Defining the user role in infection control

An evaluation of the implementation of interventions to reduce postoperative infections and optimise antibiotic use across the surgical pathway in India: a mixed-methods exploratory study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative infections represent a significant burden of disease, demanding antibiotic prescriptions, and are contributing to antimicrobial resistance. The burden of infection as a surgical complication is greater in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We report the protocol of a pilot study for the co-design, implementation and evaluation of two infection prevention and control (IPC) and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions across the surgical pathway in a teaching hospital in India.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The two interventions developed following in-depth qualitative enquiry are (i) surveillance and feedback of postoperative infections to optimise the use of antibiotics in two surgical departments (gastrointestinal and cardiovascular and thoracic surgery) and (ii) raising awareness amongst patients, carers and members of public about IPC and AMS. We will conduct a prospective study, formatively evaluating the implementation process of delivering the two co-designed interventions using implementation science frameworks. The study will systematically assess the context of intervention delivery, so that implementation support for the interventions may be adapted to the needs of stakeholders throughout the study. Analysis of implementation logs and interviews with stakeholders upon completion of the implementation period, will offer insights into the perceived acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility and sustainability of the interventions and their implementation support. Implementation costs will be captured descriptively. Feasibility of clinical data collection to investigate effectiveness of interventions will also be assessed for a future larger study. Thematic framework analysis and descriptive statistics will be used to report the qualitative and quantitative data, respectively.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY

• The paired interventions have been co-designed from their inception with involvement of stakeholders at different stages in the surgical pathway. • Simultaneous evaluation of implementation and clinical outcomes will inform the development of a future larger study to enable/assess the scalability of interventions • The study offers a novel combination of implementation theory-informed, stakeholder-driven and clinically relevant evaluation, carried out in the context of a middle-income country hospital. • The project may not be applicable to every low-resource setting and surgical context due to differences in healthcare systems and cultures. However, the application of implementation science concepts may facilitate transferability and adaptation to other settings.

Evaluating patient attitudes to increased patient engagement with antimicrobial stewardship: a quantitative survey

Background

Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) describes interventions designed to optimize antimicrobial therapy, minimize adverse treatment consequences and reduce the spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Previous research has investigated the patient’s role in healthcare infection prevention but the patient’s role in AMS has not been extensively explored.

Objectives

To investigate the willingness of hospital inpatients to question staff about prudent antimicrobial use in an Irish hospital and evaluate the impact of patient and public involvement in research (PPI) on this study.

Methods

A survey was co-designed with the hospital Patient Representative Group (PRG) to evaluate patient willingness to engage with prudent antimicrobial treatment. A random sample of 200 inpatients was selected to self-complete the survey using pen and paper. PRG members provided feedback on their involvement.

Results

Of the 200 inpatients randomly selected to participate, 120 did not fulfil the inclusion criteria. Of the remaining 80, 67 participated (response 84%). Median respondent age was 58 years, 30% were employed and 30% had a third-level education degree. Over 90% had not heard of AMS while just over 50% had not heard of AMR. Patients preferred asking factual questions rather than challenging ones but did not have a preference in asking questions of doctors compared with nurses. Older patients were less likely to ask questions. PRG members reported an overall positive experience as research collaborators.

Conclusions

Future patient-centred AMS interventions should empower patients to ask about antimicrobial treatment, in particular the older patient cohort. PPI is a valuable component of patient-centred research.

Implementation research for the prevention of antimicrobial resistance and healthcare-associated infections; 2017 Geneva infection prevention and control (IPC)-think tank (part 1)

Background

Around 5–15% of all hospital patients worldwide suffer from healthcare-associated infections (HAIs), and years of excessive antimicrobial use in human and animal medicine have created emerging antimicrobial resistance (AMR). A considerable amount of evidence-based measures have been published to address these challenges, but the largest challenge seems to be their implementation.

Methods

In June 2017, a total of 42 experts convened at the Geneva IPC-Think Tank to discuss four domains in implementation science: 1) teaching implementation skills; 2) fostering implementation of IPC and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) by policy making; 3) national/international actions to foster implementation skills; and 4) translational research bridging social sciences and clinical research in infection prevention and control (IPC) and AMR.

Results

Although neglected in the past, implementation skills have become a priority in IPC and AMS. They should now be part of any curriculum in health care, and IPC career paths should be created. Guidelines and policies should be aligned with each other and evidence-based, each document providing a section on implementing elements of IPC and AMS in patient care. International organisations should be advocates for IPC and AMS, framing them as patient safety issues and emphasizing the importance of implementation skills. Healthcare authorities at the national level should adopt a similar approach and provide legal frameworks, guidelines, and resources to allow better implementation of patient safety measures in IPC and AMS. Rather than repeating effectiveness studies in every setting, we should invest in methods to improve the implementation of evidence-based measures in different healthcare contexts. For this, we need to encourage and financially support collaborations between social sciences and clinical IPC research.

