Influences on nurses' engagement in antimicrobial stewardship behaviours: a multi-country survey using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is affected significantly by inappropriate antibiotic use, and is one of the greatest threats to human health. Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) is a programme of actions promoting responsible use of antimicrobials, and is essential for limiting AMR. Nurses have an important role to play in this context. AIM: To investigate the determinants of nurse AMS behaviours and the impact of past training. METHODS: A cross-sectional multi-country survey design with mixed methods was employed. Participants were 262 nurses {223 female; mean age 44.45 [standard deviation (SD) 10.77] years} of 10 nationalities, with individual survey links sent via professional networks in five countries, alongside Twitter. Nine AMS behaviours and 14 behavioural determinants were assessed quantitatively using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), and mapped to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation - Behaviour (COM-B) model. Analysis identified differences between nurses with and without AMS training. The influence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on AMS behaviour was investigated qualitatively using free-text data. FINDINGS: Nurses performed all nine AMS behaviours, which were significantly higher [t (238) -4.14, P<0.001] among those who had received AMS training [mean 53.15 (SD 7.40)] compared with those who had not received AMS training [mean 48.30 (SD 10.75)]. Nurses who had received AMS training scored significantly higher in all of the TDF domains. The TDF was able to explain 27% of the variance in behaviour, with 'Skills' and 'Behavioural regulation' (e.g. ability to self-monitor and plan) shown to be the most predictive of AMS actions. Both of these domains are situated in the 'Capability' construct of the COM-B model, which can be enhanced with the intervention strategies of education and training. An increase in AMS behaviours was reported since the COVID-19 pandemic, regardless of previous training. Six core themes were linked to AMS: (1) infection prevention and control; (2) antimicrobials and antimicrobial resistance; (3) diagnosis of infection and use of antibiotics; (4) antimicrobial prescribing practice; (5) person-centred care; and (6) interprofessional collaborative practice. CONCLUSION: Nurse training has a significant beneficial effect on AMS behaviour and its determinants. Nurses who had received AMS training scored higher in all TDF determinants of behaviour compared with those who had not received AMS training, resulting in higher capability, opportunity and motivation to perform AMS behaviour. AMS education and training should be offered to nurses to enhance these factors. Future research should consider the optimal level of training to optimize AMS behaviour, with a focus on developing skills and behavioural regulation.

Delivery of antimicrobial stewardship competencies in UK pre-registration nurse education programmes: a national cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Registered nurses perform numerous functions critical to the success of antimicrobial stewardship, but only 63% of pre-registration nursing programmes include any teaching about stewardship. Updated nursing standards indicate that nurses require antimicrobial stewardship knowledge and skills. AIM: To explore the delivery of key antimicrobial stewardship competencies within updated pre-registration nursing programmes. METHODS: This study had a cross-sectional survey design. Data were collected between March and June 2021. FINDINGS: Lecturers from 35 UK universities responsible for teaching antimicrobial stewardship participated in this study. The provision of antimicrobial stewardship teaching and learning was inconsistent across programmes, with competencies in infection prevention and control, patient-centred care and interprofessional collaborative practice taking precedent over competencies pertaining to the use, management and monitoring of antimicrobials. Online learning and teaching surrounding hand hygiene, personal protective equipment and immunization theory was reported to have increased during the pandemic. Only a small number of respondents reported that students shared taught learning with other healthcare professional groups. CONCLUSION: There is a need to ensure consistency in antimicrobial stewardship across programmes, and greater knowledge pertaining to the use, management and monitoring of antimicrobials should be included. Programmes need to adopt teaching strategies and methods that allow nurses to develop interprofessional skills in order to practice collaboratively.

What place does nurse-led research have in the COVID-19 pandemic?

AIM: Reflect upon the visibility of nursing-led research during the COVID-19 pandemic. BACKGROUND: The emerging SARS-CoV-2 infection has galvanized collaborative and multidisciplinary efforts in clinical and research practice worldwide. The scarce evidence-base to manage patients with COVID-19 has included limited nurse-led research. INTRODUCTION: Clinical research nurses have greatly contributed to the delivery of COVID-19 research, yet the number of COVID-19 nursing-led research papers appears to be limited, with even fewer nurse-led research projects funded. METHODS: Authors' views and PubMed search on 'COVID-19 and nursing'. FINDINGS: There is a dearth of nursing-led research. Most papers describe the nursing contribution to COVID-19 care, changes in nursing working arrangements and emotional burden. There are opportunities to explore the consequences to vulnerable population groups of public health measures implemented to stop the progress of the COVID-19 pandemic. DISCUSSION: Workforce gaps, limited integration in research structures and clinical redeployment may have hampered nurse-led research. COVID-19 may exacerbate staffing deficits by disrupting the education pipeline, obstructing the transition from clinical to academic practice, particularly in areas where clinical academic roles are yet to emerge. CONCLUSION: The absence of nurse-led research in COVID-19 can be explained by chronic, underlying factors and the features of the pandemic response. Emerging models of care, effective staffing and inequalities related to COVID-19 appear obvious research areas. Nursing leadership needs to strengthen its political voice and lobbying skills to secure nurse-led research funding. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING POLICY: Embracing international nursing research, strengthening collaborations and lobbying policymakers for investment in nurse-sensitive research would enhance the response to COVID-19.

