A qualitative process evaluation of the introduction of procalcitonin testing as an antimicrobial stewardship intervention

被引:0
作者
F. O’Riordan
F. Shiely
S. Byrne
A. Fleming
机构
[1] Mercy University Hospital,Pharmacy Department
[2] University College Cork,Clinical Pharmacy Research Group, School of Pharmacy
[3] Mercy University Hospital,HRB Clinical Research Facility Cork
[4] University College Cork,School of Public Health
来源
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy | 2021年 / 43卷
关键词
Antimicrobial stewardship; Consolidated framework for implementation research; Procalcitonin; Process evaluation; Respiratory tract infections;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Background Successful antimicrobial stewardship interventions are imperative in today’s environment of antimicrobial resistance. New antimicrobial stewardship interventions should include qualitative analysis such as a process evaluation to determine which elements within an intervention are effective and provide insight into the context in which the intervention is introduced. Objective To assess the implementation process and explore the contextual factors which influenced implementation. Setting An academic teaching hospital in Cork, Ireland. Methods A process evaluation was conducted on completion of a feasibility study of the introduction of a procalcitonin antimicrobial stewardship intervention. The process evaluation consisted of semi-structured face-to-face interviews of key stakeholders including participating (senior) doctors (5), medical laboratory scientists (3) and a hospital administrator. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to guide data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Main outcome measures Qualitative assessment of the intervention implementation process, the contextual factors which influenced implementation and identification of improvements to the intervention and its implementation and determine if proceeding to a randomised controlled trial would be appropriate. Results Analysis of the interviews identified three main themes. (1) The procalcitonin intervention and implementation process was viewed positively to support prescribing decisions. Participants identified modifications to procalcitonin processing and availability to improve implementation and allow procalcitonin to be “more of a clinical influence”. (2) In the antimicrobial stewardship context the concept of fear of missing an infection and risks of potentially serious outcomes for patients emerged. (3) The hospital context consisted of barriers such as available resources and facilitators including the hospital culture of quality improvement. Conclusion This process evaluation provides a detailed analysis of the implementation of procalcitonin testing as an antimicrobial stewardship intervention. The positive findings of this process evaluation and feasibility study should be built upon and a full randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation should be conducted in a variety of hospital settings to confirm the effectiveness of procalcitonin as an antimicrobial stewardship intervention.
引用
收藏
页码:532 / 540
页数:8
相关论文
共 178 条
[1]  
Dellit TH(2007)Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America guidelines for developing an institutional program to enhance antimicrobial stewardship Clin Infect Dis 44 159-177
[2]  
Owens RC(2012)Improving the quality of antibiotic prescribing in the NHS by developing a new Antimicrobial Stewardship Programme: Start Smart-Then Focus J AntimicrobChemother 67 i51-63
[3]  
McGowan JE(2013)Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients Cochrane Database Syst Rev 30 CD003543-2944
[4]  
Gerding DN(2015)The 2015 Garrod lecture: Why is improvement difficult? J AntimicrobChemother 70 2931-2732
[5]  
Weinstein RA(2011)The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions Implement Sci 6 42-1066
[6]  
Burke JP(2017)Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2 CD003543-3361
[7]  
Ashiru-Oredope D(2015)Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance BMJ 350 h1258-238
[8]  
Sharland M(2008)Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance BMJ 337 a1655-S47
[9]  
Charani E(2006)An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU N Engl J Med 355 2725-926
[10]  
McNulty C(2013)Explaining Matching Michigan: an ethnographic study of a patient safety program Implement Sci 8 70-1251