Shorter and Longer Antibiotic Durations for Respiratory Infections: To Fight Antimicrobial Resistance-A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study in a Secondary Care Setting in the UK.

As antimicrobial resistance (AMR) escalates globally, examining antibiotic treatment durations for respiratory infections becomes increasingly pertinent, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. In a UK secondary care setting, this retrospective study was carried out to assess the appropriateness of antibiotic treatment durations-shorter (≤5 days) versus longer (6-7 days and >8 days)-for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in 640 adults across 2019 and 2020, in accordance with local antimicrobial guidelines. The analysis employed these guidelines and clinical evidence to examine the effectiveness and suitability of antibiotic prescribing practices. This study considered the 'Shorter Is Better' approach, noting an increased rate of patient discharges associated with shorter antibiotic regimens (≤5 days). It further demonstrates that shorter treatments are as effective as longer ones for conditions such as COPD exacerbation, COVID-19 pneumonia, and hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), except in cases of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and unspecified diagnoses. Nevertheless, this study raises concerns over an observed increase in mortality risk with shorter treatment durations. Although these mortality differences were not statistically significant and might have been influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for extended research with a larger sample size is highlighted to confirm these findings. This study also emphasises the critical need for accurate and specific diagnoses and considering risk assessments at admission, advocating for tailored, evidence-based antibiotic prescribing to ensure patient safety. It contributes to antimicrobial stewardship efforts by reinforcing the importance of adapting antibiotic use to current healthcare challenges and promoting a global commitment to fight antimicrobial resistance. This approach is crucial for enhancing patient outcomes and saving lives on a global scale.

Types, predictors, and consequences of medicines related problems (MRPs) in frail older adults admitted to hospital from primary care - A retrospective cohort study.

Introduction: Medicines related problems (MRPs) can be common in frail older people due to age-compromised body systems and a propensity to be on multiple drugs concurrently. This group of people can also succumb to a rapid deterioration in health. Thus, it is important to investigate MRPs in frail older people. The objectives of the study were to evaluate prevalence of MRPs, types of MRPs, risk factors and deterioration that can be associated with MRPs in frail older people admitted to an English teaching hospital from primary care. Methods: Included in the sample were frail older adults, aged 65 years and over, admitted from primary care. Data was retrieved from the hospital's electronic patient record system, anonymised, and reviewed for MRPs. MRPs which were retrospectively identified at admission were coded with the WHO-ICD10,2016 (World Health Organisation-International Classification of Diseases version 10, 2016). Descriptive and inferential statistics were performed on the data using SPSS Version 25. Primary outcome was the prevalence of MRPs in frail older patients. Secondary outcome was the association of deterioration indicated as fall, delirium, or NEWs ≥3 with presence of MRPs. Results: Among the 507 frail older people (≥4 on Rockwood scale) that met criteria for inclusion, 262 (51.8%) were patients with MRPs and 244 (48.2%) without. The Median age of sample as a whole was 85 years (IQR = 80-89). Prevalence of MRPs was 33.28%. Types of MRPs were adverse drug reaction (ADR-20%), non-compliance (9.1%), unintentional poisoning (3.3%) and inappropriate polypharmacy (0.8%). In logistic regression, potentially inappropriate medicines (PIM), social support, number of comorbidities and winter were significant predictors of MRPs. Risk of deteriorating with delirium was two times higher in patients with MRPs than in patients without MRPs, RR 2.613 (95% CI, 1.049 to 6.510). Conclusion: MRPs and risks of deterioration associated with MRPs in frail older people can be reduced. This is because factors associated with MRPs can be modified.

An evaluation of the five rights antibiotic safety before and during COVID-19 at an NHS Foundation Trust in the United Kingdom.

INTRODUCTION: Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) poses a significant global health threat, with AMR-related deaths projected to reach 10 million annually by 2050. The COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated this crisis. This study focuses on evaluating the 'Five Rights of Antibiotic Safety' in an NHS Foundation Trust in England, assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on antibiotic prescribing and Antimicrobial Stewardship (AMS) practices in 2019 and 2020. METHODS: A cross-sectional retrospective study was conducted, focusing on adult patients aged 25 and older admitted to the NHS Foundation Trust and prescribed antibiotics for respiratory tract infections in 2019 and 2020. The study involved a retrospective review of 640 patient records, using descriptive analysis to evaluate the adherence to the 'Five Rights of Antibiotics' and assess the impact of COVID-19 on antibiotic safety practices. RESULTS: The study observed significant shifts in antibiotic prescribing practices during the study period. There was an increase in instances of inappropriate dosing and route of administration, alongside a slight improvement in prescribing durations. The study also noted a stable rate of appropriate antibiotic selection according to antimicrobial guidelines, indicating a concerning rise in inappropriate prescribing patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: The study revealed notable changes in antibiotic prescribing practices during the COVID-19 pandemic, advocating the importance of robust AMS to ensure appropriate use of antibiotics. The findings highlight the need for enhanced AMS educational initiatives and systematic oversight to combat AMR and protect public health in future health crises.