Evaluation of a personal protective equipment support programme for staff during the COVID-19 pandemic in London.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has presented an enormous challenge to healthcare providers worldwide. The appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE) has been essential to ensure staff and patient safety. The 'PPE Helper Programme' was developed at a large London hospital group to counteract suboptimal PPE practice. Based on a behaviour change model of capability, opportunity and motivation (COM-B), the programme provided PPE support, advice and education to ward staff. AIM: Evaluation of the PPE Helper Programme. METHODS: Clinical and non-clinical ward staff completed a questionnaire informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and COM-B model. The questionnaire was available in paper and electronic versions. Quantitative responses were analysed using descriptive and non-parametric statistics, and free-text responses were analysed thematically. FINDINGS: Over a 6-week period, PPE helpers made 268 ward visits. Overall, 261 questionnaires were available for analysis. Across the Trust, 68% of respondents reported having had contact with a PPE helper. Staff who had encountered a PPE helper responded significantly more positively to a range of statements about using PPE than staff who had not encountered a PPE helper. Black and minority ethnic staff were significantly more anxious regarding the adequacy of PPE. Non-clinical and redeployed staff (e.g. domestic staff) were most positive about the impact of PPE helpers. Free-text comments showed that staff found the PPE Helper Programme supportive and would have liked it earlier in the pandemic. CONCLUSION: The PPE Helper Programme is a feasible and beneficial intervention for providing support, advice and education to ward staff during infectious disease outbreaks.

Building resilient and responsive research collaborations to tackle antimicrobial resistance-Lessons learnt from India, South Africa, and UK.

Research, collaboration, and knowledge exchange are critical to global efforts to tackle antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Different healthcare economies are faced with different challenges in implementing effective strategies to address AMR. Building effective capacity for research to inform AMR-related strategies and policies is recognised as an important contributor to success. Interdisciplinary, intersector, as well as international collaborations are needed to span global to local efforts to tackle AMR. The development of reciprocal, long-term partnerships between collaborators in high-income and in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) needs to be built on principles of capacity building. Using case studies spanning local and international research collaborations to codesign, implement, and evaluate strategies to tackle AMR, we have evaluated and build upon the ESSENCE criteria for capacity building in LMICs. The first case study describes the local codesign and implementation of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) in the state of Kerala in India. The second case study describes an international research collaboration investigating AMR surgical patient pathways in India, the UK, and South Africa. We describe the steps undertaken to develop robust, agile, and flexible AMS research and implementation teams. Notably, investing in capacity building ensured that the programmes described in these case studies were sustained through the current severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus pandemic. Describing the strategies adopted by a local and an international collaboration to tackle AMR, we provide a model for capacity building in LMICs that can support sustainable and agile AMS programmes.

Development of consensus-based international antimicrobial stewardship competencies for undergraduate nurse education.

BACKGROUND: There is growing recognition by national and international policymakers of the contribution nurses make towards antimicrobial stewardship. Although undergraduate education provides an ideal opportunity to prepare nurses for antimicrobial stewardship roles and activities, only two-thirds of undergraduate nursing programmes incorporate any antimicrobial stewardship teaching and only 12% cover all the recommended antimicrobial stewardship principles. Nurses also report that they do not have a good knowledge of antibiotics, and many have not heard of the term antimicrobial stewardship. AIM: To provide international consensus on the antimicrobial stewardship competency descriptors appropriate for undergraduate nurse education. METHODS: A modified Delphi approach comprising two online surveys delivered to an international panel of 15 individuals reflecting expertise in prescribing and medicines management in the education and practice of nurses; and antimicrobial stewardship. Data collection took place between February and March 2019. FINDINGS: A total of 15 participants agreed to become members of the expert panel, of whom 13 (86%) completed round 1 questionnaire, and 13 (100%) completed round 2. Consensus was achieved, with consistently high levels of agreement across panel members, on six overarching competency domains and 63 descriptors, essential for antimicrobial stewardship practice. CONCLUSION: The competency descriptors should be used to direct undergraduate nurse education and the antimicrobial stewardship practices of qualified nurses (including those working in new roles such as Nursing Associates) due to the high levels of agreement reached on competency descriptors.

