified, of which two‐thirds (3613 of 5345, 67·6 per cent) were women. Women were more than twice as likely to undergo surgery with removal of a histologically normal appendix (272 of 964, 28·2 per cent) than men (120 of 993, 12·1 per cent) (relative risk 2·33, 95 per cent c.i. 1·92 to 2·84; P < 0·001). Of 15 validated risk prediction models, the Adult Appendicitis Score performed best (cut‐off score 8 or less, specificity 63·1 per cent, failure rate 3·7 per cent). The Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score performed best for men (cut‐off score 2 or less, specificity 24·7 per cent, failure rate 2·4 per cent). Conclusion Women in the UK had a disproportionate risk of admission without surgical intervention and had high rates of normal appendicectomy. Risk prediction models to support shared decision‐making by identifying adults in the UK at low risk of appendicitis were identified

What Resources do NHS Commissioning Organisations Use to Support Antimicrobial Stewardship in Primary Care in England?

Professional education and public engagement are fundamental components of any antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) strategy. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Public Health England (PHE), Health Education England (HEE) and other professional organisations, develop and publish resources to support AMS activity in primary care settings. The aim of this study was to explore the adoption and use of education/training and supporting AMS resources within NHS primary care in England. Questionnaires were sent to the medicines management teams of all 209 Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England, in 2017. Primary care practitioners in 168/175 (96%) CCGs received AMS education in the last two years. Respondents in 184/186 (99%) CCGs reported actively promoting the TARGET Toolkit to their primary care practitioners; although 137/176 (78%) did not know what percentage of primary care practitioners used the TARGET toolkit. All respondents were aware of Antibiotic Guardian and 132/167 (79%) reported promoting the campaign. Promotion of AMS resources to general practices is currently excellent, but as evaluation of uptake or effect is poor, this should be encouraged by resource providers and through quality improvement programmes. Trainers should be encouraged to promote and highlight the importance of action planning within their AMS training. AMS resources, such as leaflets and education, should be promoted across the whole health economy, including Out of Hours and care homes. Primary care practitioners should continue to be encouraged to display a signed Antibiotic Guardian poster as well as general AMS posters and videos in practice, as patients find them useful and noticeable

Effects of primary care antimicrobial stewardship outreach on antibiotic use by general practice staff: pragmatic randomized controlled trial of the TARGET antibiotics workshop

Objectives: To determine whether local trainer-led TARGET antibiotic interactive workshops improve antibiotic dispensing in general practice. Methods: Using a McNulty–Zelen-design randomized controlled trial within three regions of England, 152 general practices were stratified by clinical commissioning group, antibiotic dispensing rate and practice patient list size, then randomly allocated to intervention (offered TARGET workshop that incorporated a presentation, reflection on antibiotic data, promotion of patient and general practice (GP) staff resources, clinical scenarios and action planning, 73 practices) or control (usual practice, 79 practices). The primary outcome measure was total oral antibiotic items dispensed/1000 patients for the year after the workshop (or pseudoworkshop date for controls), adjusted for the previous year’s dispensing. Results: Thirty-six (51%) intervention practices (166 GPs, 51 nurses and 101 other staff) accepted a TARGET workshop invitation. In the ITT analysis total antibiotic dispensing was 2.7% lower in intervention practices (95% CI#5.5% to 1%, P " 0.06) compared with controls. Dispensing in intervention practices was 4.4% lower for amoxicillin/ampicillin (95% CI 0.6%–8%, P " 0.02); 5.6% lower for trimethoprim (95% CI 0.7%–10.2%, P" 0.03); and a non-significant 7.1% higher for nitrofurantoin (95% CI#0.03 to 15%, P " 0.06). The Complier Average Causal Effect (CACE) analysis, which estimates impact in those that comply with assigned intervention, indicated 6.1% (95% CI 0.2%–11.7%, P " 0.04) lower total antibiotic dispensing in intervention practices and 11% (95% CI 1.6%–19.5%, P " 0.02) lower trimethoprim dispensing. Conclusions: This study within usual service provision found that TARGET antibiotic workshops can help improve antibiotic use, and therefore should be considered as part of any national antimicrobial stewardship initiatives. Additional local facilitation will be needed to encourage all general practices to participate.Public Health England

How did a quality premium financial incentive influence antibiotic prescribing in primary care? Views of clinical commissioning group and general practice professionals

Background: The Quality Premium (QP) was introduced for Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England to optimize antibiotic prescribing, but it remains unclear how it was implemented. Objectives: To understand responses to the QP and how it was perceived to influence antibiotic prescribing. Methods: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 22 CCG and 19 general practice professionals. Interviews were analysed thematically. Results: The findings were organized into four categories. (i) Communication: this was perceived as unstructured and infrequent, and CCG professionals were unsure whether they received QP funding. (ii) Implementation: this was influenced by available local resources and competing priorities, with multifaceted and tailored strategies seen as most helpful for engaging general practices. Many antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) strategies were implemented independently from the QP, motivated by quality improvement. (iii) Mechanisms: the QP raised the priority of AMS nationally and locally, and provided prescribing targets to aim for and benchmark against, but money was not seen as reinvested into AMS. (iv) Impact and sustainability: the QP was perceived as successful, but targets were considered challenging for a minority of CCGs and practices due to contextual factors (e.g. deprivation, understaffing). CCG professionals were concerned with potential discontinuation of the QP and prescribing rates levelling off. Conclusions: CCG and practice professionals expressed positive views of the QP and associated prescribing targets and feedback. The QP helped influence change mainly by raising the priority of AMS and defining change targets rather than providing additional funding. To maximize impact, behavioural mechanisms of financial incentives should be considered pre-implementation.</p