Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Understanding decisions about antibiotic prescribing in ICU: an application of the Necessity Concerns Framework

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Antibiotics are extensively prescribed in intensive care units (ICUs), yet little is known about how antibiotic-related decisions are made in this setting. We explored how beliefs, perceptions and contextual factors influenced ICU clinicians’ antibiotic prescribing.

          Methods

          We conducted 4 focus groups and 34 semistructured interviews with clinicians involved in antibiotic prescribing in four English ICUs. Focus groups explored factors influencing prescribing, whereas interviews examined decision-making processes using two clinical vignettes. Data were analysed using thematic analysis, applying the Necessity Concerns Framework.

          Results

          Clinicians’ antibiotic decisions were influenced by their judgement of the necessity for prescribing/not prescribing, relative to their concerns about potential adverse consequences. Antibiotic necessity perceptions were strongly influenced by beliefs that antibiotics would protect patients from deterioration and themselves from the ethical and legal consequences of undertreatment. Clinicians also reported concerns about prescribing antibiotics. These generally centred on antimicrobial resistance; however, protecting the individual patient was prioritised over these societal concerns. Few participants identified antibiotic toxicity concerns as a key influencer. Clinical uncertainty often complicated balancing antibiotic necessity against concerns. Decisions to start or continue antibiotics often represented ‘erring on the side of caution’ as a protective response in uncertainty. This approach was reinforced by previous experiences of negative consequences (‘being burnt’) which motivated prescribing ‘just in case’ of an infection. Prescribing decisions were also context-dependent, exemplified by a lower perceived threshold to prescribe antibiotics out-of-hours, input from external team members and local prescribing norms.

          Conclusion

          Efforts to improve antibiotic stewardship should consider clinicians’ desire to protect with a prescription. Rapid molecular microbiology, with appropriate communication, may diminish clinicians’ fears of not prescribing or of using narrower-spectrum antibiotics.

          Related collections

          Most cited references51

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Using thematic analysis in psychology

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations.

            Standards for reporting exist for many types of quantitative research, but currently none exist for the broad spectrum of qualitative research. The purpose of the present study was to formulate and define standards for reporting qualitative research while preserving the requisite flexibility to accommodate various paradigms, approaches, and methods.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization

              Saturation has attained widespread acceptance as a methodological principle in qualitative research. It is commonly taken to indicate that, on the basis of the data that have been collected or analysed hitherto, further data collection and/or analysis are unnecessary. However, there appears to be uncertainty as to how saturation should be conceptualized, and inconsistencies in its use. In this paper, we look to clarify the nature, purposes and uses of saturation, and in doing so add to theoretical debate on the role of saturation across different methodologies. We identify four distinct approaches to saturation, which differ in terms of the extent to which an inductive or a deductive logic is adopted, and the relative emphasis on data collection, data analysis, and theorizing. We explore the purposes saturation might serve in relation to these different approaches, and the implications for how and when saturation will be sought. In examining these issues, we highlight the uncertain logic underlying saturation—as essentially a predictive statement about the unobserved based on the observed, a judgement that, we argue, results in equivocation, and may in part explain the confusion surrounding its use. We conclude that saturation should be operationalized in a way that is consistent with the research question(s), and the theoretical position and analytic framework adopted, but also that there should be some limit to its scope, so as not to risk saturation losing its coherence and potency if its conceptualization and uses are stretched too widely.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Qual Saf
                BMJ Qual Saf
                qhc
                bmjqs
                BMJ Quality & Safety
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-5415
                2044-5423
                March 2022
                7 June 2021
                : 31
                : 3
                : 199-210
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentCentre for Behavioural Medicine , University College London , London, UK
                [2 ] departmentUCLH-UCL Centre for Medicines Optimisation Research and Education , University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust , London, UK
                [3 ] departmentDepartment of Psychological and Behavioural Science , London School of Economics and Political Science , London, UK
                [4 ] departmentDivision of Critical Care , University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust , London, UK
                [5 ] departmentDivision of Infection and Immunity , University College London , London, UK
                [6 ] departmentNorwich Medical School , University of East Anglia , Norwich, UK
                [7 ] departmentDepartment of Medical Microbiology , University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust , London, UK
                [8 ] departmentDepartment of Surgery and Cancer , Imperial College London , London, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Professor Robert Horne, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK; r.horne@ 123456ucl.ac.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0455-496X
                Article
                bmjqs-2020-012479
                10.1136/bmjqs-2020-012479
                8899486
                34099497
                d834bda9-65b9-42e1-bcf8-bbaa5a781c66
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 07 October 2020
                : 25 May 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100007602, Programme Grants for Applied Research;
                Award ID: RP-PG-0514-20018
                Categories
                Original Research
                1506
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Public health
                antibiotic management,critical care,decision making,qualitative research
                Public health
                antibiotic management, critical care, decision making, qualitative research

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content47

                Cited by21

                Most referenced authors885