The Differences in Antibiotic Decision-making Between Acute Surgical and Acute Medical Teams: An Ethnographic Study of Culture and Team Dynamics.

BACKGROUND: Cultural and social determinants influence antibiotic decision-making in hospitals. We investigated and compared cultural determinants of antibiotic decision-making in acute medical and surgical specialties. METHODS: An ethnographic observational study of antibiotic decision-making in acute medical and surgical teams at a London teaching hospital was conducted (August 2015-May 2017). Data collection included 500 hours of direct observations, and face-to-face interviews with 23 key informants. A grounded theory approach, aided by Nvivo 11 software, analyzed the emerging themes. An iterative and recursive process of analysis ensured saturation of the themes. The multiple modes of enquiry enabled cross-validation and triangulation of the findings. RESULTS: In medicine, accepted norms of the decision-making process are characterized as collectivist (input from pharmacists, infectious disease, and medical microbiology teams), rationalized, and policy-informed, with emphasis on de-escalation of therapy. The gaps in antibiotic decision-making in acute medicine occur chiefly in the transition between the emergency department and inpatient teams, where ownership of the antibiotic prescription is lost. In surgery, team priorities are split between 3 settings: operating room, outpatient clinic, and ward. Senior surgeons are often absent from the ward, leaving junior staff to make complex medical decisions. This results in defensive antibiotic decision-making, leading to prolonged and inappropriate antibiotic use. CONCLUSIONS: In medicine, the legacy of infection diagnosis made in the emergency department determines antibiotic decision-making. In surgery, antibiotic decision-making is perceived as a nonsurgical intervention that can be delegated to junior staff or other specialties. Different, bespoke approaches to optimize antibiotic prescribing are therefore needed to address these specific challenges.

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 (AMS) is important. Undergraduate education provides an ideal opportunity to prepare healthcare professionals for these roles and activities. AIM: To provide UK national consensus on a common set of antimicrobial stewardship competencies appropriate for undergraduate healthcare professional education. METHODS: A modified Delphi approach comprising two online surveys delivered to a UK national panel of 21 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 consistently high levels of agreement reached, on six overarching competency statements (subdivided into six domains), and 55 individual descriptors essential for antimicrobial stewardship by healthcare professionals. CONCLUSION: Due to the consistently high levels of agreement reached on competency statements and their associated descriptors, this competency framework should be used to direct education for undergraduate healthcare professionals, and those working in new clinical roles to support healthcare delivery where an understanding of, and engagement with, AMS is important. Although the competencies target basic education, they can also be used for continuing education.

The effect of prenatal education classes on the birth expectations of Spanish women.

BACKGROUND: Maternity care has focused on lowering maternal and neonatal morbidity, though women's beliefs and expectations of care have been set aside. Women face childbirth with preconceived expectations, some of which could be expressed on their birth plan. The latter could beinfluenced by health professionals through prenatal education classes, though this has not been measured before. Antenatal classes have been argued against,since no resulting improvement in childbirth experience has been demonstrated, though some advantages may be seen: they favour communication and give time for expressing maternal expectations and beliefs. The present study evaluates the influence of prenatal educational classes led by midwives upon women birth preferences. METHODS: A multicentre, observational, prospective study was carried out, measuring variables in pregnant women attending prenatal educational classes in different health centres within the health districts in Valencia (Spain) over the period January-October 2012. Birth plan preferences were compared prior to and upon completion of the classes. RESULTS: A total of 212 eligible pregnant women (78.3% nulliparous) with an average age of 31.39±4.0 years consented to participate in the study. There were significant differences in birth plan preferences prior to and upon completion of the prenatal classes. Three items showed an increase between the initial session and the end of the intervention: the ability to push spontaneously, episiotomy avoidance, and early breastfeeding. An adjusted general linear model was used to compare pre-post results in relation to sociodemographic and obstetric variables. DISCUSSION: The changes in birth plans could suggest that prenatal educational classes exert an influence upon maternal birth preferences.

A systematic review of clinical decision support systems for antimicrobial management: are we failing to investigate these interventions appropriately?