Understanding factors influencing the implementation of medicine risk communications by healthcare professionals in clinical practice: a systematic review using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

BACKGROUND: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are known to cause hospitalisation, longer hospital stays, as well as higher healthcare costs and mortality. Unrecognised ADRs are anticipated throughout the medicine lifecycle as, before the medicine reaches the market, clinical trials are conducted for a short period on a limited number of people, who might underrepresent the actual population. After the medicine reaches the market, emergent information that could affect its benefit-to-risk balance is usually shared by regulatory agencies and pharmaceutical companies through medicine risk communications. Medicines risk communications aim to prevent harm to patients by targeting their behaviour, knowledge, and attitudes, as well as those of health care professionals (HCPs). Despite their important role in translating these communications into their clinical practice, HCPs do not always adhere to the recommendations provided in risk communications. Measurement of medicine risk communications' effectiveness does not necessarily guarantee their implementation, cost-effectiveness, or transferability in real-world situations. To enhance the impact of drug regulatory interventions, implementation science has been encouraged. However, implementation science was not previously used to identify factors affecting HCPs' implementation of medicines risk communications. A recently widely used framework is the Theoretical Domain Framework (TDF). In this systematic review, the TDF was employed to categorise a range of different factors that could affect HCPs' implementation of medicine risk communications within their clinical contexts. METHODS: The search strategy involved a set of predefined search terms and fifteen databases, such as EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science and CINAHL PLUS. Searches were conducted from April to May 2018 and updated in June 2021 using PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL PLUS. A second reviewer independently conducted the screening process of the initial search. The total number of records screened was 10,475. A study was included if it reported any factors influencing HCPs' uptake of medicine risk communications. Only studies with English or Arabic abstracts were included. Those studies that did not include pharmacovigilance-related medicine risk communications were excluded. Additionally, studies only assessing HCPs' practice or evaluating the effectiveness of risk minimisation measures were excluded. Likewise, studies related to occupational hazards, case reports, interventional studies, and studies not involving HCPs were excluded. In case the published information was insufficient to decide whether to include or exclude a study, the authors were contacted. Furthermore, the authors of seven eligible abstracts were contacted for full-text articles. The mixed method appraisal tool (MMAT) was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. All included studies were assessed by one reviewer, and a total of 16 studies were assessed by two reviewers independently. Disagreements were resolved through discussion. Using thematic analysis and concept mapping, a narrative synthesis was performed, followed by a critical reflection on the synthesis process. This review presents the results of the concept mapping, which involved matching the identified factors to the TDF. RESULTS: A total of 28 studies were included. Eleven domains influenced HCPs' implementation of medicine risk communications. A large number of studies included factors related to the "Knowledge" domain (n = 23), followed by "Beliefs about Consequences" (n = 13), "Memory, Attention and Decision Processes" (n = 12) and "Environmental Context and Resources" domains (n = 12). Seven studies reported "social influences" and six studies included factors relating to "Goals", followed by four studies involving factors related to "Social/Professional Role and Identity". Underrepresented domains included "Emotion" (n = 2), "Beliefs about Capabilities" (n = 2), "Behavioural Regulation" (n = 1), and "Reinforcement" (n = 1). On the other hand, none of the identified factors were related to the "Skills", "Optimism", or "Intentions" domains. Except for "Beliefs about Consequences", most studies contributing to the other three most commonly reported domains ("Knowledge"; "Environmental Context and Resources"; and "Memory, Attention and Decision Processes") scored low (1 or 2 out of 5) on the MMAT quality assessment. Moreover, the same number of studies (n = 5) contributing to the "Beliefs about Consequences" domain had low (1 or 2 out of 5), and intermediate (3 out of 5) scores on the MMAT. CONCLUSION: Medicines risk communications are important tools for disseminating information that may influence the benefit-to-risk balance of medicines. Even though HCPs are required to implement the recommendations of these communications, they do not always adhere to them. Using the TDF enabled the categorization of the range of factors that affect whether or not HCPs implement the recommendations provided in a medicine risk communication. However, most of these factors relate to four domains only ("Knowledge"; "Beliefs about Consequences"; "Memory, Attention and Decision Processes"; and "Environmental Context and Resources"). Additionally, most of the studies contributing to three of these four domains were of low quality. Future research should focus on using implementation science to identify target behaviours for actionable medicine risk communications. Regulators should use such science to develop cost-effective strategies for improving the implementation of medicines risk communication by HCPs.

