Search

Quality improvement approaches are increasingly being used to address the problem of healthcare's climate and ecological impact. While sustainability is increasingly recognized as a domain of quality, consensus is lacking on the most appropriate measures and metrics for those looking to reduce ecological impacts through quality improvement initiatives. We propose a scoping review to summarize approaches for selecting and quantifying ecological impacts in the published quality improvement literature. We will search multiple electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Scopus) from 2000 onwards, to identify published quality improvement initiatives in the human healthcare setting intended to address ecological impact with at least one quantitative measure of ecological impact, such as kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas. Two independent reviewers working in parallel will screen studies for inclusion and abstract study data, including publication, study, and ecological impact characteristics. Charted data will be synthesized narratively as well as with descriptive tables, figures, and summary statistics. In doing so, we will map areas of relative focus as well as gaps in the measurement of ecological impact across quality improvement initiatives. This map can in turn be used to raise awareness of ecological impacts requiring broader consideration, encouraging holistic and clinically relevant approaches to measuring ecological impact in future quality improvement work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT Background Methods Results Conclusion Antimicrobial resistance is a significant threat to global health. Antimicrobial stewardship is reducing inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing to counter it. Dentists prescribe ~10% of all antibiotics worldwide, yet up to 90% of antibiotic prescriptions by dentists are inappropriate. The aim of this systematic review was to update a 2017 review evaluating the effects of antibiotic stewardship interventions in dental settings, using the international consensus on core outcomes for dental antibiotic stewardship.Systematic database searches were undertaken in April 2023, of the: Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE via OVID, Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source, the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register, the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the ISRCTN registry databases. Randomised controlled trials (or non‐randomised studies with clearly reported mechanism of group formation and inclusion criteria) of interventions to optimise and/or reduce dental antibiotic prescribing were eligible for inclusion. Two authors independently screened for eligible studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, certainty of evidence assessed using GRADE. Meta‐analysis was planned whether the results of studies reported similar outcomes, otherwise narrative synthesis was undertaken.Three eligible studies randomising 2148 participants were included. The interventions were combinations of education, audit and feedback and written behaviour change messages, guideline summary, practice visits and patient leaflets. None of the control groups received an intervention. All three included studies measured the quantity of antibiotics prescribed and two measured the appropriateness of prescribing. None measured patient‐reported or adverse outcomes. Two included studies were assessed as ‘high risk’ and one with ‘low risk’ of bias. There was high‐certainty evidence that audit and personalised feedback with individualised behaviour change messages can be effective. Evidence for in‐person education was low‐certainty. Guideline dissemination alone was ineffective at improving antibiotic prescribing. Due to different outcomes reported, meta‐analysis was inappropriate.Although various dental antibiotic stewardship interventions have been reported in the literature, none provided high‐certainty evidence of effectiveness and only three have been evaluated using a randomised design. To strengthen the body of evidence, well‐powered, robust, randomised controlled trials are required, with adequate follow‐up, reporting the internationally‐agreed core outcomes and including a parallel process evaluation is recommended.Trial Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42023411476) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.