Search

To investigate the drivers for infection management and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) across high-infection-risk surgical pathways. A qualitative study—ethnographic observation of clinical practices, patient case studies, and face-to-face interviews with healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients—was conducted across cardiovascular and thoracic and gastrointestinal surgical pathways in South Africa (SA) and India. Aided by Nvivo 11 software, data were coded and analysed until saturation was reached. The multiple modes of enquiry enabled cross-validation and triangulation of findings. Between July 2018 and August 2019, data were gathered from 190 hours of non-participant observations (138 India, 72 SA), interviews with HCPs (44 India, 61 SA), patients (six India, eight SA), and case studies (four India, two SA). Across the surgical pathway, multiple barriers impede effective infection management and AMS. The existing implicit roles of HCPs (including nurses and senior surgeons) are overlooked as interventions target junior doctors, bypassing the opportunity for integrating infection-related care across the surgical team. Critically, the ownership of decisions remains with the operating surgeons, and entrenched hierarchies restrict the inclusion of other HCPs in decision-making. The structural foundations to enable staff to change their behaviours and participate in infection-related surgical care are lacking. Identifying the implicit existing HCP roles in infection management is critical and will facilitate the development of effective and transparent processes across the surgical team for optimized care. Applying a framework approach that includes nurse leadership, empowering pharmacists and engaging surgical leads, is essential for integrated AMS and infection-related care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The link between healthcare worker (HCW) communication, teamwork and patient safety is well-established. Infection prevention and control (IPC) and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) require multidisciplinary teamwork and communication. We conducted a scoping review of published evidence on effective mechanisms of HCW team communication in hospitals with the intention of transferring and tailoring learning to IPC and AMS team communication. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL were searched for studies that investigated HCW team communication across in-hospital patient pathways. Studies published between 2000 and 2021 that provided evidence on/or described the effect of communication on team and patient outcomes in hospital were included. Through a process of inductive qualitative content analysis, key themes in the included studies were identified. Of 537 studies identified, 53 (from high-income countries) were included in the data extraction. Fifty one percent (27/53) of studies were conducted in high acuity settings e.g., intensive care units. Standardizing or structuring the content and/or process of team communication was the most common goal of interventions (34/53, 64%). The key outcome measures were either team communication focused (25/34,74%) or patient and process outcome focused (8/34, 24%), such as reduced length of mechanical ventilation days, length of hospital stay, and shorter empiric antibiotic duration. Four studies (4/53, 8%) associated improved communication with positive IPC and AMS outcome measures. Mixed method intervention studies primarily facilitated collaborative input from HCWs and applied structures to standardize the content of patient care discussions, whereas observational studies describe component of team communication. A communication strategy that formalizes input from multidisciplinary team members can lead to optimized and consistent clinical discussion including in IPC and AMS-related care. Although we were unable to assess the effectiveness of interventions, the existing evidence suggests that optimizing team communication can have a positive effect on infection-related patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The irrational use of antibiotics is a leading contributor to antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic stewardship (AS) interventions predominantly focus on prescribers. This study investigated the influence and participation of inpatients in infection‐related care, including antibiotic decision‐making, within and across two tertiary hospitals in South Africa (Cape Town) and India (Kerala). Methods: Through ethnographic enquiry of clinical practice in surgical pathways, including direct nonparticipant observation of clinical practices, healthcare worker (HCW), patient and carer interactions in surgical ward rounds and face‐to‐face interviews with participants (HCWs and patients), we sought to capture the implicit and explicit influence that patients and carers have in infection‐related care. Field notes and interview transcripts were thematically coded, aided by NVivo 12® Pro software. Results: Whilst observational data revealed the nuanced roles that patients/carers play in antibiotic decision‐making, HCWs did not recognize these roles. Patients and carers, though invested in patient care, are not routinely involved, nor are they aware of the opportunities for engagement in infection‐related decision‐making. Patients associated clinical improvement with antibiotic use and did not consider hospitalization to be associated with infection acquisition or transmission, highlighting a lack of understanding of the threat of infection and antibiotic resistance. Patients' economic and cultural positionalities may influence their infection‐related behaviours. In the study site in India, cultural norms mean that carers play widespread but unrecognized roles in inpatient care, participating in infection prevention activities. Conclusion: For patients to have a valuable role in AS and make informed decisions regarding their infection‐related care, a mutual understanding of their role in this process among HCWs and patients is crucial. The observed differences between the two study sites indicate the critical need for understanding and addressing the contextual drivers that impact effective patient‐centred healthcare delivery. Patient or Public Contribution: Ethnographic observations and interviews conducted in this study involved patients as participants. Patients were recruited for interviews after obtaining signed informed consent forms. Patients' identities were completely anonymized when presenting the study findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]