Background In nursing homes, infections and antibiotic prescriptions are frequent. Nursing home nurses (NHNs) and advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) could promote antibiotic stewardship (ABS). Few studies have explored nurses’ knowledge, perceptions and practices towards ABS in nursing homes and none has investigated the potential evolution of their roles. Objectives To explore French nurses’ perceptions on ABS, current and future potential roles in ABS in nursing homes, as well as facilitators and barriers. Methods We conducted a qualitative study in north-eastern France between October 2020 and March 2021 using semi-structured individual interviews with NHNs and a focus group with APRNs. Transcripts of the interviews were analysed using a thematic analysis. Results Twenty NHNs and seven APRNs participated. They were aware of antibiotic misuse and potential adverse events but lacked knowledge on some ABS aspects. NHNs’ current ABS roles ranged from the detection of clinical infectious signs to clinical monitoring of residents, with some heterogeneity between nurses. They had positive opinions towards playing a more prominent role in ABS. In the future, with additional training, changes in the legislative framework and greater multidisciplinary teamwork, NHNs thought they could prescribe laboratory microbiological analyses and some targeted antibiotic treatments. APRNs thought they could prescribe first-line antibiotics for urinary tract infections. Conclusions French NHNs’ current ABS roles could be expanded and new roles might be considered while taking into account several facilitators and barriers. According to APRNs, they could help to compensate for the limited presence of doctors in nursing homes and develop infectious diseases skills.

Background Selective reporting of antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST) is a recommended antibiotic stewardship strategy, aiming at reducing inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions. Objectives Our objectives were to evaluate (i) the feasibility of the implementation of selective reporting of AST for urine cultures for laboratory professionals; and (ii) its acceptability by prescribers and laboratory professionals, to explore facilitators and barriers to its potential implementation on a national scale. Methods As part of the ‘ANTIBIO-ciblés’ interventional study (north-eastern France, August 2018–December 2019), we prospectively collected quantitative data on all resources dedicated by the laboratories of the intervention group to implement selective reporting of AST for Escherichia coli-positive urine cultures, and on the numbers and reasons of complete reporting of AST the prescribers requested to the laboratories. We also collected qualitative data using semi-structured interviews and focus groups of GPs and laboratory professionals. Results The implementation of selective reporting of AST required around 80 h and cost 23 000 euros. All interviewed professionals were favourable toward the principle of this tool. Most of them found it clear, simple and useful to improve the appropriateness of antibiotic prescriptions and reduce antibiotic resistance. Its major constraint was the necessity for GPs to call the laboratory to obtain the complete reporting of AST, but the number of requests was actually low (1.2% of all selective reporting of AST). Conclusions Selective reporting of AST resulted in reasonable human and financial costs, and was well accepted by both GPs and laboratory professionals.

No abstract

When it comes to smoking, apprentices are considered a ‘vulnerable’ population. They have been the subject of targeted approaches based on the assumption of common characteristics. In contrast to most public health studies, that assume homogeneity of vulnerable groups, this article, based on Lahire’s ‘theory of the plural individual’, aims to examine inter- and intra-individual variability in relation to tobacco exposure. It is based on a secondary analysis of 30 interviews with apprentices in France on the stigma attached to their use in their different living environments. Our study confirms that the family and the Centre de Formation des Apprentis, as a whole, encourage smoking. It also provides a better understanding of the mechanisms by which inequalities are perpetuated (permissive rules, loans and gifts of cigarettes, spillover effects, lack of incentives to quit). Nevertheless, it allows us to observe that, in some families and in some companies, smoking is denormalised, even stigmatised. Several apprentice profiles emerge: those who are protected from tobacco and seem to be able to quit easily; those who are permanently confronted with it and for whom it is difficult to consider quitting or reducing; and those who are confronted with a plurality of norms, who seem ambivalent and whose consumption varies significantly. These results will allow us to adapt the interventions according to the profile of the apprentices and by including their entourage. In particular, it will be necessary to propose a ‘go-to’ approach that goes beyond the school setting and involves the family and the workplace.

Background The ‘AntibioCharte’ randomised controlled study aimed at assessing the impact of a multifaceted antibiotic stewardship intervention targeting French general practitioners with higher-than-average antibiotic use. The intervention included a public commitment charter signed by the general practitioner, a non-prescription pad, and a patient information leaflet. Objectives We conducted a qualitative study to evaluate general practitioners’ fidelity in the intervention and its acceptability by patients and general practitioners. Methods This investigation was performed in northeastern France from July 2019 to May 2020, among the AntibioCharte intervention group after a 1-year implementation period. General practitioners’ fidelity in the charter was assessed by direct observations; general practitioners’ fidelity in the other tools, and acceptability of both general practitioners and patients were assessed through semi-structured face-to-face individual interviews. Results Twenty-seven general practitioners and 14 patients participated. General practitioners’ fidelity varied according to the tool: the charter was clearly displayed in most waiting rooms; the non-prescription pad was used throughout the intervention period by most general practitioners while the leaflet was used by fewer general practitioners. Both general practitioners and patients found the charter’s content and form relevant, but few general practitioners felt themselves publicly engaged. The waiting room may not be appropriate to display the charter as some general practitioners forgot it and patients did not always read the displayed documents. General practitioners appreciated the pad and found that it could help them change their practices. It was perceived as a good tool to educate patients and manage their expectations for antibiotics. Patients appreciated the pad too, especially information on the infections’ symptoms and their duration. Still, some patients feared that it could encourage doctors not to prescribe antibiotics. Unlike general practitioners, who considered the leaflet redundant with the information given during the consultation, patients found it useful to raise awareness on antibiotics’ specificities and risks, and remind them of good practices. Conclusions The AntibioCharte intervention was overall well accepted by general practitioners and patients. The non-prescription pad was the best perceived tool. Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04562571.