WHO AWaRe classification for antibiotic stewardship: tackling antimicrobial resistance - a descriptive study from an English NHS Foundation Trust prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a silent and rapidly escalating pandemic, presenting a critical challenge to global health security. During the pandemic, this study was undertaken at a NHS Foundation Trust in the United Kingdom to explore antibiotic prescribing trends for respiratory tract infections (RTIs), including pneumonia, and the COVID-19 pandemic across the years 2019 and 2020. This study, guided by the WHO's AWaRe classification, sought to understand the impact of the pandemic on antibiotic prescribing and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS). The research methodology involved a retrospective review of medical records from adults aged 25 and older admitted with RTIs, including pneumonia, in 2019 and 2020. The application of the AWaRe classification enabled a structured description of antibiotic use. The study evaluated antibiotic use in 640 patients with RTIs. Notably, it observed a slight increase in the use of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid and a substantial rise in azithromycin prescriptions, highlighting shifts in prescribing trends. Despite these changes, some antibiotics displayed steady consumption rates. These findings highlight the importance of understanding antibiotic use patterns during the AMR threat. The increase in the usage of "Watch" category antibiotics during the pandemic emphasises the urgency of robust AMS measures. The research confirms that incorporating the AWaRe classification in prescribing decisions is crucial for patient safety and combating antibiotic misuse. This study provides essential insights into the changing landscape of antibiotic prescribing during a global health crisis, reinforcing the necessity for ongoing AMS vigilance to effectively address AMR challenges.

Antimicrobial stewardship implementation before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in the acute care settings: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Antibiotics are widely administered for various indications, leading to increased antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in acute care hospitals. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Antimicrobial Stewardship (AMS) effective strategies should be used to maintain the rational use of antibiotics and decrease the threat of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR). AIM: This systematic literature review aims to investigate the AMS intervention Before-the-pandemic (BP) and During-the-pandemic (DP) from the literature. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic literature review of primary studies on AMS implementation in acute care settings. METHODS: Relevant studies published between 2000 and March 2021 were obtained from Medline (via PubMed), OVID, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Psych Info, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, OpenGrey, and Google Scholar, using a comprehensive list of search terms. Public Health England (PHE) toolkit was agreed upon as a gold standard for the AMS implementation. RESULTS: There were 8763 articles retrieved from the databases. Out of these, 13 full-text articles met the inclusion criteria for the review. The AMS implementation was identified in the included studies into AMS strategies (Core strategies & Supplemental strategies), and AMS measures BP and DP. CONCLUSION: This Systematic literature review summarises AMS implementation strategies and measures all over the previous 20 years of research. There are many lessons learnt from COVID-19 pandemic. The proper selection of the AMS implementation strategies and measures appeared to be effective in maintaining the appropriate use of antibiotics and decreasing the AMR threat, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Further studies are required to provide empirical data to evaluate the AMS implementation and identify which of these strategies and measures were effective BP and DP. In order to be prepared for any emergency/crisis or future pandemics.

Medicines Related Problems (MRPs) Originating in Primary Care Settings in Older Adults - A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: As people age, they become increasingly vulnerable to the untoward effects of medicines due to changes in body systems. These may result in medicines related problems (MRPs) and consequent decline or deterioration in health. AIM: To identify MRPs, indicators of deterioration associated with these MRPs, and preventative interventions from the literature. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of primary studies on MRPs originating in Primary Care in older people. METHODS: Relevant studies published between 2001 and April 2018 were obtained from Medline (via PubMed), CINAHL, Embase, Psych Info, PASCAL, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, and Zetoc. Falls, delirium, pressure ulcer, hospitalization, use of health services and death were agreed indicators of deterioration. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Down and Black tool. RESULTS: There were 1858 articles retrieved from the data bases. Out of these, 21 full text articles met inclusion criteria for the review. MRPs identified were medication error, potentially inappropriate medicines, adverse drug reaction and non-adherence. These were associated with indicators of deterioration. Interventions that involved doctors, pharmacists and patients in planning and implementation yielded benefits in halting MRPs. CONCLUSION: This Systematic review summarizes MRPs and associated indicators of deterioration. Appropriate interventions appeared to be effective against certain MRPs and their consequences. Further studies to explore deterioration presented in this systematic review is imperative.

