Addressing the silent pandemic of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a focus of the 2021 G7 meeting. A major driver of AMR and poor clinical outcomes is suboptimal antimicrobial use. Current research in AMR is inequitably focused on new drug development. To achieve antimicrobial security we need to balance AMR research efforts between development of new agents and strategies to preserve the efficacy and maximise effectiveness of existing agents.

Background: The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise peer-reviewed literature assessing the impact of electronic prescribing (eP) systems on the working practices of healthcare professionals (HCPs) in the inpatient setting and identify implications for practice and research. Methods: We searched PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane and the Cumulative Index to Nursing Allied Health Literature databases for studies published from inception to November 2018. We included controlled, uncontrolled, observational and descriptive studies that explored the effect of eP on HCPs’ working practices in an inpatient setting. Data on setting, eP system and impact on working practices were extracted. Methodological quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Emergent themes were identified and subjected to narrative synthesis. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (registration CRD42017075804). Results: Searches identified 1301 titles and abstracts after duplicate removal. 171 papers underwent full-text review. A total of 25 studies met the inclusion criteria, from nine different countries. Nineteen were of commercial eP systems. There were a range of study designs; most (n = 14) adopted quantitative methods such as cross-sectional surveys, ten adopted qualitative approaches and a further one used mixed methods. Fourteen of the 25 studies were deemed to be of high quality. Four key themes were identified: communication, time taken to complete tasks, clinical workflow, and workarounds. Within each theme, study findings differed as to whether the effects of eP on HCPs’ working practices were positive or negative. Conclusion: There is a lack of consensus within the literature on the impact of eP on HCPs’ working practices. Future research should explore the strategies resulting in a positive impact on HCPs’ working practices and learn from those that have not been successful.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the delivery of primary care services. We aimed to identify general practitioners’ (GPs’) perceptions and experiences of how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced antibiotic prescribing and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) in general practice in England. Twenty-four semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 GPs at two time-points: autumn 2020 (14 interviews) and spring 2021 (10 interviews). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically, taking a longitudinal approach. Participants reported a lower threshold for antibiotic prescribing (and fewer consultations) for respiratory infections and COVID-19 symptoms early in the pandemic, then returning to more usual (pre-pandemic) prescribing. They perceived the pandemic as having had less impact on antibiotic prescribing for urinary and skin infections. Participants perceived the changing ways of working and consulting (e.g., proportions of remote and in-person consultations) in addition to changing patient presentations and GP workloads as influencing the fluctuations in antibiotic prescribing. This was compounded by decreased engagement with, and priority of, AMS due to COVID-19-related urgent priorities. Re-engagement with AMS is needed, e.g., through reviving antibiotic prescribing feedback and targets/incentives. The pandemic disrupted, and required adaptations in, the usual ways of working and AMS. It is now important to identify opportunities, e.g., for re-organising ways of managing infections and AMS in the future.

The increasing adoption of hospital electronic prescribing and medication administration (ePA) systems has driven a wealth of research around the impact on patient safety. Yet relatively little research has sought to understand the effects on staff, particularly pharmacists. We aimed to investigate the effects of ePA on pharmacists’ activities, including interactions with patients and health professionals, and their perceptions of medication safety risks. A mixed methods study comprising quantitative direct observations of ward pharmacists before and after implementation of ePA in an English hospital, and semi-structured interviews post-ePA. Quantitative data comprised multi-dimensional work activity sampling to establish the proportion of time ward pharmacists spent on different tasks, with whom and where. These data were extrapolated to estimate task duration. Qualitative interviews with pharmacists explored perceived impact on (i) ward activities, (ii) interactions with patients and different health professionals, (iii) locations where tasks were carried out, and (iv) medication errors. Observations totalled 116 h and 50 min. Task duration analysis suggested screening inpatient medication increased by 16 mins per 10 patients reviewed (p = 0.002), and searching for paper drug charts or computer decreased by 2 mins per 10 patients reviewed (p = 0.001). Pharmacists mainly worked alone (58% of time pre- and 65% post-ePA, p = 0.17), with patient interactions reducing from 5 to 2% of time (p = 0.03). Seven main themes were identified from the interviews, underpinned by a core explanatory concept around the enhanced and shifting role of the ward pharmacist post-ePA. Pharmacists perceived there to be a number of valuable safety features with ePA. However, paradoxically, some of these may have also inadvertently contributed to medication errors. This study provides quantitative and qualitative insights into the effects of implementing ePA on ward pharmacists’ activities. Some tasks took longer while others reduced, and pharmacists may spend less time with patients with ePA. Pharmacists valued a number of safety features associated with ePA but also perceived an overall increase in medication risk. Pharmacy staff demonstrated a degree of resilience to ensure ‘business as usual’ by enhancing and adapting their role.

We describe the trend of antibiotic prescribing in out-of-hours (OOH) general practices (GP) before and during England’s first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. We analysed practice-level prescribing records between January 2016 to June 2020 to report the trends for the total prescribing volume, prescribing of broad-spectrum antibiotics and key agents included in the national Quality Premium. We performed a time-series analysis to detect measurable changes in the prescribing volume associated with COVID-19. Before COVID-19, the total prescribing volume and the percentage of broad-spectrum antibiotics continued to decrease in-hours (IH). The prescribing of broad-spectrum antibiotics was higher in OOH (OOH: 10.1%, IH: 8.7%), but a consistent decrease in the trimethoprim-to-nitrofurantoin ratio was observed OOH. The OOH antibiotic prescribing volume diverged from the historical trend in March 2020 and started to decrease by 5088 items per month. Broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing started to increase in OOH and IH. In OOH, co-amoxiclav and doxycycline peaked in March to May in 2020, which was out of sync with seasonality peaks (Winter) in previous years. While this increase might be explained by the implementation of the national guideline to use co-amoxiclav and doxycycline to manage pneumonia in the community during COVID-19, further investigation is required to see whether the observed reduction in OOH antibiotic prescribing persists and how this reduction might influence antimicrobial resistance and patient outcomes.

National Health Service (NHS) guidance for acute respiratory tract infections (RTIs) advocates self-care, encourages utilization of local pharmacies and recommends consulting general practitioners (GPs) primarily for the vulnerable or those with persistent symptoms. Coronavirus disease 2019 exerted substantial strain on the English NHS, affecting public access to primary care services. For 3 years, public surveys assessed RTI incidences in the previous 12 months and associated health-seeking behaviours. Telephone surveys of 1676 respondents across England were conducted in March 2021 and 1663 respondents in March 2022. Findings were compared with a face-to-face baseline survey of 2022 respondents from March 2020. Key demographics were representative of the population. In 2021, the proportion of respondents who reported an RTI (51%) significantly declined from 2020 (70%, P < 0.05), then returned to pre-pandemic rates in 2022 (67%). Respondents reported more proactive symptom management in both 2021 and 2022 from 2020: there were greater reports of seeking over-the-counter treatments (55%, 55% vs. 35%, P < 0.05) and use of alternative remedies (38%, 38% vs. 21%, P < 0.05). 2022 observed a reduction in those who reported consulting their GP for their most recent RTI (15%) compared to 2021 (25%, P < 0.05) and 2020 (23%), which was not accounted for through greater consultation rates with other healthcare services. Public health bodies should consider how pandemic-related changes may have facilitated increased self-care for self-limiting infections such as RTIs. Resources and support must include safety-netting advice to safeguard against unintentional consequences of increased self-care.