Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/20218
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorFrancis, Jill Jen_UK
dc.contributor.authorDuncan, Eilidh Men_UK
dc.contributor.authorPrior, Maria Een_UK
dc.contributor.authorMacLennan, Graemeen_UK
dc.contributor.authorDombrowski, Stephan Uen_UK
dc.contributor.authorBellingan, Geoffen_UK
dc.contributor.authorCampbell, Marion Ken_UK
dc.contributor.authorEccles, Martin Pen_UK
dc.contributor.authorRose, Louiseen_UK
dc.contributor.authorRowan, Kathryn Men_UK
dc.contributor.authorShulman, Roben_UK
dc.contributor.authorWilson, A Peter Ren_UK
dc.contributor.authorCuthbertson, Brian Hen_UK
dc.date.accessioned2014-11-01T02:45:09Z-
dc.date.available2014-11-01T02:45:09Z-
dc.date.issued2014-04en_UK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/20218-
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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.en_UK
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.publisherNIHR Health Technology Assessment Programmeen_UK
dc.relationFrancis JJ, Duncan EM, Prior ME, MacLennan G, Dombrowski SU, Bellingan G, Campbell MK, Eccles MP, Rose L, Rowan KM, Shulman R, Wilson APR & Cuthbertson BH (2014) Selective decontamination of the digestive tract in critically ill patients treated in intensive care units: a mixed-methods feasibility study (the SuDDICU study). Health Technology Assessment, 18 (25). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18250en_UK
dc.rights© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2014. This work was produced by Francis et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.en_UK
dc.titleSelective decontamination of the digestive tract in critically ill patients treated in intensive care units: a mixed-methods feasibility study (the SuDDICU study)en_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.identifier.doi10.3310/hta18250en_UK
dc.citation.jtitleHealth Technology Assessmenten_UK
dc.citation.issn1366-5278en_UK
dc.citation.volume18en_UK
dc.citation.issue25en_UK
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublisheden_UK
dc.citation.peerreviewedRefereeden_UK
dc.type.statusVoR - Version of Recorden_UK
dc.author.emails.u.dombrowski@stir.ac.uken_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationCity University Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Aberdeenen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Aberdeenen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Aberdeenen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationPsychologyen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity College Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Aberdeenen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationNewcastle Universityen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Torontoen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationIntensive Care National Audit and Research Centre (ICNARC)en_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity College Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity College Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationSunnybrook Health Sciences Centreen_UK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000335335800001en_UK
dc.identifier.scopusid2-s2.0-84900298380en_UK
dc.identifier.wtid645435en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0001-9832-2777en_UK
dcterms.dateAccepted2014-04-30en_UK
dc.date.filedepositdate2014-05-16en_UK
rioxxterms.apcnot chargeden_UK
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_UK
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_UK
local.rioxx.authorFrancis, Jill J|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorDuncan, Eilidh M|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorPrior, Maria E|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorMacLennan, Graeme|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorDombrowski, Stephan U|0000-0001-9832-2777en_UK
local.rioxx.authorBellingan, Geoff|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorCampbell, Marion K|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorEccles, Martin P|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorRose, Louise|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorRowan, Kathryn M|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorShulman, Rob|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorWilson, A Peter R|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorCuthbertson, Brian H|en_UK
local.rioxx.projectInternal Project|University of Stirling|https://isni.org/isni/0000000122484331en_UK
local.rioxx.freetoreaddate2014-05-16en_UK
local.rioxx.licencehttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved|2014-05-16|en_UK
local.rioxx.filenameHealth Technology Assessment 2014.pdfen_UK
local.rioxx.filecount1en_UK
local.rioxx.source1366-5278en_UK
Appears in Collections:Psychology Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Health Technology Assessment 2014.pdfFulltext - Published Version20.96 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is protected by original copyright



Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.