Background: Antibiotic resistance is a global public health threat. Water from human activities is collected at wastewater treatment plants where processes often do not sufficiently neutralize antibiotic resistant bacteria and genes, which are further shed into the local environment. This protocol outlines the steps to conduct a systematic review based on the Population, Exposure, Comparator and Outcome (PECO) framework, aiming at answering the question “Are antimicrobial-resistant enterobacteriaceae and antimicrobial resistance genes present (O) in air and water samples (P) taken either near or downstream or downwind or down-gradient from wastewater treatment plants (E), as compared to air and water samples taken either further away or upstream or upwind or up-gradient from such wastewater treatment plant (C)?” Presence of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria and genes will be quantitatively measured by extracting their prevalence or concentration, depending on the reviewed study. Methods: We will search PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane database and Web of Science for original articles published from 1 Jan 2000 to 3 Sep 2018 with language restriction. Articles will undergo a relevance and a design screening process. Data from eligible articles will be extracted by two independent reviewers. Further, we will perform a risk of bias assessment using a decision matrix. We will synthesize and present results in narrative and tabular form and will perform a meta-analysis if heterogeneity of results allows it. Discussion: Antibiotic resistance in environmental samples around wastewater treatment plants may pose a risk of exposure to workers and nearby residents. Results from the systematic review outlined in this protocol will allow to estimate the extend of exposure, to inform policy making and help to design future studies.

Background: Guidelines recommend shared decision making (SDM) between neonatologists and parents when a decision has to be made about the continuation of life-sustaining treatment (LST). In a previous study, we found that neonatologists and parents at a German Level-III Neonatal Intensive Care Unit performed SDM to a variable but overall small extent. However, we do not know whether parents in Germany prefer an extent of more or sharing. Methods: We performed a qualitative interview study with parents who participated in our first study. We analyzed the semi-structured interviews with qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz. Results: The participation in medical decision making (MDM) varied across cases. Overall, neonatologists and parents conducted SDM in most cases only to a small extent. All parents appreciated their experience independent of how much they were involved in MDM. The parents who experienced a small extent of sharing were glad that they were protected by neonatologists from having to decide, shielding them from a conflict of interest. The parents who experienced a large extent of sharing especially valued that they were able to fulfil their parental duties even if that meant partaking in a decision to forgo LST. Discussion: Other studies have also found a variety of possibilities for parents to partake in end-of-life decision making (EOL-DM). Our results suggest that parents do not have a uniform preference for one specific decision-making approach, but rather different parents appreciate their individual experience regardless of the model for DM. Conclusion: SDM is apparently not a one-size-fits-all approach. Instead, neonatologists and parents have to adapt the decision-making process to the parents’ individual needs and preferences for autonomy and protection. Therefore, SDM should not be prescribed as a uniform standard in medico-ethical guidelines, but rather as a flexible guidance for DM for critically ill patients in neonatology.