Conclusions

Experts of the 2017 Geneva Think Tank on IPC and AMS, CDC, and WHO agreed that sustained efforts on implementation of IPC and AMS strategies are required at international, country, and hospital management levels, to provide an adequate multimodal framework that addresses (not exclusively) leadership, resources, education and training for implementing IPC and AMS. Future strategies can build on this agreement to make strategies on IPC and AMS more effective.

Engaging patients in health care epidemiology research: A case example

BACKGROUND

We describe stakeholder engagement from a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute-funded project to identify patients' research priorities for health care-associated infections (HAI). We summarize insights from these activities to highlight feasibility and benefits of stakeholder engagement in health care epidemiology research.Patients and caregivers who had an HAI experience were involved in a patient and caregiver stakeholder group. We engaged clinicians, infection prevention experts, state public health professionals, and quality improvement experts in an institutional stakeholder (IS) group in an academic tertiary care medical center.

METHODS

Through individual and combined group activities, we identified stakeholders' HAI research priorities. Existing engagement resources from the Wisconsin Network for Research Support (WINRS) guided the process.

RESULTS

Given the patients' and caregivers' experiences with HAIs, their perspectives broadened IS understanding of the impact of HAIs and the relevance of proposed research topics. After introductory activities described here, the patient and caregiver stakeholder group actively engaged with researchers and the IS group in discussing complex systems-level topics to reduce HAIs. We have sustained this engagement through continued collaboration.

CONCLUSIONS

Our engagement experience provides one example of how patients can be engaged in health care epidemiology research. Our experiences and lessons learned may be helpful to others interested in stakeholder engagement.

Appraising the quality standard underpinning international clinical practice guidelines for the selection and care of vascular access devices: a systematic review of reviews

OBJECTIVE

Catheter-related bloodstream infections are one of the most important adverse events for patients. Evidence-based practice embraces interventions to prevent and reduce catheter-related bloodstream infections in patients. At present, a growing number of guidelines exist worldwide. The purpose of the study was to assess clinical practice guidelines for peripheral and central venous access device care and prevention of related complications.

DESIGN

Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines: We conducted a search of the literature published from 2005 to 2018 using Medline/PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Ovid, ScienceDirect, Scopus and Web of Science. We also evaluated grey literature sources and websites of organisations that compiled or produced guidelines. Guideline quality was assessed with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, Second Edition tool by three independent reviewers. Cohen's kappa coefficient was used to evaluate the concordance between reviewers.

RESULTS

We included seven guidelines in the evaluation. The concordance between observers was substantial, K=0.6364 (95% CI 0.0247 to 1.2259). We identified seven international guidelines, which scored poorly on crucial domains such as applicability (medium 39%), stakeholder involvement (medium 65%) and methodological rigour (medium 67%). Guidelines by Spanish Health Ministry and UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence presented the highest quality.

CONCLUSIONS

It is crucial to critically evaluate the validity and reliability of clinical practice guidelines so the best, most context-specific document is selected. Such choice is a necessary prior step to encourage and support health organisations to transfer research results to clinical practice. The gaps identified in our study may explain the suboptimal clinical impact of guidelines. Such low adoption may be mitigated with the use of implementation guides accompanying clinical documents.

Patient Involvement in Healthcare-Associated Infection Research: A Lexical Review

OBJECTIVEThis review examines patient involvement in healthcare-associated infection (HAI) research. Healthcare-associated infections represent an intractable issue with considerable implications for patients and staff. Participatory methodologies that involve patients in healthcare research are associated with myriad benefits.DESIGNLexical review.METHODSPubMed was searched to identify all publications on patient involvement in HAI research since 2000; publications were also identified from the cited references. A lexical analysis was conducted of the methods sections of 148 publications.RESULTSThe findings reveal that HAI research that actively involves patients and members of the public is limited.CONCLUSIONSPatient involvement is largely limited to recruitment to HAI studies rather than extended to patient involvement in research design, implementation, analysis, and/or dissemination. As such, there is considerable opportunity to further this important research area via alternative methodologies that award primacy to patient expertise and agency.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:710-717.

Involving citizens in priority setting for public health research: Implementation in infection research

BACKGROUND

Public sources fund the majority of UK infection research, but citizens currently have no formal role in resource allocation. To explore the feasibility and willingness of citizens to engage in strategic decision making, we developed and tested a practical tool to capture public priorities for research.

METHOD

A scenario including six infection themes for funding was developed to assess citizen priorities for research funding. This was tested over two days at a university public festival. Votes were cast anonymously along with rationale for selection. The scenario was then implemented during a three-hour focus group exploring views on engagement in strategic decisions and in-depth evaluation of the tool.

RESULTS

188/491(38%) prioritized funding research into drug-resistant infections followed by emerging infections(18%). Results were similar between both days. Focus groups contained a total of 20 citizens with an equal gender split, range of ethnicities and ages ranging from 18 to >70 years. The tool was perceived as clear with participants able to make informed comparisons. Rationale for funding choices provided by voters and focus group participants are grouped into three major themes: (i) Information processing; (ii) Knowledge of the problem; (iii) Responsibility; and a unique theme within the focus groups (iv) The potential role of citizens in decision making. Divergent perceptions of relevance and confidence of "non-experts" as decision makers were expressed.