Factors influencing the implementation of medicine risk communications by healthcare professionals in clinical practice: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Regulatory medicines risk communications aim to prevent patient harm through the dissemination of safety information to healthcare professionals (HCPs), patients, and the public. Evidence suggests that in addition to implementing the required changes, HCPs also respond to these communications through unintended and unwarranted actions and behaviours such as stopping medicine courses unnecessarily, and blanket actions spilling over to unintended patients' populations. Misunderstanding and mis-implementation of medicines risk communications could jeopardise patients' safety and clinical outcomes. Therefore, it is important to understand the determinants that affect HCPs responses to medicines risk communications. This systematic review aims to identify the factors that affect the implementation of risk communications by healthcare professionals. METHODS: Fifteen databases, including EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of science, CINAHL PLUS were searched in April-May 2018, and the search was updated again in June 2021 to identify studies reporting on factors influencing HCPs' uptake of medicine risk alerts. We used keywords such as risk communication, safety update, and safety regulation. Studies were excluded if they did not involve pharmacovigilance or patient safety alerts; or if they only focused on measuring HCPs' practice after alerts; or evaluating the effectiveness of risk minimisation measures without reporting on factors affecting HCPs' actions. Studies relating to occupational hazards, case reports, interventional studies, and studies not involving HCPs were also excluded. The Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to assess the quality of the included studies. A Narrative synthesis approach was undertaken using thematic analysis and concept mapping, followed by a critical reflection of the synthesis. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies met our criteria and were included in the synthesis. We identified four themes summarising the factors influencing HCPs' implementation of risk communications. These include HCPs: knowledge of medicine alerts; perceptions of alerts; attitudes, and concerns regarding medicine alerts; and the self-reported impact of these alerts. Our concept mapping exercise identified key interactions between different stakeholders, and these interactions determine HCPs' implementation of medicine risk communications. These stakeholders comprise of alert developers, including the sources and senders of safety information, and the receivers of safety information including health care institutions, HCPs, patients and their carers. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare professionals are crucial to translating risk communication messages into clinical practice. However, if they have inadequate information about the content of the alert, and have inaccurate perceptions about the alert, they may not implement the required clinical changes as intended. Communication of medicine risk alerts does not always translate into improved patient care, due to a complex interaction between stakeholders involved in the creation and implementation of these alerts. These complex interactions should be the subject of future research efforts to understand the alert-implementation trajectory and identify the mediators for change and interventions to improve implementation.

A systematic review of the nature of dispensing errors in hospital pharmacies.

BACKGROUND: Dispensing errors are common in hospital pharmacies. Investigating dispensing errors is important for identifying the factors involved and developing strategies to reduce their occurrence. OBJECTIVES: To review published studies exploring the incidence and types of dispensing errors in hospital pharmacies and factors contributing to these errors. METHODS: Electronic databases including PubMed, Scopus, Ovid, and Web of Science were searched for articles published between January 2000 and January 2015. Inclusion criteria were: studies published in English, and studies investigating type, incidence and factors contributing to dispensing errors in hospital pharmacies. One researcher searched for all relevant published articles, screened all titles and abstracts, and obtained complete articles. A second researcher assessed the titles, abstracts, and complete articles to verify the reliability of the selected articles. KEY FINDINGS: Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria all of which were conducted in just four countries. Reviewing incident reports and direct observation were the main methods used to investigate dispensing errors. Dispensing error rates varied between countries (0.015%-33.5%) depending on the dispensing system, research method, and classification of dispensing error types. The most frequent dispensing errors reported were dispensing the wrong medicine, dispensing the wrong drug strength, and dispensing the wrong dosage form. The most common factors associated with dispensing errors were: high workload, low staffing, mix-up of look-alike/ sound-alike drugs, lack of knowledge/experience, distractions/interruptions, and communication problems within the dispensary team. CONCLUSION: Studies relating to dispensing errors in hospital pharmacies are few in number and have been conducted in just four countries. The majority of these studies focused on the investigation of dispensing error types with no mention of contributing factors or strategies for reducing dispensing errors. Others studies are thus needed to investigate dispensing errors in hospital pharmacies, and a combined approach is recommended to investigate contributing factors associated with dispensing errors and explore strategies for reducing these errors.