Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31725771›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Influences on surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis decision making by surgical craft groups, anaesthetists, pharmacists and nurses in public and private hospitals.

Courtney Ierano, Karin Thursky, Trisha Peel, Arjun Rajkhowa, Caroline Marshall, Darshini Ayton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Courtney IeranoNational Health and Medical Research Council Centre of Research Excellence: National Centre for Antimicrobial Stewardship (NCAS), Peter Doherty Research Institute for Infection and Immunity Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5472-8895
Karin ThurskyNational Health and Medical Research Council Centre of Research Excellence: National Centre for Antimicrobial Stewardship (NCAS), Peter Doherty Research Institute for Infection and Immunity Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Trisha PeelNational Health and Medical Research Council Centre of Research Excellence: National Centre for Antimicrobial Stewardship (NCAS), Peter Doherty Research Institute for Infection and Immunity Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Arjun RajkhowaNational Health and Medical Research Council Centre of Research Excellence: National Centre for Antimicrobial Stewardship (NCAS), Peter Doherty Research Institute for Infection and Immunity Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Caroline MarshallNational Health and Medical Research Council Centre of Research Excellence: National Centre for Antimicrobial Stewardship (NCAS), Peter Doherty Research Institute for Infection and Immunity Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Darshini AytonDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurgical antimicrobial prophylaxis (SAP) is a leading indication for antibiotic use in the hospital setting, with demonstrated high rates of inappropriateness. Decision-making for SAP is complex and multifactorial. A greater understanding of these factors is needed to inform the design of targeted antimicrobial stewardship interventions and strategies to support the optimization of SAP and its impacts on patient care.

methodsA qualitative case study exploring the phenomenon of SAP decision-making. Focus groups were conducted with surgeons, anaesthetists, theatre nurses and pharmacists across one private and two public hospitals in Australia. Thematic analysis was guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Capabilities, Opportunities, Motivators-Behaviour (COM-B) model.

resultsFourteen focus groups and one paired interview were completed. Ten of the fourteen TDF domains were identified as relevant. Thematic analysis revealed six significant themes mapped to the COM-B model, and subthemes mapped to the relevant TDF domains in a combined framework. Key themes identified were: 1) Low priority for surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis prescribing skills; 2) Prescriber autonomy takes precedence over guideline compliance; 3) Social codes of prescribing reinforce established practices; 4) Need for improved communication, documentation and collection of data for action; 5) Fears and perceptions of risk hinder appropriate SAP prescribing; and 6) Lack of clarity regarding roles and accountability.

conclusionsSAP prescribing is a complex process that involves multiple professions across the pre-, intra- and post-operative surgical settings. The utilisation of behaviour change frameworks to identify barriers and enablers to optimal SAP prescribing supports future development of theory-informed antimicrobial stewardship interventions. Interventions should aim to increase surgeon engagement, enhance the prioritisation of and accountability for SAP, and address the underlying social factors involved in SAP decision-making, such as professional hierarchy and varied perceptions or risks and fears.

Indexed as

AnesthetistsAntibiotic ProphylaxisClinical Decision-MakingNursesPharmacistsSurgeonsAntimicrobial StewardshipFocus GroupsGuideline AdherenceHospitalsHumansSurgical Wound Infection

Identifiers

PMID31725771
PMCPMC6855473

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.