Dataset Information

The Differences in Antibiotic Decision-making Between Acute Surgical and Acute Medical Teams: An Ethnographic Study of Culture and Team Dynamics.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cultural and social determinants influence antibiotic decision-making in hospitals. We investigated and compared cultural determinants of antibiotic decision-making in acute medical and surgical specialties.

Methods

An ethnographic observational study of antibiotic decision-making in acute medical and surgical teams at a London teaching hospital was conducted (August 2015-May 2017). Data collection included 500 hours of direct observations, and face-to-face interviews with 23 key informants. A grounded theory approach, aided by Nvivo 11 software, analyzed the emerging themes. An iterative and recursive process of analysis ensured saturation of the themes. The multiple modes of enquiry enabled cross-validation and triangulation of the findings.

Results

In medicine, accepted norms of the decision-making process are characterized as collectivist (input from pharmacists, infectious disease, and medical microbiology teams), rationalized, and policy-informed, with emphasis on de-escalation of therapy. The gaps in antibiotic decision-making in acute medicine occur chiefly in the transition between the emergency department and inpatient teams, where ownership of the antibiotic prescription is lost. In surgery, team priorities are split between 3 settings: operating room, outpatient clinic, and ward. Senior surgeons are often absent from the ward, leaving junior staff to make complex medical decisions. This results in defensive antibiotic decision-making, leading to prolonged and inappropriate antibiotic use.

Conclusions

In medicine, the legacy of infection diagnosis made in the emergency department determines antibiotic decision-making. In surgery, antibiotic decision-making is perceived as a nonsurgical intervention that can be delegated to junior staff or other specialties. Different, bespoke approaches to optimize antibiotic prescribing are therefore needed to address these specific challenges.

SUBMITTER: Charani E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6579961 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to examine effectiveness of codesigned quality-improving interventions with a multidisciplinary team (MDT) with high workload and prolonged meetings to ascertain: (1) presence and impact of decision-making (DM) fatigue on team performance in the weekly MDT meeting and (2) impact of a short meeting break as a countermeasure of DM fatigue.Design and interventionsThis is a longitudinal multiphase study with a codesigned intervention bundle assessed within team audit and feedback cycles. The interventions comprised short meeting breaks, as well as change of room layout and appointing a meeting chair.Setting and participantsA breast cancer MDT with 15 members was recruited between 2013 and 2015 from a teaching hospital of the London (UK) metropolitan area.MeasuresA validated observational tool (Metric for the Observation of Decision-making) was used by trained raters to assess quality of DM during 1335 patient reviews. The tool scores quality of information and team contributions to reviews by individual disciplines (Likert-based scores), which represent our two primary outcome measures.ResultsData were analysed using multivariate analysis of variance. DM fatigue was present in the MDT meetings: quality of information (M=16.36?to M=15.10) and contribution scores (M=27.67?to M=21.52) declined from first to second half of meetings at baseline. Of the improvement bundle, we found breaks reduced the effect of fatigue: following introduction of breaks (but not other interventions) information quality remained stable between first and second half of meetings (M=16.00?to M=15.94), and contributions to team DM improved overall (M=17.66?to M=19.85).ConclusionQuality of cancer team DM is affected by fatigue due to sequential case review over often prolonged periods of time. This detrimental effect can be reversed by introducing a break in the middle of the meeting. The study offers a methodology based on 'team audit and feedback' principle for codesigning interventions to improve teamwork in cancer care.

Project description:BackgroundMultidisciplinary teams (MDT) formulate expert informed treatment recommendations for people with cancer. We set out to examine how the factors proposed by the functional perspective of group decision making (DM), that is, interaction process, internal factors (factors emanating from within the group such as group size), external circumstances (factors coming from the outside of the team), and case-complexity affect the quality of MDT decision making.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional observational study. Three cancer MDTs were recruited with 44 members overall and 30 of their weekly meetings filmed. Validated observational instruments were used to measure quality of DM, interactions, and complexity of 822 case discussions.ResultsThe full regression model with the variables proposed by the functional perspective was significant, R2 = 0.52, F(20, 801) = 43.47, P < .001, adjusted R2 = 0.51. Positive predictors of DM quality were asking questions (P = .001), providing answers (P = .001), team size (P = .007), gender balance (P = .003), and clinical complexity (P = .001), while negative socioemotional reactions (P = .007), gender imbalance (P = .003), logistical issues (P = .001), time-workload pressures (P = .002), and time spent in the meeting (P = .001) were negative predictors. Second half of the meetings also saw significant decrease in the DM quality (P = .001), interactions (P = .001), group size (P = .003), and clinical complexity (P = .001), and an increase in negative socioemotional reactions (P = .001) and time-workload pressures (P = .001).DiscussionTo the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to attempt to assess the factors proposed by the functional perspective in cancer MDTs. One novel finding is the effect of sociocognitive factors on team DM quality, while another is the cognitive-catch 22 effect: while the case discussions are significantly simpler in the second half of the meeting, there is significantly less time left to discuss the remaining cases, further adding to the cognitive taxation in teams who are now rapidly attempting to close their time-workload gap. Implications are discussed in relation to quality and safety.

