Search

Background: There is a marked variation in both antibiotic prescribing practice and urine sampling rates for diagnostic microbiology across general practices in England. To help understand factors driving this variation, we undertook a survey in 2012/13 to determine sampling protocols and antibiotic formularies used by general practitioners (GPs) for managing urinary tract infections (UTIs) in the West Midlands region of England.Method: Cross-sectional survey of all eligible general practices in the West Midlands region of England undertaken in November 2012. GPs were invited to complete an online survey questionnaire to gather information on policies used within the practice for urine sampling for microbiological examination, and the source of antibiotic formularies used to guide treatment of UTIs. The questionnaire also gathered information on how they would manage five hypothetical clinical scenarios encountered in the community.Results: The response rate was 11.3 % (409/3635 GPs), equivalent to a practice response rate of 26 % (248/950). Only 50 % of GPs reported having a practice policy for urine sampling. Although there was good agreement from GPs regarding collecting specimens in scenarios symbolising treatment failure (98 %), UTI in an adult male (98 %) and asymptomatic UTI in pregnancy (97 %), there was variation in GPs requesting a specimen for the scenarios involving a suspected uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI) and an asymptomatic catheterised elderly patient; with 40 and 38 % respectively indicating they would collect a specimen for microbiological examination.Conclusion: Standardised evidence based clinical management policies and antibiotic formularies for GPs should be readily available. This will promote the rational use of diagnostic microbiology services, improve antimicrobial stewardship and aid the interpretation of ongoing antimicrobial resistance surveillance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite scientific advances in typing of C. difficile strains very little is known about how hospital staff use typing results during periods of increased incidence (PIIs). This qualitative study, undertaken alongside a randomised controlled trial (RCT), explored this issue. The trial compared ribotyping versus more rapid genotyping (MLVA or multilocus variable repeat analysis) and found no significant difference in post 48 hour cases (C difficile transmissions). Methods: In-depth qualitative interviews with senior staff in 11/16 hospital trusts in the trial (5 MLVA and 6 Ribotyping). Semi-structured interviews were conducted at end of the trial period. Transcripts were content analysed using framework analysis supported by NVivo-8 software. Common sub-themes were extracted by two researchers independently. These were compared and organised into over-arching categories or ‘super-ordinate themes’. Results: The trial recorded that 45% of typing tests had some impact on infection control (IC) activities. Interviews indicated that tests had little impact on initial IC decisions. These were driven by hospital protocols and automatically triggered when a PII was identified. To influence decision-making, a laboratory turnaround time < 3 days (ideally 24 hours) was suggested; MLVA turnaround time was 5.3 days. Typing results were predominantly used to modify initiated IC activities such as ward cleaning, audits of practice or staff training; major decisions (e.g. ward closure) were unaffected. Organisational factors could limit utilisation of MLVA results. Results were twice as likely to be reported as ‘aiding management’ (indirect benefit) than impacting on IC activities (direct effect). Some interviewees considered test results provided reassurance about earlier IC decisions; others identified secondary benefits on organisational culture. An underlying benefit of improved discrimination provided by MLVA typing was the ability to explore epidemiology associated with CDI cases in a hospital more thoroughly. Conclusions: Ribotyping and MLVA are both valued by users. MLVA had little additional direct impact on initial infection control decisions. This would require reduced turnaround time. The major impact is adjustments to earlier IC measures and retrospective reassurance. For this, turnaround time is less important than discriminatory power. The potential remains for wider use of genotyping to examine transmission routes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]