scholarly journals Antibiotic prescribing in care homes in the UK, 2016–17: a cross-sectional study of linked data

The Lancet ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 394 ◽  
pp. S6
Author(s):  
Catherine M Smith ◽  
Haydn Williams ◽  
Andrew Normington ◽  
Andrew C Hayward ◽  
Laura J Shallcross
Keyword(s):  
Linked Data ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Care Homes ◽  
Antibiotic Prescribing ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
The Uk

scholarly journals Relationship between prescribing of antibiotics and other medicines in primary care: a cross-sectional study

2018 ◽  
Vol 69 (678) ◽  
pp. e42-e51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yan Li ◽  
Anna Mölter ◽  
Andrew White ◽  
William Welfare ◽  
Victoria Palin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Practice Research ◽  
Clinical Practice Research Datalink ◽  
Antibiotic Prescribing ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Prescribing Practices ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
General Practices ◽  
The Uk

BackgroundHigh levels of antibiotic prescribing are a major concern as they drive antimicrobial resistance. It is currently unknown whether practices that prescribe higher levels of antibiotics also prescribe more medicines in general.AimTo evaluate the relationship between antibiotic and general prescribing levels in primary care.Design and settingCross-sectional study in 2014–2015 of 6517 general practices in England using NHS digital practice prescribing data (NHS-DPPD) for the main study, and of 587 general practices in the UK using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink for a replication study.MethodLinear regression to assess determinants of antibiotic prescribing.ResultsNHS-DPPD practices prescribed an average of 576.1 antibiotics per 1000 patients per year (329.9 at the 5th percentile and 808.7 at the 95th percentile). The levels of prescribing of antibiotics and other medicines were strongly correlated. Practices with high levels of prescribing of other medicines (a rate of 27 159.8 at the 95th percentile) prescribed 80% more antibiotics than low-prescribing practices (rate of 8815.9 at the 5th percentile). After adjustment, NHS-DPPD practices with high prescribing of other medicines gave 60% more antibiotic prescriptions than low-prescribing practices (corresponding to higher prescribing of 276.3 antibiotics per 1000 patients per year). Prescribing of non-opioid painkillers and benzodiazepines were also strong indicators of the level of antibiotic prescribing. General prescribing levels were a much stronger driver for antibiotic prescribing than other risk factors, such as deprivation.ConclusionThe propensity of GPs to prescribe medications generally is an important driver for antibiotic prescribing. Interventions that aim to optimise antibiotic prescribing will need to target general prescribing behaviours, in addition to specifically targeting antibiotics.

scholarly journals 218. Changes in Dental Antibiotic Prescribing in the United States, 2012–2017

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S111-S111
Author(s):  
Swetha Ramanathan ◽  
Connie H Yan ◽  
Colin Hubbard ◽  
Gregory Calip ◽  
Lisa K Sharp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Antibiotic Prescribing ◽  
Prescription Data ◽  
Oral Antibiotic ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Prescribing Trends ◽  
Adults And Children ◽  
Linear Regressions

Abstract Background Data suggest dental antibiotic prescribing is increasing with relatively less documented about prescribing trends in adults and children. Therefore, the aim was to evaluate trends in antibiotic prescribing by US dentists from 2012–2017. Methods This was a cross-sectional study of US dental prescribing using IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription Data from 2012 to 2017. Prescribing rates (prescriptions [Rx] per 100,000 dentists), mean days’ supply, and mean quantity dispensed were calculated monthly across eight oral antibiotic groups: amoxicillin, clindamycin, cephalexin, azithromycin, penicillin, doxycycline, fluoroquinolone, and other antibiotics. Descriptive frequencies and multiple linear regressions were performed to obtain trends overall and stratified by adults (≥ 18) and children (< 18). Results 220, 325 dentists prescribed 135 million Rx (94.0% in adults). 61.0% were amoxicillin, 14.4% clindamycin, 11.7% penicillin, 4.4% azithromycin, 4.3% cephalexin, 2.0% other antibiotics, 1.4% doxycycline, and 0.7% fluoroquinolones. Prescribing increased by 33 Rx/100,000 dentists (p< 0.0001) each month for all antibiotics. Amoxicillin (p< 0.0001) and clindamycin (p=0.02) prescribing rate increased by 73 and 5 Rx/100,000 dentists, respectively. Prescribing decreased by 8, 12, and 2 Rx/100,000 dentists for cephalexin (p< 0.0001), doxycycline (p< 0.0001), and fluoroquinolones (p=0.008), respectively. Mean days’ supply increased for amoxicillin, penicillin, and clindamycin (p< 0.0001), and decreased for cephalexin (p< 0.0001).Mean quantity dispensed decreased (p< 0.0001) for all groups except azithromycin and doxycycline. Among adults, cephalexin prescribing rates (7 Rx/100,000 dentist; p< 0.0001) and other antibiotics days’ supply (p< 0.0001) decreased. Among children, azithromycin prescribing rates (1 Rx/100,000 dentists, p=0.02), and fluoroquinolone and other antibiotics days’ supply (p< 0.0001) decreased. Conclusion These findings support dental antibiotic prescribing is increasing, specifically for amoxicillin and clindamycin. Further, trends differed between adults and children. Understanding what is driving these trends is important to target dental antibiotic stewardship efforts. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

