Search

Objective To explore the existing evidence on patient understanding of and/or participation in infection-related care in surgical specialties. Method A scoping review of the literature was conducted. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and grey literature sources were searched using predefined search criteria for policies, guidelines, and studies in the English language. Data synthesis was done through content and thematic analysis to identify key themes in the included studies. Results The initial search identified 604 studies, of which 41 (36 from high-income and five from low- and middle-income countries) were included in the final review. Most of the included studies focused on measures to engage patients in infection prevention and control (IPC) activities, with few examples of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) engagement strategies. While patient engagement interventions in infection-related care varied depending on study goals, surgical wound management was the most common intervention. AMS engagement was primarily limited to needs assessment, without follow-up to address such needs. Conclusion Existing evidence highlights a gap in patient participation in infection-related care in the surgical pathway. Standardization of patient engagement strategies is challenging, particularly in the context of surgery, where several factors influence how the patient can engage and retain information. Infection-related patient engagement and participation strategies in surgery need to be inclusive and contextually fit.

Highlights • Capacity building for research and implementation is key to operationalising global, concerted and sustained strategies for addressing antimicrobial resistance. • Reciprocal and long-term partnerships between high-income and low- and middle-income countries can successfully develop robust, agile, and flexible antimicrobial stewardship research and implementation teams. • Capacity building in AMR when supported by adequate funding to ensure investment in workforce and infrastructure, can result in sustainable and resilient AMS programmes., 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 AMR is recognised as an important contributor to success. Interdisciplinary, inter-sector, as well as inter-country collaboration is needed to span AMR efforts from the global to local. Developing reciprocal, long-term, partnerships between collaborators in high-income and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) needs to be built on principles of capacity building. Using case-studies spanning local to international research collaborations to co-design, implement and evaluate strategies to tackle AMR, we evaluate and build upon the ESSENCE criteria for capacity building in LMICs. The first case-study describes the local co-design and implementation of antimicrobial stewardship in the state of Kerala in India. The second case-study describes an international research collaboration investigating AMR across surgical pathways in India, UK and South Africa. We describe the steps undertaken to develop robust, agile, and flexible antimicrobial stewardship 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 corona virus 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 antimicrobial stewardship programmes.

Optimizing antibiotic prescribing across the surgical pathway (before, during, and after surgery) is a key aspect of tackling important drivers of antimicrobial resistance and simultaneously decreasing the burden of infection at the global level. In the UK alone, 10 million patients undergo surgery every year, which is equivalent to 60% of the annual hospital admissions having a surgical intervention. The overwhelming majority of surgical procedures require effectively limited delivery of antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent infections. Evidence from around the world indicates that antibiotics for surgical prophylaxis are administered ineffectively, or are extended for an inappropriate duration of time postoperatively. Ineffective antibiotic prophylaxis can contribute to the development of surgical site infections (SSIs), which represent a significant global burden of disease. The World Health Organization estimates SSI rates of up to 50% in postoperative surgical patients (depending on the type of surgery), with a particular problem in low- and middle-income countries, where SSIs are the most frequently reported healthcare-associated infections. Across European hospitals, SSIs alone comprise 19.6% of all healthcare-acquired infections. Much of the scientific research in infection management in surgery is related to infection prevention and control in the operating room, surgical prophylaxis, and the management of SSIs, with many studies focusing on infection within the 30-day postoperative period. However it is important to note that SSIs represent only one of the many types of infection that can occur postoperatively. This article provides an overview of the surgical pathway and considers infection management and antibiotic prescribing at each step of the pathway. The aim was to identify the implications for research and opportunities for system improvement.

Background: Within infectious diseases in secondary care, understanding of the potential for behavioural changes arising from patient involvement in antimicrobial decision making is lacking. Shared decision making is becoming part of international policy. The United States have passed it into legislation and the United Kingdom has implemented a number of national interventions across healthcare pathways. This study aims to understand the level of patient involvement in decision making around antimicrobial use in secondary care and the potential consequences associated with it. Methods & Materials: Fourteen members of the public who had received antimicrobials from secondary care in the preceding 12 months were recruited to participate in group interviews. Group interactions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed. Results: Participants reported feelings of disempowerment during episodes of infection in secondary care. Information is currently 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 participation in decision making. This poor communication drives individuals to seek information from alternative sources, including on-line resources, which are associated with concerns over reliability and individualisation. This failure of communication and information provision from clinicians in secondary care influences individual's future ideas about infections and their management. This alters their future actions towards infections and antimicrobials and can drive non-adherence to prescribed antimicrobial regimes and loss-to-follow-up after discharge from secondary care. Conclusion: Current infection management and antimicrobial prescribing practices in secondary care may be failing to engage patients in the decision making process. It is vital that secondary care physicians do not view infection management episodes as discrete events, but as cumulative experiences which have the potential to drive future non-adherence to prescribed antimicrobial regimes and thus poor individual outcomes and antimicrobial resistance. This lesson is transferable to all settings of healthcare, where poor communication and information provision having the potential to influence future health seeking behaviours. We call for the development of clear, pragmatic mechanism to support healthcare professionals and patients engage in infection related decision making during consultations.