Pet owner and vet interactions: exploring the drivers of AMR

Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a growing public health problem across the world. As the negative consequences of AMR become apparent at local, national and international levels, more attention is being focussed on the variety of mechanisms by which AMR is potentiated. We explore how interactions between pet owners and veterinarians represent a key arena in which AMR-related behaviours can be shaped. Methods: In depth semi-structured interviews were carried out with pet owners (n = 23) and vets (n = 16) across the UK in 2017. A thematic analysis approach was taken, with inductively gathered data analysed deductively using a behavioural framework to identified key behaviours emerging from participant accounts which were amenable to change. Results: Interactions between vets and pet owners were characterised by misunderstandings and misconceptions around antibiotics by pet owners, and a lack of clarity about the positions and intentions of the other party. Vets and pet owners had differing perceptions of where pressure to prescribe antibiotics inappropriately originated. Vets perceived it was mostly pet owners who pushed for inappropriate antibiotics, whereas pet owners reported they felt it was vets that overprescribed. Low levels of understanding of AMR in general were apparent amongst pet owners and understandings with regard to AMR in pets specifically were almost non-existent in the sample. Conclusions: Improved use of antibiotics could be assisted by educating the pet owning public and by guideline development for companion animal vets, concurrent development of mandatory legislation, increased consultation time to facilitate better communication, development of vet training on antimicrobial therapy and stewardship led interactions with pet owners, and increased levels of knowledge of pet-related AMR amongst pet owners

Hospital patient experiences of contact isolation for antimicrobial resistant organisms in relation to health care–associated infections: A systematic review and narrative synthesis of the evidence

Laura Fregonese - ORCID: 0000-0002-8399-7074 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8399-7074Background The alarming growth of antimicrobial resistance organisms (AMRs) and the threat caused by health care–associated infections require hospitalized individuals who are infected or colonized with AMRs to be cared for in isolation, predominantly in single rooms. None of the existing reviews focus on or specifically address the patient’s experience of being cared for in contact isolation when affected by AMRs exploring this specific context. Methods Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance for the conduct of systematic reviews was applied. Five databases were searched from inception to April 2019, with keywords related to adult patient experiences, AMR, and contact isolation. The evidence was certified by 2 reviewers. Principles of thematic analysis were used to produce a narrative synthesis of the findings. Results Eighteen eligible studies were identified. Narrative synthesis resulted in 3 overarching categories reflecting the patient experience: privacy versus loneliness; emotional responses to isolation; quality of care, recovery, and safety in isolation. Conclusions This review synthesizes existing evidence reflecting the patient experience of contact isolation. Study findings were often contradictory and may not reflect contemporary health care, such as shorter hospital stays, or societal preferences for greater privacy. Further research focusing on contemporary health care contexts is recommended.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2023.04.01151pubpub1

Mechanisms affecting the implementation of a national antimicrobial stewardship programme; multi-professional perspectives explained using normalisation process theory.

Background: Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) describes activities concerned with safe-guarding antibiotics for the future, reducing drivers for the major global public health threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), whereby antibiotics are less effective in preventing and treating infections. Appropriate antibiotic prescribing is central to AMS. Whilst previous studies have explored the effectiveness of specific AMS interventions, largely from uni-professional perspectives, our literature search could not find any existing evidence evaluating the processes of implementing an integrated national AMS programme from multi-professional perspectives. Methods: This study sought to explain mechanisms affecting the implementation of a national antimicrobial stewardship programme, from multi-professional perspectives. Data collection involved in-depth qualitative telephone interviews with 27 implementation lead clinicians from 14/15 Scottish Health Boards and 15 focus groups with doctors, nurses and clinical pharmacists (n = 72) from five Health Boards, purposively selected for reported prescribing variation. Data was first thematically analysed, barriers and enablers were then categorised, and Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used as an interpretive lens to explain mechanisms affecting the implementation process. Analysis addressed the NPT questions 'which group of actors have which problems, in which domains, and what sort of problems impact on the normalisation of AMS into everyday hospital practice'. Results: Results indicated that major barriers relate to organisational context and resource availability. AMS had coherence for implementation leads and prescribing doctors; less so for consultants and nurses who may not access training. Conflicting priorities made obtaining buy-in from some consultants difficult; limited role perceptions meant few nurses or clinical pharmacists engaged with AMS. Collective individual and team action to implement AMS could be constrained by lack of medical continuity and hierarchical relationships. Reflexive monitoring based on audit results was limited by the capacity of AMS Leads to provide direct feedback to practitioners. Conclusions: This study provides original evidence of barriers and enablers to the implementation of a national AMS programme, from multi-professional, multi-organisational perspectives. The use of a robust theoretical framework (NPT) added methodological rigour to the findings. Our results are of international significance to healthcare policy makers and practitioners seeking to strengthen the sustainable implementation of hospital AMS programmes in comparable contexts

The risk of cardiac failure following metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty

Aims The aim of this study was to determine whether patients with metal-on-metal (MoM) arthroplasties of the hip have an increased risk of cardiac failure compared with those with alternative types of arthroplasties (non-MoM). Patients and Methods A linkage study between the National Joint Registry, Hospital Episodes Statistics and records of the Office for National Statistics on deaths was undertaken. Patients who underwent elective total hip arthroplasty between January 2003 and December 2014 with no past history of cardiac failure were included and stratified as having either a MoM (n = 53 529) or a nonMoM (n = 482 247) arthroplasty. The primary outcome measure was the time to an admission to hospital for cardiac failure or death. Analysis was carried out using data from all patients and from those matched by propensity score. Results The risk of cardiac failure was lower in the MoM cohort compared with the non-MoM cohort (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.901; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.853 to 0.953). The risk of cardiac failure was similar following matching (aHR 0.909; 95% CI 0.838 to 0.987) and the findings were consistent in subgroup analysis. Conclusion The risk of cardiac failure following total hip arthroplasty was not increased in those in whom MoM implants were used, compared with those in whom other types of prostheses were used, in the first seven years after surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:20–

What is the impact of University work-based learning for early year's practitioners in Norway and England? Examples of processes, outcomes and impact from the undertaking of work-based projects

This paper is focused on partnership work between academics in Norway and England involved in the teaching of university and work-based learning programmes. Initiated four years ago, the collaboration has developed into a community of practice involving a range of shared activities. These activities include academic and student exchanges, nursery visits, seminars and workshops, which culminate in a joint conference presentation. This paper explores the cultural and curricula differences between the two programmes, and considers how these impact on the individual practitioners undertaking them and on the settings in which they work. The data draws on four students' experiences to exemplify learning in a work-based context. Ethical issues were addressed in a manner consistent with the British Education Research Association (BERA) (2011) guidelines for educational research, and the study utilised theoretical frameworks that drew on concepts of work-based learning (e.g. Colley et al., 2003). Findings suggest that, despite the significant differences in culture and curricula approach, both programmes appear to enhance the practice of practitioners in early years. Key impacts of the programme included evidence of personal change and professional development (Mpofu-Currie, 2015), which were reflective of democratic rather than instrumental notions of professionalism (Atkins and Tummons, 2017). There was also evidence of significant gains in knowledge, manifested through improved pedagogy and more meaningful engagement with the children in each setting. This work demonstrates the benefits of knowledge exchange and dialogue to promote cross-cultural learning experiences. The authors hope that it will inform the development of innovative work-based learning programmes and wider policy in relation to work-based learning, as well as knowledge transfer between Norway and England.N/