CONCLUSION

Voting scenarios can be used to collect, en-masse, citizens' choices and rationale for research priorities. Ensuring adequate levels of citizen information and confidence is important to allow deployment in other formats.

One-star rating for a five-star program: evaluating 'Hospital Compare'

OBJECTIVES

For healthcare systems of any size, it is important to minimize costs while maximizing outcomes. One idea of how to achieve these goals has been the reduction in hospital-related complications, including infection and surgical complications, among others. In the United States, policy makers recently adopted the 'Hospital Compare' program as a way to encourage consumers and improve hospitals. This article evaluates the effectiveness of this policy.

STUDY DESIGN

This article uses an observed cohort study of most US hospitals across four different indices.

METHODS

Each observed hospital was evaluated at least once each year over a span of three years for rates of hospital-acquired infections and compared to what reasonably ought to have been the rate based on hospital factors. Hospitals poorly rated in the base year were compared against remaining institutions for their ability to meet national benchmarks in future years.

RESULTS

Despite government attempts to show individuals the comparative quality of hospitals, there is little evidence that these informed consumer choices were substantially enough to motivate changes. Across most metrics used, poorly rated hospitals were unlikely to improve at rates that the designers of Hospital Compare would have envisioned.

CONCLUSIONS

Although it is possible that the effects could shift over time, it is unlikely that the Hospital Compare program properly understood and anticipated patient calculus for choosing a hospital. Technical complexity and other issues further undermined the program. Despite this, the goal of reducing complications is worthwhile, but a different strategy should be pursued.

Capacity of English NHS hospitals to monitor quality in infection prevention and control using a new European framework: a multilevel qualitative analysis

OBJECTIVE

(1) To assess the extent to which current English national regulations/policies/guidelines and local hospital practices align with indicators suggested by a European review of effective strategies for infection prevention and control (IPC); (2) to examine the capacity of local hospitals to report on the indicators and current use of data to inform IPC management and practice.

DESIGN

A national and local-level analysis of the 27 indicators was conducted. At the national level, documentary review of regulations/policies/guidelines was conducted. At the local level data collection comprised: (a) review of documentary sources from 14 hospitals, to determine the capacity to report performance against these indicators; (b) qualitative interviews with 3 senior managers from 5 hospitals and direct observation of hospital wards to find out if these indicators are used to improve IPC management and practice.

SETTING

2 acute English National Health Service (NHS) trusts and 1 NHS foundation trust (14 hospitals).

PARTICIPANTS

3 senior managers from 5 hospitals for qualitative interviews.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

As primary outcome measures, a 'Red-Amber-Green' (RAG) rating was developed reflecting how well the indicators were included in national documents or their availability at the local organisational level. The current use of the indicators to inform IPC management and practice was also assessed. The main secondary outcome measure is any inconsistency between national and local RAG rating results.

RESULTS

National regulations/policies/guidelines largely cover the suggested European indicators. The ability of individual hospitals to report some of the indicators at ward level varies across staff groups, which may mask required improvements. A reactive use of staffing-related indicators was observed rather than the suggested prospective strategic approach for IPC management.

CONCLUSIONS

For effective patient safety and infection prevention in English hospitals, routine and proactive approaches need to be developed. Our approach to evaluation can be extended to other country settings.

Patient engagement with infection management in secondary care: a qualitative investigation of current experiences

OBJECTIVE

To understand patient engagement with decision-making for infection management in secondary care and the consequences associated with current practices.

DESIGN

A qualitative investigation using in-depth focus groups.

PARTICIPANTS

Fourteen members of the public who had received antimicrobials from secondary care in the preceding 12 months in the UK were identified for recruitment. Ten agreed to participate. All participants had experience of infection management in secondary care pathways across a variety of South-East England healthcare institutes. Study findings were subsequently tested through follow-up focus groups with 20 newly recruited citizens.

RESULTS

Participants reported feelings of disempowerment during episodes of infection in secondary care. Information is communicated in a unilateral manner with individuals 'told' that they have an infection and will receive an antimicrobial (often unnamed), leading to loss of ownership, frustration, anxiety and ultimately distancing them from engaging with decision-making. This poor communication drives individuals to seek information from alternative sources, including online, which is associated with concerns over reliability and individualisation. Failures in communication and information provision by clinicians in secondary care influence individuals' future ideas about infections and their management. This alters their future actions towards antimicrobials and can drive prescription non-adherence and loss to follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Current infection management and antimicrobial prescribing practices in secondary care fail to engage patients with the decision-making process. Secondary care physicians must not view infection management episodes as discrete events, but as cumulative experiences which have the potential to shape future patient behaviour and understanding of antimicrobial use.