OBJECTIVES: Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) for antimicrobial management can support clinicians to optimize antimicrobial therapy. We reviewed all original literature (qualitative and quantitative) to understand the current scope of CDSS for antimicrobial management and analyse existing methods used to evaluate and report such systems. METHOD: PRISMA guidelines were followed. Medline, EMBASE, HMIC Health and Management and Global Health databases were searched from 1 January 1980 to 31 October 2015. All primary research studies describing CDSS for antimicrobial management in adults in primary or secondary care were included. For qualitative studies, thematic synthesis was performed. Quality was assessed using Integrated quality Criteria for the Review Of Multiple Study designs (ICROMS) criteria. CDSS reporting was assessed against a reporting framework for behaviour change intervention implementation. RESULTS: Fifty-eight original articles were included describing 38 independent CDSS. The majority of systems target antimicrobial prescribing (29/38;76%), are platforms integrated with electronic medical records (28/38;74%), and have a rules-based infrastructure providing decision support (29/38;76%). On evaluation against the intervention reporting framework, CDSS studies fail to report consideration of the non-expert, end-user workflow. They have narrow focus, such as antimicrobial selection, and use proxy outcome measures. Engagement with CDSS by clinicians was poor. CONCLUSION: Greater consideration of the factors that drive non-expert decision making must be considered when designing CDSS interventions. Future work must aim to expand CDSS beyond simply selecting appropriate antimicrobials with clear and systematic reporting frameworks for CDSS interventions developed to address current gaps identified in the reporting of evidence.

Effect of adding a mobile health intervention to a multimodal antimicrobial stewardship programme across three teaching hospitals: an interrupted time series study.

Objectives: To evaluate the impact of adding a mobile health (mHealth) decision support system for antibiotic prescribing to an established antimicrobial stewardship programme (ASP). Methods: In August 2011, the antimicrobial prescribing policy was converted into a mobile application (app). A segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series was used to assess the impact of the app on prescribing indicators, using data (2008-14) from a biannual point prevalence survey of medical and surgical wards. There were six data points pre-implementation and six data points post-implementation. Results: There was an increase in compliance with policy (e.g. compliance with empirical therapy or expert advice) in the two specialties of medicine (6.48%, 95% CI = -1.25 to 14.20) and surgery (6.63%, 95% CI = 0.15-13.10) in the implementation period, with a significant sudden change in level in surgery ( P < 0.05). There was an increase, though not significant, in medicine (15.20%, 95% CI = -17.81 to 48.22) and surgery (35.97%, 95% CI = -3.72 to 75.66) in the percentage of prescriptions that had a stop/review date documented. The documentation of indication decreased in both medicine (-16.25%, 95% CI = -42.52 to 10.01) and surgery (-14.62%, 95% CI = -42.88 to 13.63). Conclusions: Introducing the app into an existing ASP had a significant impact on the compliance with policy in surgery, and a positive, but not significant, effect on documentation of stop/review date in both specialties. The negative effect on the third indicator may reflect a high level of compliance pre-intervention, due to existing ASP efforts. The broader value of providing an antimicrobial policy on a digital platform, e.g. the reach and access to the policy, should be measured using indicators more sensitive to mHealth interventions.

Determinants of seasonal influenza vaccination in pregnant women in Valencia, Spain.

BACKGROUND: In most countries the coverage of seasonal influenza vaccination in pregnant women is low. We investigated the acceptance, reasons for rejection and professional involvement related to vaccine information in pregnant women in Valencia, Spain. METHODS: Observational retrospective study in 200 pregnant women, 100 vaccinated and 100 unvaccinated, were interviewed during the 2014/2015 vaccination campaign. Electronic medical records, immunization registry and telephone interviews were used to determine reasons for vaccination and immunization rejection. RESULTS: 40.5% of pregnant women in the health department were vaccinated. The midwife was identified as source of information for 89% of women. The vaccine was rejected due to low perceptions of risk of influenza infection (23%), lack of information (19%), considering the vaccine as superfluous (16%), close proximity of delivery date (13%) and fear of side effects (12%). CONCLUSION: Pregnant women in Spain declined to be vaccinated due to under-estimation of the risk of contracting or being harmed by influenza, and lack of information. Interventions aiming to optimize vaccination coverage should include information addressing the safety and effectiveness of the current vaccine together with improved professional training and motivation.

Defining the user role in infection control.

