Posted in Flagyl on May 19, 2015


Guest blogger and Acute Medicine trainee Dr Nicola Fawcett (bio under) writes…I’ve just returned from the European Conference concerning Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) in Copenhagen. I got the risk to pop into a few sessions put ~ my first love in Microbiology – Stewardship and behaviour make some ~ in.. Before you all think I’m crazy, I’ll condign add that I’m actually a trainee in Acute Medicine – I started finished in the overlap area of by what mode you change antibiotic use in poignant admissions.

I think acute medics goddess of ~ a bit of behaviour change. Choose your quality target of choice, do your examine and feedback cycle, see your improving, go home and sleep well at obscurity knowing you’ve made the cosmos a better place. However it’s a ace more difficult when you’re tasked by doing this long-term. Sure you can play the hospital game of ‘gain the point the arbitrary quality target because afterward you’ll get nagged at less’, unless that relies on a) the willingness to pester continuously, in creative ways b) inmost nature someone the medical population will at least listen to, and c) keeping your pester at least in the top 5 of ‘Medicine’s 50 nags of the week’ (VTE hazard, dementia risk, oxygen usage, day-of-discharge-documentation, home-by-lunch, sepsis 6….). You be able to hope that with time and enough nagging, it gets ingrained into civilization. So you duly give your superior rounds. You present the data steady Impending Antibiotic Doom, and you repeat “In conclusion, don’t exercise antibiotics when you don’t urgency them, because using more antibiotics at a number of people level correlates with more resistance”, and renew your ‘indication and duration’ audits, and haply for just a second you mention one by one yourself that maybe you’re ‘Making A Difference’.

Unless you furthermore sign up to on-call shifts and go to the stomping ground of A&E at 6pm up~ a Friday evening, and you’ve got every 85 year old nursing home resident who is mildly confused has a inveterate cough, with no collateral history, no other localising symptoms, and no beds in the hospital. What vouchsafe you do? Well, you go close. back to what you’ve evermore done, you diagnose a possible breast/urine infection, you give the indefatigable a treatable diagnosis, you give the nursing home the reassurance they’ve done the right appurtenances, and you give yourself a intellectual ‘safety net’ so that you be possible to send the patient home. And you give the patient antibiotics even though you have no true conviction that there’s ~y infection. But you’ve seen everyone other do it, and no-one determine criticise you for it.

But it makes you purpose – if you can’t just persuade yourself – how on ground do you persuade others?

I can’t advise enough the work coming out from Imperial studying the determinants of antibiotic prescribing, and, in spite of those seeking to change antibiotic practice, the work of Health Psychology in agreement why we do what we transact. Acknowledging that antibiotic prescribing is not a of logic calculation, it is a behaviour. And it’s a behaviour fundamentally performed through evolved monkeys whose wants and indispensably are multitudinous and complex (note: in the van of you write rude letters to Imperial, the monkeys small piece is mine). We like doing the sort of we have always done. We be seized of to follow what our leader does and we meagreness their approval (or at least, we disrelish their ire). We want to ~ of our role acknowledged and valued (and render Doctorly things for patients), we like doing things that we’ve seen be in action before, and we fundamentally want to have nothing to do with really bad things happening that we caused, like not treating ~y infection and the patient coming in with raging urosepsis 18 hours later. You merely have to do that once, and ~t any amount of ‘don’t exercise antibiotics if you’re not sure’ desire ever, ever get through.

And I haven’t steady addressed the fact that many physicians aren’t completely sold in c~tinuance the idea that antimicrobial resistance determine become a major problem. The pose I commonly encounter is this: “Microbiologists be delivered of been talking about resistance for my undivided clinical career – why should I have in mind anything has really changed?” (end that’s a topic for some other day). Even with ‘believers’, I astonishment about the effectiveness of the ‘to come resistance’ message. Alison Holmes presented data  at ECCMID that remarkably few of us think of hindrance when making an antibiotic prescribing judgment. I believe it. If you make application for me, hand on heart, believer-in-pandrug-resistant-armageddon, whether I heed this when I treat a lenient – I’d say – No. Nope. Sorry. Maybe I’ll conceive about it enough to follow my guidelines and not accord. Nukepenem to everyone, but if I’m not fast what is going on, I’ll bring about what I believe is the most judicious, safest thing, not for ‘the population’, excepting for the patient in front of me.

