Selective decontamination of the digestive tract in critically ill patients treated in intensive care units: a mixed-methods feasibility study (the SuDDICU study).

IF 4 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health technology assessment Pub Date : 2014-04-01 DOI:10.3310/hta18250
Jill J Francis, Eilidh M Duncan, Maria E Prior, Graeme S Maclennan, Stephan Dombrowski, Geoff U Bellingan, Marion K Campbell, Martin P Eccles, Louise Rose, Kathryn M Rowan, Rob Shulman, A Peter R Wilson, Brian H Cuthbertson
{"title":"Selective decontamination of the digestive tract in critically ill patients treated in intensive care units: a mixed-methods feasibility study (the SuDDICU study).","authors":"Jill J Francis, Eilidh M Duncan, Maria E Prior, Graeme S Maclennan, Stephan Dombrowski, Geoff U Bellingan, Marion K Campbell, Martin P Eccles, Louise Rose, Kathryn M Rowan, Rob Shulman, A Peter R Wilson, Brian H Cuthbertson","doi":"10.3310/hta18250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are particularly susceptible to these infections. One intervention that has gained much attention in reducing HAIs is selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD). SDD involves the application of topical non-absorbable antibiotics to the oropharynx and stomach and a short course of intravenous (i.v.) antibiotics. SDD may reduce infections and improve mortality, but has not been widely adopted in the UK or internationally. Hence, there is a need to identify the reasons for low uptake and whether or not further clinical research is needed before wider implementation would be considered appropriate.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The project objectives were to (1) identify and describe the SDD intervention, (2) identify views about the evidence base, (3) identify acceptability of further research and (4) identify feasibility of further randomised controlled trials (RCTs).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A four-stage approach involving (1) case studies of two ICUs in which SDD is delivered including observations, interviews and documentary analysis, (2) a three-round Delphi study for in-depth investigation of clinicians' views, including semi-structured interviews and two iterations of questionnaires with structured feedback, (3) a nationwide online survey of consultants in intensive care medicine and clinical microbiology and (4) semistructured interviews with international clinical triallists to identify the feasibility of further research.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Case studies were set in two UK ICUs. Other stages of this research were conducted by telephone and online with NHS staff working in ICUs.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>(1) Staff involved in SDD adoption or delivery in two UK ICUs, (2) ICU experts (intensive care consultants, clinical microbiologists, hospital pharmacists and ICU clinical leads), (3) all intensive care consultants and clinical microbiologists in the UK with responsibility for patients in ICUs were invited and (4) international triallists, selected from their research profiles in intensive care, clinical trials and/or implementation trials.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>SDD involves the application of topical non-absorbable antibiotics to the oropharynx and stomach and a short course of i.v. antibiotics.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Levels of support for, or opposition to, SDD in UK ICUs; views about the SDD evidence base and about barriers to implementation; and feasibility of further SDD research (e.g. likely participation rates).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>(1) The two case studies identified complexity in the interplay of clinical and behavioural components of SDD, involving multiple staff. However, from the perspective of individual staff, delivery of SDD was regarded as simple and straightforward. (2) The Delphi study (n = 42) identified (a) specific barriers to SDD implementation, (b) uncertainty about the evidence base and (c) bimodal distributions for key variables, e.g. support for, or opposition to, SDD. (3) The national survey (n = 468) identified uncertainty about the effect of SDD on antimicrobial resistance, infection rates, mortality and cost-effectiveness. Most participants would participate in further SDD research. (4) The triallist interviews (n = 10) focused largely on the substantial challenges of conducting a large, multinational clinical effectiveness trial.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There was considerable uncertainty about possible benefits and harms of SDD. Further large-scale clinical effectiveness trials of SDD in ICUs may be required to address these uncertainties, especially relating to antimicrobial resistance. There was a general willingness to participate in a future effectiveness RCT of SDD. However, support was not unanimous. Future research should address the barriers to acceptance and participation in any trial. There was some, but a low level of, interest in adoption of SDD, or studies to encourage implementation of SDD into practice.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.</p>","PeriodicalId":12898,"journal":{"name":"Health technology assessment","volume":"18 25","pages":"1-170"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4967810/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18250","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are particularly susceptible to these infections. One intervention that has gained much attention in reducing HAIs is selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD). SDD involves the application of topical non-absorbable antibiotics to the oropharynx and stomach and a short course of intravenous (i.v.) antibiotics. SDD may reduce infections and improve mortality, but has not been widely adopted in the UK or internationally. Hence, there is a need to identify the reasons for low uptake and whether or not further clinical research is needed before wider implementation would be considered appropriate.

Objectives: The project objectives were to (1) identify and describe the SDD intervention, (2) identify views about the evidence base, (3) identify acceptability of further research and (4) identify feasibility of further randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

Design: A four-stage approach involving (1) case studies of two ICUs in which SDD is delivered including observations, interviews and documentary analysis, (2) a three-round Delphi study for in-depth investigation of clinicians' views, including semi-structured interviews and two iterations of questionnaires with structured feedback, (3) a nationwide online survey of consultants in intensive care medicine and clinical microbiology and (4) semistructured interviews with international clinical triallists to identify the feasibility of further research.

Setting: Case studies were set in two UK ICUs. Other stages of this research were conducted by telephone and online with NHS staff working in ICUs.

Participants: (1) Staff involved in SDD adoption or delivery in two UK ICUs, (2) ICU experts (intensive care consultants, clinical microbiologists, hospital pharmacists and ICU clinical leads), (3) all intensive care consultants and clinical microbiologists in the UK with responsibility for patients in ICUs were invited and (4) international triallists, selected from their research profiles in intensive care, clinical trials and/or implementation trials.

