Nurse roles in antimicrobial stewardship: lessons from public sectors models of acute care service delivery in the United Kingdom.

Background: Health care services must engage all relevant healthcare workers, including nurses, in optimal antimicrobial use to address the global threat of drug-resistant infections. Reflecting upon the variety of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) nursing models already implemented in the UK could facilitate policymaking and decisions in other settings about context-sensitive, pragmatic nurse roles. Methods: We describe purposefully selected cases drawn from the UK network of public sector nurses in AMS exploring their characteristics, influence, relations with clinical and financial structures, and role content. Results: AMS nursing has been deployed in the UK within 'vertical', 'horizontal' or 'hybrid' models. The 'vertical' model refers to a novel, often unique consultant-type role ideally suited to transform organisational practice by legitimising nurse participation in antimicrobial decisions. Such organisational improvements may not be straightforward, though, due to scalability issues. The 'horizontal' model can foster coordinated efforts to increase optimal AMS behaviours in all nurses around a narrative of patient safety and quality. Such model may be unable to address tensions between the required institutional response to sepsis and the inappropriate use of antibiotics. Finally, the 'hybrid' model would increase AMS responsibilities for all nurses whilst allocating some expanded AMS skills to existing teams of specialists such as sepsis or vascular access nurses. This model can generate economies of scale, yet it may be threatened by a lack of clarity about a nurse-relevant vision. Conclusions: A variety of models articulating the participation of nurses in antimicrobial stewardship efforts have already been implemented in public sector organisations in the UK. The strengths and weaknesses of each model need considering before implementation in other settings and healthcare systems, including precise metrics of success and careful consideration of context-sensitive, resource dependent and pragmatic solutions

CASPER plus (CollAborative care in Screen-Positive EldeRs with major depressive disorder): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background: Depression accounts for the greatest disease burden of all mental health disorders, contributes heavily to healthcare costs, and by 2020 is set to become the second largest cause of global disability. Although 10% to 16% of people aged 65 years and over are likely to experience depressive symptoms, the condition is under-diagnosed and often inadequately treated in primary care. Later-life depression is associated with chronic illness and disability, cognitive impairment and social isolation. With a progressively ageing population it becomes increasingly important to refine strategies to identity and manage depression in older people. Currently, management may be limited to the prescription of antidepressants where there may be poor concordance; older people may lack awareness of psychosocial interventions and general practitioners may neglect to offer this treatment option. Methods/design: CASPER Plus is a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of a collaborative care intervention for individuals aged 65 years and over experiencing moderate to severe depression. Selected practices in the North of England identify potentially eligible patients and invite them to participate in the study. A diagnostic interview is carried out and participants with major depressive disorder are randomised to either collaborative care or usual care. The recruitment target is 450 participants. The intervention, behavioural activation and medication management in a collaborative care framework, has been adapted to meet the complex needs of older people. It is delivered over eight to 10 weekly sessions by a case manager liaising with general practitioners. The trial aims to evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of collaborative care in addition to usual GP care versus usual GP care alone. The primary clinical outcome, depression severity, will be measured with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) at baseline, 4, 12 and 18 months. Cost effectiveness analysis will assess health-related quality of life using the SF-12 and EQ-5D and will examine cost-consequences of collaborative care. A qualitative process evaluation will be undertaken to explore acceptability, gauge the extent to which the intervention is implemented and to explore sustainability beyond the clinical trial. Discussion: Results will add to existing evidence and a positive outcome may lead to the commissioning of this model of service in primary care. Trial registration: ISRCTN45842879 (24 July 2012)

Development of consensus based national antimicrobial stewardship competencies for UK undergraduate healthcare professional education

Background: Healthcare professionals are involved in an array of patient and medicine related stewardship activities, for which an understanding and engagement with antimicrobial stewardship is important. Undergraduate education provides an ideal opportunity to prepare healthcare professionals for these roles and activities. Aim: To provide United Kingdom national consensus on a common set of antimicrobial stewardship competencies appropriate for undergraduate healthcare professional education Methods: A modified Delphi approach comprising two on-line surveys delivered to a United Kingdom national panel of twenty-one individuals reflecting expertise in prescribing and medicines management with regards to the education and practice of nurses and midwives, pharmacists, physiotherapists and podiatrists; and antimicrobial prescribing and stewardship. Data collection took place between October and December 2017. Findings: A total of 21 participants agreed to become members of the expert panel, of whom 19 (90%) completed round 1 questionnaire, and 17 (89%) completed round 2. Panelists reached a consensus, with consistent high levels of agreement reached, on 6 overarching competency statements (sub divided into 6 domains), and 55 individual descriptors essential for antimicrobial stewardship by healthcare professionals

Short-term costs of conventional vs laparoscopic assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial)

The short-term clinical results of the CLASICC trial indicated that clinical outcomes were similar between laparoscopic and open approaches. This study presents the short-term (3 month) cost analysis undertaken on a subset of patients entered into the CLASICC trial (682 of 794 patients). As expected the costs associated with the operation were higher in the 452 patients randomised to laparoscopic surgery (lap) compared with the 230 randomised to open procedure (open), £1703 vs £1386. This was partially offset by the other hospital (nontheatre) costs, which were lower in the lap group (£2930 vs £3176). The average cost to individuals for reoperations was higher in the lap group (£762 vs £553). Overall costs were slightly higher in the lap group (£6899 vs £6631), with mean difference of £268 (95%CI −689 to 1457). Sensitivity analysis made little difference to these results. The cost of rectal surgery was higher than for colon, for lap (£8259 vs £5586) and open procedures (£7820 vs £5503). The short-term cost analysis for the CLASICC trial indicates that the costs of either laparoscopic or open procedure were similar, lap surgery costing marginally more on average than open surgery

Corrigendum.

This is a corrigendum to an article in a previous issue of the Journal of Hospital Infection