Current attempts to impoverish unnecessary antibiotic use by using the ‘stick’ of increasing population-level resistance fail to address the constitutional issue that at the point of recipe, I believe the Physician makes the resolution to prescribe based almost solely on what is best for the calm in front of them, not in opposition to the population. Rather than bemoan this in plain sight lack of ‘bigger picture’ contemplation, I hope most patients are reassured by this. The responsibility to the patients to whom you take direct duty of care is a part fundamentally ingrained into the role of the Physician, the two ethically and legally.

Ethically it is cruel to justify a decision for a persevering to take on a certain hazard (risk of delay in treatment admitting that it is an antibiotic-requiring plight, or risk of viral turning into after bacterial infection) for the benefit of others in the people.  Ethically, it is much to a greater degree viable to ask a patient to take adhering this risk if there is also a balancing benefit for that corresponding; of like kind patient. Arguably Physicians in Antimicrobial Stewardship roles be delivered of duties of care to the unalloyed local patient population, to protect them from check, and one may view their service in rational antibiotic prescribing rather like the Chief Medical Officer of an institution – able to make bigger decisions as far as concerns the greatest good. The threat of coming resistance to a population is a message that can work for Stewards, on the other hand it is not one that addresses the everyday prescriber.

Thus, to fundamentally impair antibiotic use, clear, well-presented advantageous data providing evidence on the magnitude of the potential benefit for the unrepining (namely how small this is) however also useful evidence on the potential detriment of antibiotics, not to the peopling, but to the individual patient who decree receive them.

The C.diff epidemic produced huge changes in antibiotic conversion to an act for precisely this reason I purpose. ‘By giving my patient ciprofloxacin I may incitement harm’. It’s also why I think to be true microbiome research has great potential – the detriment to beneficial commensals, possible reduction of ‘colonisation resistance’, and a victory understanding of the relationship between antibiotic exercise, colonisation with clonal, resistant strains and coming time resistant infection to the patient. Of total the multitude of messages I’ve delivered to physicians – elder and junior – I’ve plant this is consistently the area of ut~ interest amidst the yawn-fest of opposition data.

One can imagine a denoting futurity where one applies a scoring regularity akin to the CHADS2VASC (risk to the calm with AF of ischaemic stroke) against HASBLED (risk to the patient from anticoagulation), unless with antibiotic use. The ‘Likelihood-Severity-SafetyNet’ charge of benefit of antibiotic,  against the ‘LikelyResistanceCarriage-Resistogenicity’ score of calamitous consequences. Perhaps it’s not practicable. But maybe just reinforcing this method of thought into the minds of clinicians – that there’s a surplus rather than the currently one-sided epitome of ‘give-antibiotics-just-in-case’, may hinder meaningfully change practice either towards smaller antibiotics, or towards narrower spectrums at which place predictions of future resistance currently miss fire.

I had a senior clinician speech to me just the other generation “We really don’t not to be present to give this lady co-amoxiclav in the place of a chest infection – she’s deserved had an ESBL UTI and it’ll blow everything else out – she’ll candid be 100% ESBL”. That sort of reflection, maybe, where lectures and education sessions forward AMR are currently falling on closed ears, we have power to use to change hearts and minds, and behaviour.



Nicola Fawcett is an Acute Medicine Trainee  and generally a MRC Clinical Research Fellow through the Crook/Peto Group at the Nuffield Deptartment of Medicine in Oxford, currently undertaking a D.Phil studying antibiotic hindrance in the gut microbiome. Twitter: @drnjfawcett.

Note from original : Credit for the discussions on prescribing behaviour, deontology and strong messages go to the Health Psychologists and other members of my Department; I’m summarising which we’ve all been discussing. Also to the healer population of the John Radcliffe Hospital who betray you when you’re talking tripe during Stewardship sessions, but also commit and discuss what might actually be; honest counter-opinions are worth a the great body of the people bored ‘whatever’s. In this bit I haven’t addressed the other issues in that various physicians are unconvinced by the make manifest that changing prescribing will make a single one difference to resistance, and convincing physicians of the immediacy of the question with antibiotic resistance; but these are topics as far as concerns another day, or another post!

Do you agree? Do you firmly quarrel? This blog is presenting a provocative position rather than a comprehensive overview,  designed to stir up discussion – do you think this represents your views or those of your colleagues? Please make notes below – I’d love to heed!

You need to include what your triggers are and exactly how you really feel when exposed to these triggers.