Interventions: SDD involves the application of topical non-absorbable antibiotics to the oropharynx and stomach and a short course of i.v. antibiotics.

Main outcome measures: Levels of support for, or opposition to, SDD in UK ICUs; views about the SDD evidence base and about barriers to implementation; and feasibility of further SDD research (e.g. likely participation rates).

Results: (1) The two case studies identified complexity in the interplay of clinical and behavioural components of SDD, involving multiple staff. However, from the perspective of individual staff, delivery of SDD was regarded as simple and straightforward. (2) The Delphi study (n = 42) identified (a) specific barriers to SDD implementation, (b) uncertainty about the evidence base and (c) bimodal distributions for key variables, e.g. support for, or opposition to, SDD. (3) The national survey (n = 468) identified uncertainty about the effect of SDD on antimicrobial resistance, infection rates, mortality and cost-effectiveness. Most participants would participate in further SDD research. (4) The triallist interviews (n = 10) focused largely on the substantial challenges of conducting a large, multinational clinical effectiveness trial.

Conclusions: There was considerable uncertainty about possible benefits and harms of SDD. Further large-scale clinical effectiveness trials of SDD in ICUs may be required to address these uncertainties, especially relating to antimicrobial resistance. There was a general willingness to participate in a future effectiveness RCT of SDD. However, support was not unanimous. Future research should address the barriers to acceptance and participation in any trial. There was some, but a low level of, interest in adoption of SDD, or studies to encourage implementation of SDD into practice.

Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重症监护病房重症患者选择性消化道净化:一项混合方法可行性研究(SuDDICU研究)
背景:医院获得性感染(HAIs)是发病率和死亡率的主要原因。重症监护病房(icu)的危重病人特别容易受到这些感染。选择性去污消化道(SDD)是减少HAIs的一种干预措施。SDD包括将局部不可吸收的抗生素应用于口咽和胃以及短期静脉注射(i.v.)抗生素。SDD可以减少感染和提高死亡率,但在英国或国际上尚未广泛采用。因此,有必要确定低吸收量的原因,以及是否需要进一步的临床研究,然后才认为更广泛的实施是合适的。目的:该项目的目标是(1)确定和描述SDD干预措施,(2)确定对证据基础的看法,(3)确定进一步研究的可接受性,(4)确定进一步随机对照试验(rct)的可行性。设计:该方法分为四个阶段,包括:(1)对两个提供SDD的icu进行案例研究,包括观察、访谈和文献分析;(2)进行三轮德尔菲研究,深入调查临床医生的观点,包括半结构化访谈和两次结构化反馈问卷的迭代;(3)在全国范围内对重症监护医学和临床微生物学顾问进行在线调查;(4)与国际临床试验人员进行半结构化访谈,以确定进一步研究的可行性。设置:案例研究设置在两个英国icu。本研究的其他阶段是通过电话和在线与在icu工作的NHS工作人员进行的。参与者:(1)在英国两家ICU中参与SDD采用或交付的工作人员,(2)ICU专家(重症监护顾问,临床微生物学家,医院药剂师和ICU临床领导),(3)在英国负责重症监护患者的所有重症监护顾问和临床微生物学家,以及(4)从他们在重症监护,临床试验和/或实施试验方面的研究资料中选择的国际试验学家。干预措施:SDD包括将局部不可吸收的抗生素应用于口咽和胃以及短疗程的静脉注射抗生素。主要结局指标:英国icu患者支持或反对SDD的水平;对SDD证据基础和实施障碍的看法;以及进一步进行可持续发展研究的可行性(例如可能的参与率)。结果:(1)这两个案例研究确定了SDD的临床和行为成分相互作用的复杂性,涉及多名工作人员。然而,从个别员工的角度来看,SDD的交付被认为是简单和直接的。(2)德尔菲研究(n = 42)确定了(a)实施SDD的具体障碍,(b)证据基础的不确定性,以及(c)关键变量的双峰分布,例如支持或反对SDD。(3)全国调查(n = 468)确定了SDD对抗菌素耐药性、感染率、死亡率和成本效益的影响的不确定性。大多数参与者将参与进一步的SDD研究。(4)试验人员访谈(n = 10)主要集中在进行大型跨国临床有效性试验的实质性挑战上。结论:关于SDD可能的益处和危害存在相当大的不确定性。可能需要进一步在重症监护室进行SDD的大规模临床有效性试验,以解决这些不确定性,特别是与抗菌素耐药性有关的不确定性。人们普遍愿意参与SDD的未来有效性随机对照试验。然而,并不是所有人都支持。未来的研究应该解决接受和参与任何试验的障碍。对于采用SDD,或者鼓励将SDD的实现付诸实践的研究,有一些(但水平较低)的兴趣。资助:该项目由国家卫生研究院卫生技术评估规划资助,将全文发表在《卫生技术评估》上;第18卷,第25号请参阅NIHR期刊图书馆网站了解更多项目信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Health technology assessment
Health technology assessment 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
94
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Technology Assessment (HTA) publishes research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS.
期刊最新文献
Relative and bedside nurse assessment of comfort and communication during propofol, dexmedetomidine, or clonidine-based sedation: pre-planned analysis within the A2B RCT. Treatments for renal cell carcinoma: NICE Pilot Treatment Pathways Appraisal. Timing of birth to improve outcomes in chronic or gestational hypertension: the WILL RCT. Dismantling behavioural weight management interventions: component network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and real-world services. Behavioural weight management interventions for the treatment of obesity: network meta-analysis of trial and real-world individual participant data.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1