scholarly journals A Cross-Sectional Study of Experiences and Attitudes towards Clinical Audit of Farm Animal Veterinary Surgeons in the United Kingdom

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 84
Author(s):  
Katie Waine ◽  
Rachel S. Dean ◽  
Chris Hudson ◽  
Jonathan Huxley ◽  
Marnie L. Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Audit ◽  
Nationwide Survey ◽  
Clinical Work ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Farm Animal ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Protected Time ◽  
Veterinary Surgeons ◽  
The Uk

Clinical audit is a quality improvement tool used to assess and improve the clinical services provided to patients. This is the first study to investigate the extent to which clinical audit is understood and utilised in farm animal veterinary practice. A cross-sectional study to collect experiences and attitudes of farm animal veterinary surgeons in the UK towards clinical audit was conducted using an online nationwide survey. The survey revealed that whilst just under three-quarters (n = 237/325; 73%) of responding veterinary surgeons had heard of clinical audit, nearly 50% (n = 148/301) had never been involved in a clinical audit of any species. The participants’ knowledge of what a clinical audit was varied substantially, with many respondents reporting not receiving training on clinical audit at the undergraduate or postgraduate level. Respondents that had participated in a clinical audit suggested that protected time away from clinical work was required for the process to be completed successfully. This novel study suggests that clinical audit is undertaken to some extent in farm animal practice and that practitioner perception is that it can bring benefits, but was felt that more resources and support were needed for it to be implemented successfully on a wider scale.

scholarly journals Association between home birth and breast feeding outcomes: a cross-sectional study in 28 125 mother–infant pairs from Ireland and the UK

BMJ Open ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (8) ◽  
pp. e010551 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clare Quigley ◽  
Cristina Taut ◽  
Tamara Zigman ◽  
Louise Gallagher ◽  
Harry Campbell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Feeding ◽  
Home Birth ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
The Uk

scholarly journals A cross-sectional study of all clinicians’ conflict of interest disclosures to NHS hospital employers in England 2015-2016

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. e019952 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harriet Ruth Feldman ◽  
Nicholas J DeVito ◽  
Jonathan Mendel ◽  
David E Carroll ◽  
Ben Goldacre
Keyword(s):  
Conflict Of Interest ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Current System ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
The Gift ◽  
The Uk

ObjectiveWe set out to document how NHS trusts in the UK record and share disclosures of conflict of interest by their employees.DesignCross-sectional study of responses to a Freedom of Information Act request for Gifts and Hospitality Registers.SettingNHS Trusts (secondary/tertiary care organisations) in England.Participants236 Trusts were contacted, of which 217 responded.Main outcome measuresWe assessed all disclosures for completeness and openness, scoring them for achieving each of five measures of transparency.Results185 Trusts (78%) provided a register. 71 Trusts did not respond within the 28 day time limit required by the FoIA. Most COI registers were incomplete by design, and did not contain the information necessary to assess conflicts of interest. 126/185 (68%) did not record the names of recipients. 47/185 (25%) did not record the cash value of the gift or hospitality. Only 31/185 registers (16%) contained the names of recipients, the names of donors, and the cash amounts received. 18/185 (10%) contained none of: recipient name, donor name, and cash amount. Only 15 Trusts had their disclosure register publicly available online (6%). We generated a transparency index assessing whether each Trust met the following criteria: responded on time; provided a register; had a register with fields identifying donor, recipient, and cash amount; provided a register in a format that allowed further analysis; and had their register publicly available online. Mean attainment was 1.9/5; no NHS trust met all five criteria.ConclusionOverall, recording of employees’ conflicts of interest by NHS trusts is poor. None of the NHS Trusts in England met all transparency criteria. 19 did not respond to our FoIA requests, 51 did not provide a Gifts and Hospitality Register and only 31 of the registers provided contained enough information to assess employees’ conflicts of interest. Despite obligations on healthcare professionals to disclose conflicts of interest, and on organisations to record these, the current system for logging and tracking such disclosures is not functioning adequately. We propose a simple national template for reporting conflicts of interest, modelled on the US ‘Sunshine Act’.