Project description:BackgroundThe contribution of patients' non-medical characteristics to individual physicians' decision-making has attracted considerable attention, but little information is available on this topic in the context of collective decision-making. Medical decision-making at cancer centres is currently carried out using a collective approach, at MultiDisciplinary Team (MDT) meetings. The aim of this study was to determine how patients' non-medical characteristics are presented at MDT meetings and how this information may affect the team's final medical decisions.DesignObservations were conducted at a French Cancer Centre during MDT meetings at which non-standard cases involving some uncertainty were discussed from March to May 2014. Physicians' verbal statements and predefined contextual parameters were collected with a non-participant observational approach. Non numerical data collected in the form of open notes were then coded for quantitative analysis. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were performed.ResultsIn the final sample of patients' records included and discussed (N = 290), non-medical characteristics were mentioned in 32.8% (n = 95) of the cases. These characteristics corresponded to demographics in 22.8% (n = 66) of the cases, psychological data in 11.7% (n = 34), and relational data in 6.2% (n = 18). The patient's age and his/her "likeability" were the most frequently mentioned characteristics. In 17.9% of the cases discussed, the final decision was deferred: this outcome was positively associated with the patients' non-medical characteristics and with uncertainty about the outcome of the therapeutic options available.LimitationsThe design of the study made it difficult to draw definite cause-and-effect conclusions.ConclusionThe Social Representations approach suggests that patients' non-medical characteristics constitute a kind of tacit professional knowledge that may be frequently mobilised in physicians' everyday professional practice. The links observed between patients' attributes and the medical decisions made at these meetings show that these attributes should be taken into account in order to understand how medical decisions are reached in difficult situations of this kind.

Project description:BackgroundSurgical patients incur preventable harm from cognitive and judgment errors made under time constraints and uncertainty regarding patients' diagnoses and predicted response to treatment. Decision analysis and techniques of reinforcement learning theoretically can mitigate these challenges but are poorly understood and rarely used clinically. This review seeks to promote an understanding of decision analysis and reinforcement learning by describing their use in the context of surgical decision-making.MethodsCochrane, EMBASE, and PubMed databases were searched from their inception to June 2019. Included were 41 articles about cognitive and diagnostic errors, decision-making, decision analysis, and machine-learning. The articles were assimilated into relevant categories according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines.ResultsRequirements for time-consuming manual data entry and crude representations of individual patients and clinical context compromise many traditional decision-support tools. Decision analysis methods for calculating probability thresholds can inform population-based recommendations that jointly consider risks, benefits, costs, and patient values but lack precision for individual patient-centered decisions. Reinforcement learning, a machine-learning method that mimics human learning, can use a large set of patient-specific input data to identify actions yielding the greatest probability of achieving a goal. This methodology follows a sequence of events with uncertain conditions, offering potential advantages for personalized, patient-centered decision-making. Clinical application would require secure integration of multiple data sources and attention to ethical considerations regarding liability for errors and individual patient preferences.ConclusionTraditional decision-support tools are ill-equipped to accommodate time constraints and uncertainty regarding diagnoses and the predicted response to treatment, both of which often impair surgical decision-making. Decision analysis and reinforcement learning have the potential to play complementary roles in delivering high-value surgical care through sound judgment and optimal decision-making.

Project description:ObjectivesPressures on healthcare systems due to COVID-19 has impacted patients without COVID-19 with surgery disproportionally affected. This study aims to understand the impact on the initial management of patients with brain tumours by measuring changes to normal multidisciplinary team (MDT) decision making.DesignA prospective survey performed in UK neurosurgical units performed from 23 March 2020 until 24 April 2020.SettingRegional neurosurgical units outside London (as the pandemic was more advanced at time of study).ParticipantsRepresentatives from all units were invited to collect data on new patients discussed at their MDT meetings during the study period. Each unit decided if management decision for each patient had changed due to COVID-19.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary outcome measures included number of patients where the decision to undergo surgery changed compared with standard management usually offered by that MDT. Secondary outcome measures included changes in surgical extent, numbers referred to MDT, number of patients denied surgery not receiving any treatment and reasons for any variation across the UK.Results18 units (75%) provided information from 80 MDT meetings that discussed 1221 patients. 10.7% of patients had their management changed-the majority (68%) did not undergo surgery and more than half of this group not undergoing surgery had no active treatment. There was marked variation across the UK (0%-28% change in management). Units that did not change management could maintain capacity with dedicated oncology lists. Low volume units were less affected.ConclusionCOVID-19 has had an impact on patients requiring surgery for malignant brain tumours, with patients receiving different treatments-most commonly not receiving surgery or any treatment at all. The variations show dedicated cancer operating lists may mitigate these pressures.Study registrationThis study was registered with the Royal College of Surgeons of England's COVID-19 Research Group (https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/coronavirus/rcs-covid-research-group/).