Cargando…

Exploring two distinct gentamicin prescribing protocols in UK hospitals: a mixed-methods realist evaluation

OBJECTIVES: Gentamicin is the aminoglycoside antibiotic of choice in the UK. It has a narrow therapeutic index: underdosing results in inefficacy while overdosing is characterised by nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity. To improve patient safety, hospitals have protocols for the prescription of gentamici...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dyar, Nadine, Mattick, Karen, Bethune, Rob
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8704981/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34949620
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052697
_version_ 1784621834809901056
author Dyar, Nadine
Mattick, Karen
Bethune, Rob
author_facet Dyar, Nadine
Mattick, Karen
Bethune, Rob
author_sort Dyar, Nadine
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Gentamicin is the aminoglycoside antibiotic of choice in the UK. It has a narrow therapeutic index: underdosing results in inefficacy while overdosing is characterised by nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity. To improve patient safety, hospitals have protocols for the prescription of gentamicin, which vary in complexity and approach. This study aimed to explore two distinct protocols for prescribing gentamicin in hospital settings, in order to understand the mechanisms they trigger and the outcomes they achieve. SETTING: A mixed-methods realist evaluation explored gentamicin prescribing protocols in two hospital surgical admissions units in South West England between January and August 2018. Site 1 had a traditional, complex protocol, while site 2 took a simplified protocol. PARTICIPANTS: Testing the initial programme theory (IPT) involved semi-structured audio-recorded interviews of a volunteer sample of healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in the prescribing and administering process, alongside a clinical audit reviewing accuracy of gentamicin prescribing. OUTCOME MEASURES: Three sequential phases were used to identify factors in a successful protocol: IPT generation; testing; refinement of the IPT. The IPT was generated by literature search and analysis of existing protocols of sites 1 and 2. Refinement of the IPT synthesised the results of the quantitative and qualitative research to identify the key characteristics of a successful protocol. RESULTS: One hundred gentamicin prescriptions were reviewed, with a mean accuracy of gentamicin prescribing at site 1 of 65.67% and at site 2 of 78.79% (p<0.01). Thirty HCPs were interviewed. Key contexts were identified including prescriptiveness, experience and availability of patient information. These triggered hidden mechanisms including uncertainty, fear, confidence and frustration leading to both intended outcomes but also unintended outcomes such as deviation from protocol and unnecessary gentamicin levels. CONCLUSIONS: A simplified prescribing protocol for gentamicin is better accepted by prescribers, leading to better adherence to protocol and more accurate prescribing.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8704981
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87049812022-01-10 Exploring two distinct gentamicin prescribing protocols in UK hospitals: a mixed-methods realist evaluation Dyar, Nadine Mattick, Karen Bethune, Rob BMJ Open Qualitative Research OBJECTIVES: Gentamicin is the aminoglycoside antibiotic of choice in the UK. It has a narrow therapeutic index: underdosing results in inefficacy while overdosing is characterised by nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity. To improve patient safety, hospitals have protocols for the prescription of gentamicin, which vary in complexity and approach. This study aimed to explore two distinct protocols for prescribing gentamicin in hospital settings, in order to understand the mechanisms they trigger and the outcomes they achieve. SETTING: A mixed-methods realist evaluation explored gentamicin prescribing protocols in two hospital surgical admissions units in South West England between January and August 2018. Site 1 had a traditional, complex protocol, while site 2 took a simplified protocol. PARTICIPANTS: Testing the initial programme theory (IPT) involved semi-structured audio-recorded interviews of a volunteer sample of healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in the prescribing and administering process, alongside a clinical audit reviewing accuracy of gentamicin prescribing. OUTCOME MEASURES: Three sequential phases were used to identify factors in a successful protocol: IPT generation; testing; refinement of the IPT. The IPT was generated by literature search and analysis of existing protocols of sites 1 and 2. Refinement of the IPT synthesised the results of the quantitative and qualitative research to identify the key characteristics of a successful protocol. RESULTS: One hundred gentamicin prescriptions were reviewed, with a mean accuracy of gentamicin prescribing at site 1 of 65.67% and at site 2 of 78.79% (p<0.01). Thirty HCPs were interviewed. Key contexts were identified including prescriptiveness, experience and availability of patient information. These triggered hidden mechanisms including uncertainty, fear, confidence and frustration leading to both intended outcomes but also unintended outcomes such as deviation from protocol and unnecessary gentamicin levels. CONCLUSIONS: A simplified prescribing protocol for gentamicin is better accepted by prescribers, leading to better adherence to protocol and more accurate prescribing. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-12-23 /pmc/articles/PMC8704981/ /pubmed/34949620 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052697 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Qualitative Research
Dyar, Nadine
Mattick, Karen
Bethune, Rob
Exploring two distinct gentamicin prescribing protocols in UK hospitals: a mixed-methods realist evaluation
title Exploring two distinct gentamicin prescribing protocols in UK hospitals: a mixed-methods realist evaluation
title_full Exploring two distinct gentamicin prescribing protocols in UK hospitals: a mixed-methods realist evaluation
title_fullStr Exploring two distinct gentamicin prescribing protocols in UK hospitals: a mixed-methods realist evaluation
title_full_unstemmed Exploring two distinct gentamicin prescribing protocols in UK hospitals: a mixed-methods realist evaluation
title_short Exploring two distinct gentamicin prescribing protocols in UK hospitals: a mixed-methods realist evaluation
title_sort exploring two distinct gentamicin prescribing protocols in uk hospitals: a mixed-methods realist evaluation
topic Qualitative Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8704981/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34949620
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052697
work_keys_str_mv AT dyarnadine exploringtwodistinctgentamicinprescribingprotocolsinukhospitalsamixedmethodsrealistevaluation
AT mattickkaren exploringtwodistinctgentamicinprescribingprotocolsinukhospitalsamixedmethodsrealistevaluation
AT bethunerob exploringtwodistinctgentamicinprescribingprotocolsinukhospitalsamixedmethodsrealistevaluation