Understanding antibiotic decision making in surgery—a qualitative analysis
Open accessAbstract
Objective To investigate the characteristics and culture of antibiotic decision making in the surgical specialty.Methods A qualitative study including ethnographic observation and face-to-face interviews with participants from six surgical teams at a teaching hospital in London was conducted. Over a 3-month period: (a) 30 ward rounds (WRs) (100 h) were observed, (b) face-to-face follow-up interviews took place with 13 key informants, (c) multidisciplinary meetings on the management of surgical patients and daily practice on wards were observed. Applying these methods provided rich data for characterizing the antibiotic decision making in surgery and enabled cross-validation and triangulation of the findings. Data from the interview transcripts and the observational notes were coded and analysed iteratively until saturation was reached.Results The surgical team is in a state of constant flux with individuals having to adjust to the context in which they work. The demands placed on the team to be in the operating room, and to address the surgical needs of the patient mean that the responsibility for antibiotic decision making is uncoordinated and diffuse. Antibiotic decision making is considered by surgeons as a secondary task, commonly delegated to junior members of their team and occurs in the context of disjointed communication.Conclusion There is lack of clarity around medical decision making for treating infections in surgical patients. The result is sub-optimal and uncoordinated antimicrobial management. Developing the role of a perioperative clinician may help to improve patient-level outcomes and optimize decision making.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There have been studies with similar findings regarding the influence of the attitudes and leadership style of the surgical team on antibiotic decision-making.
“There have been studies with similar findings regarding the influence of the attitudes and leadership style of the surgical team on antibiotic decision-making.26”
From Rationalizing irrational prescribing—infection-related attitudes and practices across paediatric surgery specialties in a hospital in South India (2024) · cites this paper as [26]
The ‘Delegating antibiotic management’ section reports that surgeons treat antibiotic decisions as secondary and often delegate them; the discussion also links fear of infection and blame to prescribing decisions. These passages support an influence of surgical-team attitudes and responsibility, but the paper does not examine leadership style specifically. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 32 · Cited by 101
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Teillant A, Gandra S, Barter D, Morgan DJ, Laxminarayan R. Potential burden of antibiotic resistance on surgery and cancer chemotherapy antibiotic pro- phylaxis in the USA. Lancet Infect Dis 2015;15:1429e37.
- Anthes E. The trouble with Checklists. Nature 2015;523:516e8.
- Authors
- Charani, E., Tarrant, C., Moorthy, K., Sevdalis, N., Brennan, L., & Holmes, A. H.
- Affiliations
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (GB)
- University of Leicester (GB)
- Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (GB)
- King's College London (GB)
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Charani, E.
- Venue
- Clinical Microbiology and Infection
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-10
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 752-760
- ISSN
- 1198-743X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2601985159
- Cited by
- 101
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5
- FWCI
- 7.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Clinical Microbiology and Infection (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- National Institute for Health Research
- Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
- King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
- King's College London
- South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
- Guy's and St Thomas' Charity
- the Maudsley Charity
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology › Antibiotic Use and Resistance
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical site infection prevention
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Infection Control in Healthcare
- Keywords
- antibiotic decision-making, surgical infections, antimicrobial stewardship, surgical team, ward rounds, task delegation, communication breakdown, multidisciplinary team meetings
- MeSH terms
- Antimicrobial Stewardship, Adult, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Decision Making, Hospitals, Teaching, Humans, Interviews as Topic, London, Surgical Wound Infection, Antibiotic Prophylaxis, Surgeons
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review