BACKGROUND: Health policy initiatives continue to recognize the valuable role of patients and the public in improving safety, advocating the availability of information as well as involvement at the point of care. In infection control, there is a limited understanding of how users interpret the plethora of publicly available information about hospital performance, and little evidence to support strategies that include reminding healthcare staff to adhere to hand hygiene practices. AIM: To understand how users define their own role in patient safety, specifically in infection control. METHODS: Through group interviews, self-completed questionnaires and scenario evaluation, user views of 41 participants (15 carers and 26 patients with recent experience of inpatient hospital care in London, UK) were collected and analysed. In addition, the project's patient representative performed direct observation of the research event to offer inter-rater reliability of the qualitative analysis. FINDINGS: Users considered evidence of systemic safety-related failings when presented with hospital choices, and did not discount hospitals with high ('red' flagged) rates of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Further, users considered staff satisfaction within the workplace over and above user satisfaction. Those most dissatisfied with the care they received were unlikely to ask staff, 'Have you washed your hands?' CONCLUSION: This in-depth qualitative analysis of views from a relatively informed user sample shows 'what matters', and provides new avenues for improvement initiatives. It is encouraging that users appear to take a holistic view of indicators. There is a need for strategies to improve dimensions of staff satisfaction, along with understanding the implications of patient satisfaction.

Innovative tools for quality assessment: integrated quality criteria for review of multiple study designs (ICROMS).

OBJECTIVES: With the aim to facilitate a more comprehensive review process in public health including patient safety, we established a tool that we have termed ICROMS (Integrated quality Criteria for the Review Of Multiple Study designs), which unifies, integrates and refines current quality criteria for a large range of study designs including qualitative research. STUDY DESIGN: Review, pilot testing and expert consensus. METHODS: The tool is the result of an iterative four phase process over two years: 1) gathering of established criteria for assessing controlled, non-controlled and qualitative study designs; 2) pilot testing of a first version in two systematic reviews on behavioural change in infection prevention and control and in antibiotic prescribing; 3) further refinement and adding of additional study designs in the context of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control funded project 'Systematic review and evidence-based guidance on organisation of hospital infection control programmes' (SIGHT); 4) scrutiny by the pan-European expert panel of the SIGHT project, which had the objective of ensuring robustness of the systematic review. RESULTS: ICROMS includes established quality criteria for randomised studies, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series, and incorporates criteria for non-controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies and qualitative studies. The tool consists of two parts: 1) a list of quality criteria specific for each study design, as well as criteria applicable across all study designs by using a scoring system; 2) a 'decision matrix', which specifies the robustness of the study by identifying minimum requirements according to the study type and the relevance of the study to the review question. The decision matrix directly determines inclusion or exclusion of a study in the review. ICROMS was applied to a series of systematic reviews to test its feasibility and usefulness in the appraisal of multiple study designs. The tool was applicable across a wide range of study designs and outcome measures. CONCLUSION: ICROMS is a comprehensive yet feasible appraisal of a large range of study designs to be included in systematic reviews addressing behaviour change studies in patient safety and public health. The tool is sufficiently flexible to be applied to a variety of other domains in health-related research. Beyond its application to systematic reviews, we envisage that ICROMS can have a positive effect on researchers to be more rigorous in their study design and more diligent in their reporting.

Towards changing healthcare workers' behaviour: a qualitative study exploring non-compliance through appraisals of infection prevention and control practices.

BACKGROUND: Improving behaviour in infection prevention and control (IPC) practice remains a challenge, and understanding the determinants of healthcare workers' (HCWs) behaviour is fundamental to develop effective and sustained behaviour change interventions. AIM: To identify behaviours of HCWs that facilitated non-compliance with IPC practices, focusing on how appraisals of IPC duties and social and environmental circumstances shaped and influenced non-compliant behaviour. This study aimed to: (1) identify how HCWs rationalized their own behaviour and the behaviour of others; (2) highlight challenging areas of IPC compliance; and (3) describe the context of the working environment that may explain inconsistencies in IPC practices. METHODS: Clinical staff at a National Health Service hospital group in London, UK were interviewed between December 2010 and July 2011 using qualitative methods. Responses were analysed using a thematic framework. FINDINGS: Three ways in which HCWs appraised their behaviour were identified through accounts of IPC policies and practices: (1) attribution of responsibilities, with ambiguity about responsibility for certain IPC practices; (2) prioritization and risk appraisal, which demonstrated a divergence in values attached to some IPC policies and practices; and (3) hierarchy of influence highlighted that traditional clinical roles challenged work relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, behaviours are not entirely independent of policy rules, but often an amalgamation of local normative practices, individual preferences and a degree of professional isolation.