To explore and model factors affecting antibiotic prescribing decision-making early in the pandemic.
Semistructured qualitative interview study.
National Health Service (NHS) trusts/health boards in England and Wales.
Clinicians from NHS trusts/health boards in England and Wales.
Individual semistructured interviews were conducted with clinicians in six NHS trusts/health boards in England and Wales as part of the Procalcitonin Evaluation of Antibiotic use in COVID-19 Hospitalised patients study, a wider study that included statistical analysis of procalcitonin (PCT) use in hospitals during the first wave of the pandemic. Thematic analysis was used to identify key factors influencing antibiotic prescribing decisions for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia during the first wave of the pandemic (March to May 2020), including how much influence PCT test results had on these decisions.
During the first wave of the pandemic, recommendations to prescribe antibiotics for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were based on concerns about secondary bacterial infections. However, as clinicians gained more experience with COVID-19, they reported increasing confidence in their ability to distinguish between symptoms and signs caused by SARS-CoV-2 viral infection alone, and secondary bacterial infections. Antibiotic prescribing decisions were influenced by factors such as clinician experience, confidence, senior support, situational factors and organisational influences. A decision-making model was developed.
This study provides insight into the decision-making process around antibiotic prescribing for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia during the first wave of the pandemic. The importance of clinician experience and of senior review of decisions as factors in optimising antibiotic stewardship is highlighted. In addition, situational and organisational factors were identified that could be optimised. The model presented in the study can be used as a tool to aid understanding of the complexity of the decision-making process around antibiotic prescribing and planning antimicrobial stewardship support in the context of a pandemic.
Almost all patients receiving mechanical ventilation (MV) in intensive care units (ICUs) require analgesia and sedation. The most widely used sedative drug is propofol, but there is uncertainty whether alpha2-agonists are superior. The alpha 2 agonists for sedation to produce better outcomes from critical illness (A2B) trial aims to determine whether clonidine or dexmedetomidine (or both) are clinically and cost-effective in MV ICU patients compared with usual care.
Adult ICU patients within 48 hours of starting MV, expected to require at least 24 hours further MV, are randomised in an open-label three arm trial to receive propofol (usual care) or clonidine or dexmedetomidine as primary sedative, plus analgesia according to local practice. Exclusions include patients with primary brain injury; postcardiac arrest; other neurological conditions; or bradycardia. Unless clinically contraindicated, sedation is titrated using weight-based dosing guidance to achieve a Richmond-Agitation-Sedation score of –2 or greater as early as considered safe by clinicians. The primary outcome is time to successful extubation. Secondary ICU outcomes include delirium and coma incidence/duration, sedation quality, predefined adverse events, mortality and ICU length of stay. Post-ICU outcomes include mortality, anxiety and depression, post-traumatic stress, cognitive function and health-related quality of life at 6-month follow-up. A process evaluation and health economic evaluation are embedded in the trial.
The analytic framework uses a hierarchical approach to maximise efficiency and control type I error. Stage 1 tests whether each alpha2-agonist is superior to propofol. If either/both interventions are superior, stages 2 and 3 testing explores which alpha2-agonist is more effective. To detect a mean difference of 2 days in MV duration, we aim to recruit 1437 patients (479 per group) in 40–50 UK ICUs.
The Scotland A REC approved the trial (18/SS/0085). We use a surrogate decision-maker or deferred consent model consistent with UK law. Dissemination will be via publications, presentations and updated guidelines.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03653832.
by Kwadwo Arhin, Disraeli Asante-Darko
BackgroundNon-communicable diseases (NCDs) remain a major public health concern globally, threatening the achievement of sustainable development goal 3.4 (SDG 3.4), which seeks to reduce premature NCD-related deaths by one-third by 2030. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), improving the efficiency of NCD spending (i.e., maximizing the impact of every dollar spent on NCDs) is one of the strategic approaches for achieving SDG target 3.4. This study aims to assess the efficiency and productivity of NCDs spending in 34 sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries from 2015 to 2019.
MethodsThe study employed the data envelopment analysis (DEA) double-bootstrap truncated and Tobit regressions, one-stage stochastic frontier analysis (SFA) model, the Malmquist productivity index (MPI), and spatial autocorrelation analysis to estimate NCDs spending efficiency, identify the context-specific environmental factors that influence NCDs spending efficiency, evaluate total productivity change and identify its components, and assess the spatial interdependence of the efficiency scores.
ResultsThe estimated average DEA bias-corrected NCD spending efficiency score was 87.3% (95% CI: 86.2–88.5). Additionally, smoking per capita, solid fuel pollution, alcohol use, governance quality, urbanization, GDP per capita, external funding for NCDs, and private domestic funding for NCDs healthcare services were found to be significantly associated with NCDs spending efficiency. The study also revealed a decline of 3.2% in the MPI, driven by a 10.6% technical regress. Although all countries registered growth in efficiency, except for the Central Africa Republic and DR Congo, the growth in efficiency was overshadowed by the decline in technical change. Global Moran’s I test indicated the existence of significant positive spatial autocorrelation in the efficiency of NCDs spending across SSA countries.
ConclusionThe study underscores the importance of efficient use of resources in NCDs treatment and prevention and increased investment in NCDs research and development in achieving the SDG target 3.4.