scholarly journals Political views of doctors in the UK: a cross-sectional study

2018 ◽  
Vol 72 (10) ◽  
pp. 880-887 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate L Mandeville ◽  
Rose-Marie Satherley ◽  
Jennifer A Hall ◽  
Shailen Sutaria ◽  
Chris Willott ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Online Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Urgent Care ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Left Wing ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Political Views ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact

BackgroundLittle is known about the political views of doctors in the UK despite doctors' importance in the functioning of the National Health Service (NHS).MethodsThis is a survey-based, cross-sectional study in which we asked questions about voting behaviour in 2015 and 2017 UK general elections and 2016 referendum on leaving the European Union (EU) (Brexit), and questions relating to recent health policies.Results1172 doctors (45.1% women) from 1295 responded to an online survey. 60.5% described their political views as ‘left-wing’ and 62.2% described themselves as ‘liberal’. 79.4% of respondents voted to remain in the EU in the 2016 referendum compared with 48.1% of voters as a whole (χ2=819.8, p<0.001). 98.6% of respondents agreed that EU nationals working in the NHS should be able to remain in the UK after Brexit. The median score for the impact of Brexit on the NHS on a scale of 0 (worst impact) to 10 (best impact) was 2 (IQR=1–4). Most respondents agreed with the introduction of minimum alcohol pricing in the UK (73.9%), charging patients who are not eligible for NHS treatment for non-urgent care (70.6%) and protecting a portion of national spending for the NHS (87.1%). 65.8% thought there was too much use of NHS-funded private sector provision in their medical practice. Specialty, income and grade were associated with divergent opinions.ConclusionsUK doctors are left-leaning and liberal in general, which is reflected in their opinions on topical health policy issues. Doctors in the UK voted differently from the general electorate in recent polls.

scholarly journals Survey of the effect of viewing an online e-cigarette advertisement on attitudes towards cigarette and e-cigarette use in adults located in the UK and USA: a cross-sectional study

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. e027525 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Booth ◽  
Ian P Albery ◽  
Sharon Cox ◽  
Daniel Frings
Keyword(s):  
Online Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Social Acceptability ◽  
Cigarette Use ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Likert Scales ◽  
Post Exposure ◽  
Smoking Group ◽  
The Uk

ObjectivesThis study explored the potential for e-cigarette advertisements to (1) enhance attitudes towards cigarettes and/or (2) reduce barriers to e-cigarettes uptake. The study tested whether exposure to an online electronic cigarette advertisement changed attitudes towards cigarettes and e-cigarettes in smokers, non-smokers, e-cigarette users and dual users (smokers who also use e-cigarettes).DesignCross-sectional studySettingOnline surveyParticipantsAdults (n=964) aged 18 to 65 years old (M=36 years, SD=11.6) from the UK and USA. Participants were grouped into current non-smokers, e-cigarette users, dual users and smokers.InterventionsParticipants viewed 1 of 15 randomly assigned online e-cigarette advertisements.Primary measuresThree single seven-point Likert scales measuring health, desirability, social acceptability were completed pre and post advertisement exposure.ResultsPost exposure all smoking groups showed a decrease or no change in how socially acceptable or desirable they rated cigarettes. Paradoxically, dual users rated cigarettes as being significantly healthier after viewing the advertisement (p=0.01) while all other smoking group ratings remained the same. There was an increase or no change in how all smoking groups perceived the healthiness and desirability of e-cigarettesConclusionsWe observed no evidence that exposure to an e-cigarette advertisement renormalises or encourages smoking in smokers, non-smokers or e-cigarette users. However, there is some indication that viewing an e-cigarette advertisement may increase duals users’ perceptions of the health of smoking.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document