Feasibility of a placebo-controlled trial of antibiotics for possible urinary tract infection in care homes: a qualitative interview study.

care home feasibility studies general practice primary health care qualitative research urinary tract infections

Journal

BJGP open
ISSN: 2398-3795
Titre abrégé: BJGP Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101713531

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Sep 2023
Historique:
received: 23 01 2023
revised: 16 03 2023
accepted: 25 04 2023
medline: 25 5 2023
pubmed: 25 5 2023
entrez: 24 5 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Diagnosis of suspected urinary tract infection (UTI) in care and nursing home residents is commonly based on vague non-localising symptoms (for example, confusion), potentially leading to inappropriate antibiotic prescription. The safety of withholding antibiotics in such cases could be addressed by a randomised controlled trial (RCT); however, this would require close monitoring of residents, and support from care home staff, clinicians, residents, and families. To explore the views of residential care and nursing home staff (herein referred to as care home staff) and primary care clinicians on the feasibility and design of a potential RCT of antibiotics for suspected UTI in care home residents, with no localising urinary symptoms. A qualitative interview study with primary care clinicians and care home staff in the UK. Semi-structured interviews with 16 care home staff and 11 primary care clinicians were thematically analysed. Participants were broadly supportive of the proposed RCT. The safety of residents was a priority and there was strong support for using the RESTORE2 (Recognise Early Soft Signs, Take Observations, Respond, Escalate) assessment tool to monitor residents; however, there were concerns about associated training requirements, especially for night and temporary staff. Effective communication (with residents, families, and staff) was deemed essential, and carers were confident that residents and families would be supportive of the RCT if the rationale was clearly explained and safety systems were robust. There were mixed views on a placebo-controlled design. The perceived additional burden was seen as a potential barrier, and the use of temporary staff and the out-of-hours period were highlighted as potential risk areas. The support for this potential trial was encouraging. Future development will need to prioritise resident safety (especially in the out-of-hours period), effective communication, and minimising additional burden on staff to optimise recruitment.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Diagnosis of suspected urinary tract infection (UTI) in care and nursing home residents is commonly based on vague non-localising symptoms (for example, confusion), potentially leading to inappropriate antibiotic prescription. The safety of withholding antibiotics in such cases could be addressed by a randomised controlled trial (RCT); however, this would require close monitoring of residents, and support from care home staff, clinicians, residents, and families.
AIM OBJECTIVE
To explore the views of residential care and nursing home staff (herein referred to as care home staff) and primary care clinicians on the feasibility and design of a potential RCT of antibiotics for suspected UTI in care home residents, with no localising urinary symptoms.
DESIGN & SETTING METHODS
A qualitative interview study with primary care clinicians and care home staff in the UK.
METHOD METHODS
Semi-structured interviews with 16 care home staff and 11 primary care clinicians were thematically analysed.
RESULTS RESULTS
Participants were broadly supportive of the proposed RCT. The safety of residents was a priority and there was strong support for using the RESTORE2 (Recognise Early Soft Signs, Take Observations, Respond, Escalate) assessment tool to monitor residents; however, there were concerns about associated training requirements, especially for night and temporary staff. Effective communication (with residents, families, and staff) was deemed essential, and carers were confident that residents and families would be supportive of the RCT if the rationale was clearly explained and safety systems were robust. There were mixed views on a placebo-controlled design. The perceived additional burden was seen as a potential barrier, and the use of temporary staff and the out-of-hours period were highlighted as potential risk areas.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
The support for this potential trial was encouraging. Future development will need to prioritise resident safety (especially in the out-of-hours period), effective communication, and minimising additional burden on staff to optimise recruitment.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37225255
pii: BJGPO.2023.0014
doi: 10.3399/BJGPO.2023.0014
pmc: PMC10646207
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023, The Authors.

Références

BMJ Open. 2021 Jul 27;11(7):e045469
pubmed: 34315790
Lancet. 2001 Aug 11;358(9280):483-8
pubmed: 11513933
Age Ageing. 2015 Sep;44(5):853-60
pubmed: 26104506
Lancet Infect Dis. 2021 Nov;21(11):1549-1556
pubmed: 34303417
Nurs Open. 2022 Jan;9(1):519-526
pubmed: 34780677
Drugs Aging. 2021 Jan;38(1):29-41
pubmed: 33174126
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2001 Mar;22(3):167-75
pubmed: 11310697
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2019 Mar 1;74(3):791-797
pubmed: 30566597
Age Ageing. 2022 Jun 1;51(6):
pubmed: 35697352
Emerg Med J. 2020 May;37(5):279-285
pubmed: 31919235
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Antibiotics (Basel). 2020 Jun 25;9(6):
pubmed: 32630549
Can Fam Physician. 2020 Sep;66(9):651-659
pubmed: 32933978
J Hosp Infect. 2019 Apr;101(4):426-427
pubmed: 30826342
BMC Geriatr. 2022 Mar 31;22(1):265
pubmed: 35361162
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018 Feb;66(2):274-281
pubmed: 29318570
BMJ Open. 2020 Jan 9;10(1):e028494
pubmed: 31924627
BMC Res Notes. 2015 Jul 16;8:306
pubmed: 26179284
BMC Geriatr. 2020 Feb 14;20(1):59
pubmed: 32059649
BMC Res Notes. 2019 Aug 14;12(1):508
pubmed: 31412910
BJGP Open. 2020 Aug 25;4(3):
pubmed: 32576575
BMC Geriatr. 2019 Feb 4;19(1):32
pubmed: 30717706

Auteurs

Christopher R Wilcox (CR)

Primary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK Christopher.Wilcox@soton.ac.uk.

Louise Worswick (L)

Primary Care Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Ingrid Muller (I)

Primary Care Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Abigail Moore (A)

Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Gail Hayward (G)

Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Mark Lown (M)

Primary Care Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Michael Moore (M)

Primary Care Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Paul Little (P)

Primary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Nick Francis (N)

Primary Care Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Classifications MeSH