ABSTRACT
Purpose The emergence of antimicrobial resistance has led to increasing efforts to reduce unnecessary use of antibiotics in primary care, but potential hazards from bacterial infection continue to cause concern. This study investigated how primary care prescribers evaluate the risks of reduced antibiotic prescribing.
Methods Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews conducted with primary care prescribers from 10 general practices in an urban area and a shire town in England. A thematic analysis was conducted.
Results Thirty participants were recruited, including 23 general practitioners, 5 nurses and 2 pharmacists. Three main themes were identified: risk assessment; balancing treatment risks; and negotiating decisions and risks. Respondents indicated that their decisions were grounded in clinical risk assessment, but this was informed by different approaches to antibiotic use, with most leaning towards reduced prescribing. Prescribers’ perceptions of risk included the consequences of both inappropriate prescribing and inappropriate withholding of antibiotics. Sepsis was viewed as the most concerning potential outcome of non-prescribing, leading to possible patient harm and potential litigation. Risks of antibiotic prescribing included antibiotic resistant and C. difficile infections, as well as side effects, such as rashes, that might lead to possible mislabelling as antibiotic allergy. Prescribers elicited patient preferences for use or avoidance of antibiotics to inform management strategies, which included educational advice, advice on self-management including warning signs, use of delayed prescriptions, and safety netting.
Conclusions Attitudes towards antibiotic prescribing are evolving, with reduced antibiotic prescribing now being approached more systematically. The safety trade-offs associated with either use or non-use of antibiotics present difficulties especially when prescribing decisions are inconsistent with patients’ expectations.
Strengths and limitations of this study
The study provides an investigation of primary care prescribers’ perceptions, emphasising safety perspectives in the context of antimicrobial stewardship.
The main themes identified may inform the basis for future improvement and antimicrobial stewardship programs.
The study is based on interviews with prescribers and may be susceptible to the limitations associated with qualitative interview studies
The diverse sample of participants provide a good spread of opinions that are of a high validity and rigorously analysed.
The study may lack generalisability beyond high-income countries.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Funding: The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Programme (16/116/46). MG was supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Guy*s and St Thomas’ Hospitals. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health. The funder of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. The authors had full access to all the data in the study and all authors shared final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data availability statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
