Background Mentorship has been identified as a beneficial practice for doctors and may be particularly valuable for newly appointed consultants. It is associated with a number of potential clinical and non-clinical gains, such as enhanced job satisfaction and well-being. Despite strong support, many formalised schemes fail to launch or gain momentum. Research to date has largely focused on the gains associated with mentorship but has lacked study of the factors that facilitate uptake and maintenance of mentoring relationships by physicians. Objectives To explore perceptions of mentorship, the extent to which UK doctors appear to value mentorship and factors that may contribute to its successful use. Design Qualitative, descriptive, multi-centre study. Sample 30 doctors including registrars, those newly appointed to consultant grade, senior doctors and medical leaders from nine hospitals in the north of England. Method Semistructured individual interviews were undertaken between August and December 2013. Results Findings revealed a demand for mentorship for new consultants, with widely recognised benefits associated with its use. Several factors were identified as critical to successful mentorship relationships, including consistent understanding and expectations of mentorship between mentee and mentor, positive prior experiences, a suitable match between mentee and mentor, making time for people to act as mentors and the ensuring that mentors can meet a diverse and changing set of needs. Conclusions Mentorship for newly appointed consultants is valued, but current models of mentorship may suffer from rigid structures, mismatched expectations of participants and the absence of a culture of mentorship from training into practice. A social network approach, in which doctors have the opportunity to engage with a range of mentors through informal and naturally occurring relationships, may be one way to encourage successful and sustained mentoring relationships among doctors. An organisational culture in which mentorship is permitted and is the norm may enable such approaches to be widely adopted.

BackgroundHospital antimicrobial stewardship strategies, such as ‘Start Smart, Then Focus’ in the UK, balance the need for prompt, effective antibiotic treatment with the need to limit antibiotic overuse using ‘review and revise’. However, only a minority of review decisions are to stop antibiotics. Research suggests that this is due to both behavioural and organizational factors.ObjectivesTo develop and optimize the Antibiotic Review Kit (ARK) intervention. ARK is a complex digital, organizational and behavioural intervention that supports implementation of ‘review and revise’ to help healthcare professionals safely stop unnecessary antibiotics.MethodsA theory-, evidence- and person-based approach was used to develop and optimize ARK and its implementation. This was done through iterative stakeholder consultation and in-depth qualitative research with doctors, nurses and pharmacists in UK hospitals. Barriers to and facilitators of the intervention and its implementation, and ways to address them, were identified and then used to inform the intervention’s development.ResultsA key barrier to stopping antibiotics was reportedly a lack of information about the original prescriber’s rationale for and their degree of certainty about the need for antibiotics. An integral component of ARK was the development and optimization of a Decision Aid and its implementation to increase transparency around initial prescribing decisions.ConclusionsThe key output of this research is a digital and behavioural intervention targeting important barriers to stopping antibiotics at review (see http://bsac-vle.com/ark-the-antibiotic-review-kit/ and http://antibioticreviewkit.org.uk/). ARK will be evaluated in a feasibility study and, if successful, a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized controlled trial at acute hospitals across the NHS.

No abstract

Antibiotic use (and misuse) accelerates antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and addressing this complex problem necessitates behaviour change related to infection prevention and management and to antibiotic prescribing and use. As most antibiotic courses are prescribed in primary care, a key focus of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) is on changing behaviours outside of hospital. Behavioural science draws on behaviour change theories, techniques and methods developed in health psychology, and can be used to help understand and change behaviours related to AMR/AMS. Qualitative methodologies can be used together with a behavioural science approach to explore influences on behaviour and develop and evaluate behavioural interventions. This paper provides an overview of how the behavioural science approach, together with qualitative methods, can contribute and add value to AMS projects. First, it introduces and explains the relevance of the behavioural science approach to AMR/AMS. Second, it provides an overview of behaviour change ‘tools’: behaviour change theories/models, behavioural determinants and behaviour change techniques. Third, it explains how behavioural methods can be used to: (i) define a clinical problem in behavioural terms and identify behavioural influences; (ii) develop and implement behavioural AMS interventions; and (iii) evaluate them. These are illustrated with examples of using qualitative methods in AMS studies in primary care. Finally, the paper concludes by summarizing the main contributions of taking the behavioural science approach to qualitative AMS research in primary care and discussing the key implications and future directions for research and practice.

Background We aimed to investigate and optimise the acceptability and usefulness of a patient leaflet about antibiotic prescribing decisions made during hospitalisation, and to explore individual patient experiences and preferences regarding the process of antibiotic prescription ‘review and revise’ which is a key strategy to minimise antibiotic overuse in hospitals. Methods In this qualitative study, run within the feasibility study of a large, cluster-randomised stepped wedge trial of 36 hospital organisations, a series of semi-structured, think-aloud telephone interviews were conducted and data were analysed using thematic analysis. Fifteen adult patients who had experienced a recent acute medical hospital admission during which they had been prescribed antimicrobials and offered a patient leaflet about antibiotic prescribing were recruited to the study. Results Participants reacted positively to the leaflet, reporting that it was both an accessible and important source of information which struck the appropriate balance between informing and reassuring. Participants all valued open communication with clinicians, and were keen to be involved in antibiotic prescribing decisions, with individuals reporting positive experiences regarding antibiotic prescription changes or stopping. Many participants had prior experience or knowledge of antibiotics and resistance, and generally welcomed efforts to reduce antibiotic usage. Overall, there was a feeling that healthcare professionals (HCPs) are trusted experts providing the most appropriate treatment for individual patient conditions. Conclusions This study offers novel insights into how patients within secondary care are likely to respond to messages advocating a reduction in the use of antibiotics through the ‘review and revise’ approach. Due to the level of trust that patients place in their care provider, encouraging HCPs within secondary care to engage patients with greater communication and information provision could provide great advantages in the drive to reduce antibiotic use. It may also be beneficial for HCPs to view patient experiences as cumulative events that have the potential to impact future behaviour around antibiotic use. Finally, pre-testing messages about antibiotic prescribing and resistance is vital to dispelling any misconceptions either around effectiveness of treatment for patients, or perceptions of how messages may be received. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12674243 (10 April 2017),